From Wikipedia:
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 September 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.
So like a lot of posts on here this is just anger bait missing important context
I can understand the anger in why deletion was even a topic to be discussed in the first place. Cause it embarrasses us????
The notability of the subject was brought into question. Shitlibs obviously got involved, but I don't really think anything unreasonable happened here.
There’s a lot of dumbass comments and suggestions all over the internet. Why dig for them and give them more publicity just to stoke anger?
The real Documenting a new wave of fascist apologia in the west was the friends we made along the way
The latter.
really, how dare we post about things on a website made for posting. Shameful, really.
How dare you share something grotesque and worth shitting on among like-minded comrades. Don't you know this is a place purely for stories that are important in and of themselves and which our posting can directly change?
Things posting can directly change:
- How bigmad lemmitors are
- Uh
- I think that's it
If the shit posts on the walls of Pompeii could become history, why not Hexbear?
Hurr hurr why oppose things ever just ignore them hurr hurr I'm sure failure to oppose things won't hasn't had any negative consequences in the last 50 years of rising fascism hurr hurr.
I agree my point is this person isn’t even aware of you all calling them out.
It serves to educate newer people that haven't seen points before, and to reinforce and refresh the established views of a group.
It's irrelevant whether this person knows they're being discussed. You don't oppose fascists by debating the fascists, they're already gone and only a bullet will fix them. You oppose fascists by inoculating people that aren't fascist yet and pushing new people left.
The time to talk about non-violent ways to prevent the rise of fascism was 10 years ago, and should have included the shut down of all reactionary online media and sites that foster it (4chan etc). It should have included rounding up the people susceptible to it or already affected by it and doing re-education. Call it rehabilitation if libs like that word better for exactly the same thing. But shit is too far gone now, there are too many and rounding up and re-educating literally millions of people is no longer viable. Things are already on an inevitable progression to violence. In the meantime, inoculation and growing the left is all that can be done, other than advocating that you get armed.
I appreciate the detailed response and agree. I’m new here and just trying to get past the pigpoop emojis for the most part. Hexbear feels like 4chan sometimes which is making me concerned.
Heh. Eventually you'll get used to the fact people here can be rude or obnoxious at times and realise that this behaviour is really something that can be overlooked 99% of the time. Liberals want you to hate this behaviour and to socially reject it because, as flawed as it is, it's common among the poor and working class working through emotions, having hard days, and generally just acting out. They want you to adhere to a set of socially defined rules created by the upper and middle income groups that reject and marginalise the people in society that are having the hardest time. This behaviour however is not the problem, the problem is bigotry, racism, hatred of the poor, hatred of the marginalised, and the inherent methods through which these people are marginalised and through which the liberals maintain the status quo of their marginalisation.
Learn to ignore the tone with which something is said and instead to look at the merit and content of what they are saying. Keep the person behind the words in mind, think about what they may be going through or have gone through in order to end up the way they are. In particular keep this in mind for when you come across a trans or black person who will inevitably say something that shocks you about the violent retribution they feel some people in this world deserve. Many of them have been through hell, many of us have lost people, it's not really a game out there.
Yeah there's some obnoxious behaviours here. But the goals people have? We want to build a better world, they want something considerably worse.
I appreciate the write up. I admit I’ve been burnt out on interactions with people on the internet for a while now. I see people express something I agree with online but have become jaded from a a decade or two of real world experiences. Just want to make a positive change but don’t know how.
I love the text, but it was made for members of an organized party of communist revolutionaries. It's not really an intro text.
Plenty of things in there that count regardless of being in or out of a party. I would hope anyone looking to actually do something is joining an org though.
You understand the issue with 4chan is the reactionary, violent, and fascist content right????
Not that they're abrasive or whatever.
The actual issue is that they want to genocide minorities.
What the hell about this instance makes you feel like any of that is tolerated here?
I’m comparing it to the rude vulgar and shitty meme emojispam that I remember from 20 years ago. Haven’t been on it since then when it was mostly just dumb internet humor way before it turned into what you’re explaining.
Yeah idk what to say except that we're not so much concerned with vulgarity as genocide. But you do you, get mad about tone or whatever
Yeah let's not point out the explosion of neo-nazi propaganda all over the internet or the liberals who have normalized it, yeah let's just ignore it, cause that always works out
the point of this post is "some libs are trying to erase history now. look, here is an example."
whether they succeed or fail in this one instance is a lot less interesting than the fact of the attempt.
it's a cultural barometer.
