The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Just for the record. I did not remove all criticism. I moved everything to the new page, put up a link, and I kept a criticism section in the main article with a one-sentence summary. The nom could certainly have expanded that to a paragraph, in keeping with what is done on the hundreds of Wikipedia articles on organizations that attract extensive criticism.Historicist (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a rather strange article. It's an attempt to remove the "Criticism" section from Anti-Defamation League to a separate article. That's in a sense a POV fork. The editor who created this article also deleted all criticism from the main article. Weird. --John Nagle (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it back where it came from. There was no prior discussion of this split. If it were done properly a summary should have been left, and to avoid being a POV fork it would need to reflect both the negative and positive views of the subject. But I don't think it's worth trying to fix - just put it back. Will Bebacktalk 07:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of "Criticism of..." articles, which are started when there is a very large amount of criticism content that threatens to overwhelm the original article. This is indusputably the case here. Given that, it seems somewhat presumptuous of the nom to speculate on the "motivation" of the spinout, and it would be strange if we were to apply a different standard in this particular case. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article because, as User talk:Jalapenos do exist states, this is a routine Wikipedia approach when criticism overwhelms the page of an organization doing good work. And, just to be clear, there had been comments on the talk page about the disproportionate weight given in the article to criticism. For examples of other articles where the criticism is moved to a separate page, see Human Rights Watch, Noam Chomsky and many, many others.Historicist (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Both of the "Criticism" spinout articles mentioned have the effect of moving criticism of Israel to a spinout article. Is there a pattern here? --John Nagle (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the spinout articles on Human Rights Watch, and Noam Chomsky, do not move criticism of Israel to another page. They move criticism of critics of Israel (i.e., defense of Israel]] to other pages. What I fail to understand in Nagle's argument is why this page should be treated any differently form the hundreds of similar criticism pages.Historicist (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable goal but lots of this stuff should be excluded anyway. Whether or not I agree with the stance of the ADL on gun rights, the inclusion of the criticism by the JPFO based solely on their own publications (and synthesis from ADL sources) is unnecessary. We don't gain anything by quoting criticism by Noam Chomsky and other opponents of the continued existence of the state of Israel at length. Nevard (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are about 84 "Criticism of ..." articles in Wikipedia.[1]. Of those, 31 are redirects back to the main article. See, for example, Criticism of McDonald's, which started as a POV fork but was eventually merged back into the main article. Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement is currently being considered for a merge back into the main article. The separate "criticism" articles that stick tend to be on big subjects, like Criticisms of communism. --John Nagle (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nagle, the unbalancing of articles on organizations like the ADL, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch is a serious problem. These pages become extremely cluttered and unbalanced. setting up criticism pages is a good solution, and it is the one that is widely used already. You seem content to allow a very problematic (because unbalanced) page to remain so.Historicist (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User talk:Jalapenos do exist. Keeping it in original article both deflects from institutional history of ADL, and limits criticsm based on proportionality. --Jayrav (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In line with articles like Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses, it makes sense to take a large amount of significant criticism to its own article, because it really does seem to be an unwieldy subtopic. Not too happy with the suggestion that the creator exhibited bad faith through POV-forking. - CobaltBlueTony™talk 17:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very significant size difference between the two articles. In fact, that criticism article is longer then the ADL article with its criticism section.Matty (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to ADL main article. LotLE×talk 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; otherwise, Merge it back to the main article. In principle, I support the creation of Criticism of... articles on the grounds that doing so allows the criticisms to be discussed in more detail without unbalancing the main article. However, in this particular case, the article in question is pretty awful. There is no structure to the article's sections. It is effectively just a laundry list of criticisms. The lead provides something of an overview but it is only a loose summary of the article's contents (probably because the article's contents are such a jumble). This article needs rewriting in order to be a valuable stand-alone article. Otherwise, merging it back to the main article would be doing us all a favor. --Richard (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the main article. Unlike what most editors have stated here in reality the criticism section isn't long or large or overbearing or whatever else you want to call it. It's certainly not large enough to stand up as an article on its own. The article was not in need of a content fork. While the criticism section was a little large, it could have easily been trimmed back. It does not need a separate article. The split, which was not discussed, has changed the editorial bias of the main article by providing one point of view, while the other "sub-article" provides another. We should not be splitting articles into positive sides and negative sides and I see no consensus to say otherwise. Both WP:STRUCTURE and WP:POVFORK provide valuable insight on why this should not have occurred. If AfD results in a keep, we've lost the original contribution history which is in violation of WP:SPLIT and needs to be corrected immediately following the guidelines on that page. Matty (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the main article, per above. (Just realized I hadn't actually voted.) --John Nagle (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that. and I also see that you took that position only after being criticized here for your very selective choice of which Criticisms of page to make an issue of. And I also see that others on that page have responded much as have several veteran users on this page, by pointing out that these pages have their uses in instances where criticism overwhelms that page of a legitimate individual or organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicist (talk • contribs)
