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?
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.
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?
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.