The "important context" was that there was even a discussion about deletion in the first place, demonstrating that neo-nazis agitation has seeped into every corner of the internet
Frankly if you consider that "bait" or something not worth getting angry about then that says something about you
There was a proposal to change the entry for “Chinese Communist Party” to “Communist Party of China” and they rejected it because it was “Chinese propaganda since this is what China wants people to refer it as,” and that it should be satisfying enough that the proper party name is included in parenthesis in the article. Well, they rejected it for a myriad of reasons, actually.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#c-JapanStar49-20230918143300-Tokisaki_Kurumi-20230315133100
The Anglo West has a very dark future ahead of them if this is what passes for an intellectual over there. No wonder most of their talent is imported.
In the totalitarian USSR, aparachniks and intelligencia were chosen and promoted on the basis of ideological loyalty and political reliability instead of competence.
The reason given was "Oppose due to MOS:VAR, although I agree that CPC is the better abbreviation" Just Wikipedia rules that there needs to be a substantial reason to change and that "...the party prefers the use of "CPC", it accepts the use of both and says that whether the use of either abbreviation is positive or negative depends on the specific content." If they don't mind I don't see what it's about. Republicans will use black and white logic on anything communist with any given name. I'll use CPC from now on thanks for the info. I have no doubt the article would be changed if it was a straight change like Türkiye
If history starts getting deleted from wikipedia because it's inconvenient to liberals THAT is the quickest way to kill wikipedia as a reliable and "unbiased" source in the eyes of everyone.
I could not have come up with a better way to kill wiki than they have come up with themselves.
I think you’re drastically overestimating the critical thinking faculties of westerners.
If you haven't read this article, I highly recommend. Wikipedia has severe issues regarding reliability.
https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/
"in the eyes of everyone" was the operative phrase. Awoo definitely knows some NATOpedia lore, like most people on this site do.
yeah i assumed she likely knew about it. I probably could've phrased it better. I comment as much for the lurkers as for the people I'm responding to.
History is already frequently deleted from Wikipedia because it's inconvenient to liberals.
Oh don't mind me I'm just whitewashing history to fit my narrative and soothe my guilty fucking conscience.
If you claim to love history you take it warts and all. How are you supposed to learn from it if you ignore the mistakes? Would that be permitted in other disciplines like medicine or rocket science? Welp ho hum off to my job at NASA trying to fly a cube into space because aerodynamics can be ignored.
The west isn't rapidly encroaching into fascism bro, trust me dwag.
Here’s the deletion page if anyone wants to read the votes and comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yaroslav_Hunka
Yes it was an "affair" and the incident is totally not Canadians are propping up and harboring known SS Nazis. It's all about the "embarassment" the damage of the truth did. Not the actual facts.
It's like IDF and NAFO having a struggle session.
Snowball Keep. He has achieved world-wide notoriety. The rumored forthcoming Polish extradition for war crimes is the cherry on top. — The Anome (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:RUMOR, so far all we have is a tweet from the Polish education minister. cagliost (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Could you please say where is the comment of the"lie through our teeth is"? Can't find in the search function
Must be on a different page. OP says it’s on some forum. No idea what corner of Wikipedia you have to dig around in to get to forums.
Found it, confirmed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yaroslav_Hunka/Archive_1#Stop_Feigning_Ignorance
If you think you need to lie to the general public and it's anything but an actual matter of espionage, state secrets, or preventing a mass panic, it is a more reasonable conclusion that the project you are working on behalf of is evil.
Turns out reality has an anti-imperial bias, ig
this whole thing has been honestly one of the most pathetic displays ive seen in a long time
All my least favourite editors from the Holodomor edit wars are going crazy on that page. It's like the who's who for Ukrainian Nazi apologists.
Important to keep in mind this is the talk page and literary people without even a Wikipedia account.
An important factor that I think a lot of people are missing here, is that the page was created 5 days ago. Nobody is talking about deleting a page because they just now decided they didn't like the guy, they are talking about whether or not the page was worth creating in the first place.
Obviously now Wikipedia has decided to keep the page, but seriously guys try putting a little effort into dodging the rage-bait.