Nagle, I find it troubling but interesting that you seem to want to take down only the separate criticism pages of organizations and individuals that defend Israel and Jews. By your standards, it is fine to separate out Criticism of Osama bin Laden in order that Osama bin Laden's page is protected from being overwhelmed by criticism, but it is not legitimate to separate out criticisms that threaten to overwhelm the page of the Anti-Defamation League. I know what it is like to take a stand and then feel that you have to defend it. It is an emotional thing. When criticized, we tend to act defensively, often without thinking an issue through. But please stop and think whether this position truly represents the ethical and moral standards by which you want to be known.Historicist (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks, please. --John Nagle (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree that it is inappropriate to mischaracterize the actions of other editors, accusing them, for example, of removing material that they have not deleted,of acting in a "strange" manner when creating articles of routinely used and commonplace type, and of being "weird."Historicist (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I continue to be interested in an answer to the question of why you select only certain "Criticism" pages for deletion.Historicist (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably time to throw WP:OTHERSTUFF in. Just because something else exists on Wikipedia is not a valid argument on its own to keep something else. Matty (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. That lots of other Criticism of... articles exist is not in itself an argument for keeping this one. The question, however, is, given that so many virtually identical articles exist, why are we arguing exclusively about this one. As I see it, either separating text so that criticism overwhelms the page is a good idea, or it is not. If it is not, if this AFD succeeds, then everyone who voted for it ought to also vote to remerge Criticism of Noam Chomsky, Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of the BBC, Criticism of Osama bin Laden and the rest back onto the main pages. Or explain the difference.Historicist (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a pretty clear cut case of WP:OTHERSTUFF; "if we delete this we have to delete those". Each article is assessed on it's own merits, which is why this article is at AfD. Please start assuming good faith and stop bringing other articles into this deletion debate. Matty (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to ADL article. Matty made most of the points that matter, just add one more. There seems to be 2 motivations that have been raised to justify the splitting the topic, to either "hide" such criticism or to allow more criticism without concern for overloading the main article. I think both are incorrect, the criticism should be weighted in proportion to how it is treated in the sources and criticism should be in the article for anybody who wants to read an encyclopedia article on the ADL. If it was too much in the main article then chop it down a bit, but just separating it and having a single line in the main article on broad definitions of antisemitism does not seem the way to go. Nableezy (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork, and merge it back into the original article. SlimVirgintalk|contribs 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In looking at the pre-fork article, about one-third was made up of criticism. This is exactly when to fork, when a section starts to overwhelm the rest of the article. If this does end up being merged back in, the section should be drastically pruned to provide some measure of content balance without WP:UNDUE issues. Alansohn (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the main ADL article. There's no real reason to have this as a separate piece. CJCurrie (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where you are coming from but put simply all the ADL needed was the criticism section trimmed, there really isn't enough information to split the pages yet. If the main article was in excess of 100-200kb I could see why a separate section would work alone but in its current state there doesn't seem to be a need to start splitting the ADL article into little sub-article stubs. Matty (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How much the article's length, how do we check page lengths. Kasaalan (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We assess each case individually, which is what we are doing now. Matty (talk) 07:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)r[reply]
Merge back This is clearly an attempt to remove criticism from the main article. Likeminas (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is true user tried to remove criticism, that is why I reversed him. However, leaving a summary style criticism in the main article, and developing criticism as a separate subpage is better, just as other examples I provided. As a general approach separate criticism articles are better. Kasaalan (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no consensus to say that separate articles are better. The criticism articles already in existence are significantly longer then the ADL article has. Matty (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The community-wide consensus is that shorter articles are better; a healthy summary (with a link to this article) will keep the main article appropriately balanced and resemble other similar articles. - CobaltBlueTony™talk 10:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shorter articles are not better, but sub article approach is better for readability, therefore advised. Kasaalan (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could relate to most of your points so far but saying that having the entire article split up is better for readability does not make sense to me. I also don't see how splitting a relatively short article up into sub articles is appropriate. I'd agree that certain articles do need to be split up due to size constraints, but this is most definitely not one. Matty (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it hard to vote either way. The negative coverage in the main article has been gutted and needs reinstatement. However, criticism sections are problematic in themselves, it being better to merge information into a more flowing discussion rather than just have a section for the bad bits. Further the coverage of criticism, is in any case not broad enough. The ADL has been attacked from the right, and not just by anti-Semites. Kahanists and right-wing Zionists, such as our friends in the JIDF, have attacked the ADL's support of land for peace[4]. No doubt there are better sources available than this.