Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/A land without a people for a people without a land

(moved from debate and reformatted) You know there's know way for me to win is there. My god some of you guys are incredibly thin skinned. I made a suggestion for a timeline so we could end this and like usual I get accused of rudeness. I was talking about some random person who might fool with the history page, not any particular person. Why does every sarcastic comment I make get interpreted as a major insult.

NNeoneos comment shows me that it isn't that I haven't read the deletion policy, It's that you guys continue to ignore my argument. To say that this article is fairly NPOV is outrageous and only someone who either has an agenda or hasn't really looked at the article would say something like that. Would you guys' please just look at the article instead of bashing me for not reading the deletion policy or sounding insulting. Look at the history page and see how the sock editor was the primary editor. Look at the sources and see how many times they there cited. Read Muir's article and see how many of the sources were plagarized from her article. Do some actual research instead of just harping on me for not giving up and going away.

It seems like many of you guys came into this with your minds all ready made up and never bothered to listen to my argument. Instead of looking to see If I was right or wrong you just decided to overrule me. If that sounds insulting than so be it, but I personally feel insulted by the bullying tone I've some time been subject to. All I've ever done is argue my point and I get excused of being uncivil. Well if my tone is uncivil it's because I get angry at comments like nneonneos above. Any person who actually looked at this article objectively or who knew something about the subject matter would never say this article is fair and accurate.

I don't understand why keeping this article is so important to some of you. Some of you have admitted that you don't know much about the subject so why the instant reflex to keep it.

As I said before I'll keep to the timeline I set above and by the looks of things the tag is coming down in a few hours so don't worry your suffering is coming to an end soon.annoynmous 09:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Annoynmous, A few things. I understand how angry you must be about this whole thing. So many people not holding the same opinion as you. That does not, however mean that you can presume things about things about other people who are voting! If you read the AfD debate again, youw will see so much evidence of your consternation at others (which I can understand), but what I cant understand is your position that everybody is voting out of opposition to you or because of some irrational attachment to the article! In fact, if you go back and see at least 3 of the people who voted here are silently cleaning up the article!


 * We all assume good faith here. That means that we cannot start with presumption about others. My humble suggestion to comment on the content of others' opinion and not on their attitudes. That is how the debate can go forward.
 * Again, if you had read the links that many people pasted, you would have seen that AfD is not about winning or losing. It is not even a vote! It is to discuss and build a consensus. In fact, many a time, the one who proposed the AfD ends up improving the article that he presented at the AfD!(from personal experience)
 * My humble suggestion is to lay off this article and debate for a while. Take your mind off this for a few weeks and then re-look at it. Read the debates again with an open mind (not suggesting that your mind is closed now, only saying that the present circumstances may be making you assume bad faith, thats all). Thank you! Prashanthns (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (arggh, my browser ate my response) My comment about NPOV was that any issue was probably minor (not that the article was fair or accurate) -- i.e. not big enough to warrant deleting the article. There's a lot of work going on at the talk page of that article, and you are welcome to join in that discussion to resolve any remaining POV issue.
 * Why did I say "probably"? I'm not an expert in this field, but from my reading of the article, I saw that the major points of view were covered to more-or-less of an equal extent. Now, this by itself doesn't mean NPOV, of course, but it is a strong indicator that the article isn't so poor that it requires deletion.
 * I called for everyone, not just you, to cool down. I also saw some borderline incivility from other editors in that debate, so reminding everyone to stay calm and civil was not directed specifically at you (though I would appreciate it if you used a less harsh tone: a harsh tone makes it difficult to read what you write, which may lead some people to summarily ignore your comments).
 * I had a longer response typed out here, but my browser decided to eat it. I hope I've given a fair treatment of my take on this issue. nneonneo talk 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be removing the tag in a half hour, but I would just like to say that my thought process has always been clear. It's my opinion that this article isn't an article it's a piece of propoganda. I don't know in what way in it's present form it can be salvaged, but I guess I'll have to try. That's part of the reason I recommended deletion.


 * It's my opinion that many people who voted against deleting this article didn't really look into how insidious this article really is. The duplication of sources, the reliance on obscure academics, the just plain bias toward one point of view. This article was created from the beginning with an intention and that intention was to slant wikipedia to a particular perspective.


 * I don't understand how someone at wikipedia can create a piece of propoganda on wikipedia an then when it's exposed have the article stick around because no one wants to delete it.


 * Thank you by the way nneonneo for your recent contributions to the article.annoynmous 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you withdrawing the nomination? I'd like you to express your concerns about the neutrality of the article, in full, on the talk page of the article. It's not a lot to ask, I hope, but it should provide a clear guideline for your views on the article. This way, other editors can help build consensus. The socks of Evidence-based are now blocked, so I've archived all the talk that they were involved in: this way, the talk page gets a clean start.
 * I've worked through some of the more egregious POV (undue weight is a theme here), and tagged the article with a POV tag; I hope that this will alert readers to the presence of potential issues. I don't think I can do much more, since my knowledge of the area is very limited. I still believe that the article can be cleaned up and made fully NPOV with some work: you can certainly contribute to this effort. nneonneo talk 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm about to remove the tag right now.annoynmous 16:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Commendable work nneonneo! A few lessons for me there too. And No hard feelings, Annoynmous. :) . Prashanthns (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)