Why would any truthful information not be worth creating? Storage is incredibly cheap nowadays and search engines are amazing at filtering out low viewed pages so it wouldn't obscure more popular/useful pages either
Especially when they receive standing ovation from several governments and a slew of controversy ensues in the media. Wikipedia has articles on random ass chemicals that surely only 2 guys will ever refer to, and local disasters or earthquakes or phenomenon that no one ever talks about. But yes, I do ageee that the rage bait is very enticing to users here
One downside for Wikipedia would be people making vanity pages for themselves or their friends. Those kinds of pages would generate a lot of noise in search results.
Because it makes some pathetic Nazi schmuck famous for no reason. People have had to go through Wikipedia and delete all sorts of crap honoring and glorifying Nazis. Having a Wikipedia page for a guy who's only claim to fame is being a Nazi who lived a long time and got invited to parliament isn't really enough justification. Having his own article suggests he's a notable person, which he isn't.
Well it's not really about him it's more about the event which is definitely notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page
A good portion of the discussion in the review was recommending a migration to the event instead of the person
Dude caused an international crisis and you don't think he deserves a Wikipedia page?
The bar for getting a Wikipedia page is extremely low and the guy easily surpassed it.
I don't think you read what I said, people here are complaining about "deleting" or "white-washing" history to push a narrative. Which is not what happened, they were simply deciding whether or not new content on the site met their moderation standards. I'm struggling a bit to parse the the discussion's chronology, so I don't know exactly who initiated the deletion process or why, but one user cited [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event](this policy regarding notability) which sounds like grounds enough to initiate a discussion.
I have not made any claims regarding if he deserves a Wikipedia page or not, I am simply defending their right to moderate their content.
If the result of that moderation was that the page was not created, and you wanted to be mad about that, by all means feel free. But if you're going to be mad because an OP told you to be with incredibly verifiable information, and you chose not to make that verification. Then I think you're stupid and I don't like you.
do you think you're disagreeing with me? Or did you just want to bring up a fun fact?
Wikipedia is very user-driven in how they moderate. As a result their policies are intentionally broad. The fact that those policies are selectively being used in this particular event (and not in others) is deserving of criticism.
except, the policy isn't being applied selectively? The page was kept. Do you think that every Wikipedia editor agrees with you on the notability of Yaroslav Hunka? Because it only takes one for there to be a discussion and a couple idiots to provide fuel for the rage-bait. But it takes an overwhelmingly large number of Wikipedia editors to disagree with you, specifically, for this to be a Wikipedia problem
Complaints on Wikipedia are raised selectively: the policy isn't uniformly enforced and many people notable for only one thing have their pages kept up without dispute. The fact that an issue was raised for this page in particular (and not the many others that feature people notable for only one event) is the point of contention.
Then unless there is there is some technically complex process by which Wikipedia articles are put up for review that I don't know about it, your contention is with a single user. That individual is not reviewing every single new person article created and applying their fully discrete interpretation of Wikipedia's policy universally. And shame on them.
Be serious, any human language law/policy/rule managed with human interpretation cannot be applied without an element of bias. Assuming an adequate judicial process, the worst consequence of a flag->review is an issue not being flagged. If we're talking about meat-space laws for humans, then yeah you have to be more careful with false flags (arrests) because there are consequences to a human for that action. But if someone inappropriately flags a Wikipedia page for Review what are you going to do? Hurt its feelings?
So "people can be Nazi apologists and that's ok"
That's seriously the position you're taking?
So "people can be Nazi apologists and that's ok"
How exactly are you coming to the conclusion that this is the position of the person you're replying to?
Because in the comment chain that I'm reading @authorinthedark@lemmy.sdf.org is making the very reasonable argument that one editor/user =/= Wikipedia.
The mistake you're making here is assuming that disagreeing with someone's reasoning is the same as disagreeing with their conclusion. We are all on board with the conclusion that the user (or users) that are trying to do nazi apologia are bad. What's being challenged is not whether or not it is good to do nazi apologia, but that in order for this specific event to be considered an example of Wikipedia engaging in nazi apologia as an organization then you need look at the outcome of the appeals process and not simply the fact that an appeal was made. An editor/user tried to white-wash and obscure the subject's nazi affiliation by making an appeal for deletion, the appeal was denied and Wikipedia kept the article up.
You can still conclude that Wikipedia is systematically biased in numerous ways. That conclusion is not the subject of this discussion. What is being disputed is whether or not this specific incident is a valid component of the reasoning to make a conclusion about Wikipedia one way or the other, and I think it's apparent to everyone that the answer is "no, it is not." This incident tells us that there is a user or users that are shitty, but the end result was that Wikipedia as an organization denied their appeal and left the article up.