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not only attacked by right, they are attacked by left Jew movements as you can clearly tell. Also it is pretty obvious ADL attacks to its left and right too. Kasaalan (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the right as all the article records at present is criticism from the left, with Jews such as Chomsky already mentioned. If the article covers a range of criticism, it becomes less of a POV-fork. But it still needs to be reflected more in the main article--Peter cohen (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have a point. If you don't claim only right wing criticizes ADL I have nothing to object. Kasaalan (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge salient material to main article. "Criticism" articles are, IMO, magnets for improper material. All material to be merged should also be accepted by consensus in the main article, just in case this article gets burdened with improper claims. The AfD, however, is not the place for specifics on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 08:14, June 19, 2009
Merge per IZAK and peter cohen. obvious content fork with some false information. also, on June 15/16 historicist selectively canvassed several users on their talk pages ([5][6][7][8][9][10].
I'm surprised that this has only come to attention now, given the nature and status of some of the people that received that note. Matty (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canvas shouldn't change the situation (if user new he wouldn't know what canvas is either), user acts POV from the beginning however, the AFD should be about policies, not vote count anyway. Also we should somehow require better guidelines on what is a proper subcategory article and what is not. Most of wiki guidelines are too general. Kasaalan (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, I support merge as well. However, the claim (probably correct) that there is false information in the article is irrelevant here. The solution to bad information in an article is to correct that info... the exactly same concern would exist if the content is merged back, so the quality of the current text does not help us in the merge/keep/delete decision. LotLE×talk 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i agree, it was the forking that determined my decision. the false information is fixable once the criticism is returned to the article. oh, and no offense to the users canvassed, only pointing out the inappropriateness of the canvasser. untwirl(talk) 04:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty hypocritical of you. You just admitted to selectively canvassing for support, which is inappropriate. Whoever added the article to the Middle East deletion sorting page did not act inappropriately, like it or not Israel is in the middle east and the ADL is related strongly to Israel. I'm sorry to say this but I really do think you are acting in bad faith - don't take this with any negative connotations because I mean it in the nicest way but perhaps it is time to step back from editing articles you feel strongly about. Matty (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This entire forum is misconceived because issues surrounding mergers and POV forks belong at article talkpage, not afd. However, I would like to state for the record that it was a good idea to split the article. As pointed out be numeroud editors above, the criticism section was taking up a disproportionate amount of the article and thus violated WP:UNDUE. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 05:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you are mistaken. see WP:POVFORK: "As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged,or nominated for deletion."untwirl(talk) 14:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Put it back, until there is a proper summary in the main article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, whatever. "Criticism of..." articles are weaksauce POV forks created to either shunt criticism away from a main article, or to concentrate all the criticisms under one pointy roof. Both sides of a debate can have a vested interest in the creation of these monstrosities, so whatever the rationale was, let's jsut get rid of it. I'll risk invoking a side-tangent of Godwin's Law to note that we don't even have a Criticisms of Nazism article. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is, however,Criticism of Osama bin Laden , on a separate page to protect his page from being overwhelmed by criticism and no one here is suggesting taking it down. The problem that is being addressed is what to do with organizations like the ADL that attract a great deal of attention from anti-Semites and others. In similar cases, pages are set up, for example: Criticism of Noam Chomsky, Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Criticism of Amnesty International, Criticism of the BBC. It seems to me like the best solution to the difficult problem that some individuals and organizations attract aggressive and exaggerated amounts of criticism on an ongoing basis.Historicist (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reasonable way to do it in the circumstances. There remains enough material in the main article for the really major controversies, and this is a good way of handling the minor ones. There is no way other than criticism sections or articles to deal with such minor attacks and specific issues. The most we can do is try to find more subtle names for them. DGG (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back—in this case, there is no danger of the criticism section overwhelming the main article as the latter is significantly longer than the former. --darolew 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.