There are certainly other arguments that can be made which support the conclusion that Wikipedia is full of pro-imperialist bias and the like, but this incident is not a good candidate for supporting that conclusion. But what you seem to be doing is working backwards by assuming, "we all agree that (conclusion) is correct, therefore all arguments supporting (conclusion) must also be correct. And anyone who disputes (argument/reasoning) must also be disputing (conclusion)." But this line of thought is simply wrong. You can use ridiculous logic and land on the correct conclusion by chance. It's the classic case of "Right answer, wrong equation." There's no reason to assume that someone is supporting a conclusion that opposes the the one you support just because they're pointing out that you used the wrong equation to get there.
But these people see no accountability. Wikipedia doesn't have a mechanism of accountability against these anonymous bad actors.
Accountability for what? Failing to delete an article?
Accountability is for people who wield power. The review process denied them the power to delete the article. That seems plenty sufficient to me.
The guy has nothing to really tie him to the action so he can just go on the next post and do the same thing. Eventually it'll get through, because Wikipedia isn't staffed by perfect people. That's a bad thing.
Ah, so we're going with "it would be bad if this scenario had a different outcome, so we're just going to pretend this scenario actually represents the bad outcome that didn't happen so I can rationalize being mad about this non-issue."
Really we've reached the Strawman segment of this argument?
Fine then, I shall reiterate my position in its entirety, with extra clarifying details, and then I'm done.
I dislike misinformation. Particularly misinformation designed to evoke anger, and I dislike the people who spread it because being angry is more important to them than being right. That's a pet peeve of mine I don't expect everyone to feel as strongly as I do, but when I see it in action I like to call it out in the hopes that maybe at least one person will improve their internet literacy.
And so on this post, I saw a number of people operating on the assumption that the article already existed, and was being deleted in response to the recent controversy to try to cover it up, that ticked my pet peeve and I chose to comment on it.
Now, since I have been forced to learn how to read Wikipedia discussion forums, I have been able to find the original comment requesting it for deletion which states "WP:1E. This man is famous as of yesterday for one event. Not notable." Now you're lucky enough to have the privilege of seeing this discussion on September 30th, after all the controversy has been marinating for a week. But that was not the case when the page was created and marked for deletion, which was one of the pieces of evidence brought up in the deletion discussion. The user who marked the page for deletion did also in a separate comment express support for migrating the page to be about the event instead of for the person, in accordance with Wikipedia's notability policy. So my money is on not a Nazi apologist (Why am I even entertaining this idea?)
Yes, there are a couple bad eggs in there, as our OP has so lovingly pointed out. And the ones referenced by OP specifically are anonymous users, whose comments have since been removed. So please I dare you to convince yourself that they are representative of Wikipedia's values.
You never responded to this point because you decided to play the Nazi card instead, so I'll say it again anyway for comprehensiveness. Bias is an inescapable factor of any policy enforcement, and Wikipedia seems to have established an effective process for reducing that. Maybe when I said "bias" you read "Nazi ideology" but let me clarify I really meant "someone slightly less passionate about this subject than you" or "someone didn't drink coffee this morning and so they're feeling a little grumpy"
TL;DR: This was a routine case of content moderation surrounding a controversial subject that Wikipedia handled with 5 Stars. Some users representative of Wikipedia supported the deletion of the newly created page because of their individual interpretations of Wikipedia's notability policy, and if you have a have a problem with that individual interpretation then go ahead. If you have a problem with those users being "Nazis" then please step away from the computer, go find a spot outside in the sun, and read a book. There are some users unrepresentative of Wikipedia as a whole who are/might be Nazi sympathizers, and go ahead be mad at them please, but just know that Wikipedia has already dealt with them days before you even saw that they existed. I don't think it's okay for people to be Nazi sympathizers or for them to have a platform to speak from. I also don't think that the people you're criticizing are Nazi sympathizers.
Ok, that's a fair point, but it still doesn't detract from the fact that Wikipedia's mechanisms against this exact method of abuse aren't exactly very robust. There needs to be more accountability behind anonymous accounts playing a role in these discussions.
If the dude was up for possible extradition for grievous warcrimes he seems to have committed a over a half-century ago and made no real effort to hide in the interim (see his blogging about it for some reason), it seems like he gets well above the threshold of notability for him to get an article if Nostalgia Critic gets multiple.
