Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies#Other stuff that exists

Note; Relocated from main page. minus the ping list. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Not being able to view the content (as it has now been deleted so as to leave no trace) I was wondering, not pushing for an answer, how the content might have compared to the likes of Criticism of Mother Teresa, Criticism of Pope John Paul II and Criticism of Akira Kurosawa. I appreciate comment by NorthBySouthBaranof that "{{tq|We don't have an Alleged Bush Controversies,... either}}" but do not see any reason why a criticism content might not be similarly be generated here.

(Before making any interpretation of the above as Clinton bashing or similar, please see Talk:Bill Clinton#Propose adding a See also: Clinton (surname) hatnote or similar to the page which, I think, argues for a more direct presentation of Hillary as a politician)

GregKaye 10:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

:Can the content be recovered via WP:REFUND? Eagleash (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

::I would staunchly oppose any such refund or restoration of this rubbish to userspace, as the very concept was so utterly at odds with WP:NPOV. The SPA concocted an overreaching conspiracy of "The Clintons" as a monolithic entity, where the perceived sins of one were laid on the shoulders of the other. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|User:GregKaye}} The operative difference here, between this article that was deleted so as to leave no trace (even drafts for same in my TalkPage Sandbox/Dustbin), and the articles you cite on Mother Teresa, John Paul II and Akira Kurosawa, is that none of them were running for U.S. President; nor did they have extensive cadres of staff, nor minions of interns constantly trolling the Web to eliminate from sites such as Wikipedia even any whiff of a critical or opposing point-of-view about their chosen candidate.

I basically threw in the towel and surrendered a long time ago in making any further attempts at incorporating non-POV objectivity into any of the numerous variety of articles on Secr. Clinton (about whom I personally harbour no particular strongly felt bias one way or another) as I found myself too badly outnumbered by said pro-"HRC for President" forces, and with much less free time on my hands than they apparently enjoy. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

:I think the main difference between your examples and this one is that this one was a manufactured conspiracy theory that stitched together controversies real and imagined by two people and attempted to paint a picture of a controversial dynasty. This is grist for Newsmax or the Free Republic, not an encyclopedia. However, those 3 "criticism of..." articles have their own problems that should be dealt with in some fashion. The first is a bit bloated, and seems like the prose has been stretched to give the facade of a meaningful article; either fold the text into Mother Theresa or rename it Public image of Mother Theresa and include both praise and criticism. The JPII one is more an attack on the Catholic Church than the man himself. Each of those short, choppy sections could be elsewhere. The Kurasawa one is just absurd, and reminds me of a pair that I successfully deleted several years ago; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axl Rose feuds and rivalries and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Mustaine feuds and rivalries]]. Another bloated "I don't like him" laundry list. Delete it outright. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

::{{ping|GregKaye}} Thank you for pinging me. I remember this deletion discussion very well. First of all, Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and Akira Kurosawa are not living people, therefore, there is more leniency to create a "criticism of" article about them. And this article was not a "criticism of" article; it was an "alleged controversies" article. I see by Professor JR's attitude and comments about minions running around and that "none of those people were running for US president" that he/she completely ignored everything we tried to explain about the policies of WP:BLP. I will say it once again. Those three people are all very dead. Hillary Clinton is alive. You cannot simply create an article with all the negative allegations and conspiracy theories against someone you can find and slap "alleged" on it. This article was so bad and violated so many rules that the editor who approved it in articles for creation had several people pop up on their talk page to voice concern about their competence in this area. I remember there was even a section about Clinton's assistant Huma Abedin and her husband's sex scandals. That has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton - we are creating an encyclopedia here and there are standards that JR refuses to accept. As I said, the editor who approved it in articles for creation was quite upset about it and apologized profusely, agreeing it should not have been approved. He/she said the first version was 10 times worse and was rejected. JR then removed a lot of the content and the second draft showed a large improvement, and he because of this he approved it. {{ping|Eagleash}} You don't need to do a WP:REFUND on it - just go to Breitbart or Fox News and read all the comments on Clinton and that's essentially what was there. JR if you cannot accept Wikipedia's core policy regarding Biographies of Living People then you should not edit here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Wikimandia}} Thanks, but I'm not really interested, I was only trying to help out the OP who wanted to see the content. Eagleash (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

::::OK, sorry for pinging you. Won't do it again. Also, I looked up at my comments in the AfD, and I remember that this article was sitting in mainspace with a bunch of text at the top (I think in all caps?) with some kind of commentary on the article that JR put for some reason. I can't remember but it was like a reply talking to someone or something.... it was surreal that anyone thinks that is OK for an article on Wikipedia and apparently JR is so unfamiliar with how articles work that he/she does not understand that we put commentary and discussion on the TALK PAGE. You can see from the appalled reactions at the AfD how bad this article was. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

:::::I don't like any of those three "Criticism of ..." articles either and I don't think any of them should exist in their current form. They also don't fit into the suggested approaches of WP:Criticism; such things are only supposed to be for 'ideas' articles like Criticism of libertarianism. As for Professor JR's hypothesis that his article was shot down by HRC minions, he can easily assemble a test of that hypothesis. Assemble an Alleged Bush Controversies article with every controversy actual purported or made up over the last 35 years that involves George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Jeb Bush, add in some mentions and photos of their aides whether they did anything or not, stir and simmer this guilt-by-association stew until ready, and voilà. If this article stays in WP then he will be right about HRC protectors. If on the other hand it goes down at AfD by something similar to the 17–0 !vote this one did, then he should realize that what he created does not match up with what WP is about. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

::::::Well said {{u|Wasted Time R}}. Please go create a similar "alleged" article about George W Bush or Dick Cheney and be sure to include and see how long it takes to be nuked. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Its kind of curious to me that the Criticism of Pope John Paul II article was created in about a month of his death while (though, admittedly, in a completely different league) the Criticism of Osama bin Laden article was written while he was alive and at large. There are also a great many criticisms articles related to existing entities with which people are very much involved as at: Criticism of Amnesty International Criticism of Apple Inc. Criticism of Buddhism Criticism of Christianity Criticism of Coca-Cola Criticism of Comcast Criticism of Conservative Judaism Criticism of Dish Network Criticism of ESPN Criticism of Google Criticism of Greenpeace Criticism of Haredi Judaism Criticism of Hinduism Criticism of Human Rights Watch ...

Re: Alleged Roosevelt Controversies see Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt

GregKaye 13:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

:Greg, I don't know why I need to keep saying this. Do you understand Wikipedia's key policy on Biographies of Living People (BLP)? There is much stricter criteria when writing about people who are alive. People can be living or dead. Corporations, organizations and religions are not people and they do not have the same standard. I'm really at a loss for what else I can say here to explain this to you. Haven't you ever noticed when you click "edit" on a biography of someone living that there is a big block of text explaining the BLP? "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons...." Please spend some time looking over this policy. If you have questions about BLP, I'll be happy to try to answer. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

::For what it's worth GregKaye, I don't like Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt either. I'd rather see an article with a title like Contemporary and historical assessments of Franklin D. Roosevelt that would include all perspectives on FDR's presidency. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

:::I feel the same. I looked at the suggestions on the WP:CRITICISM and all the "Criticism of..." articles they list as examples are about corporations etc. I think it would greatly benefit Wikipedia to rename these as "Contemporary and historical assessments of ..." articles. Criticism of Osama bin Laden was a bit different as OBL was a unique case with significant influence. And there are no scandals or controversies or "alleged" things with him. OBL openly said on camera, "I hate the west because of their actions and I'm going to attack it, and these are the religious text I'm using to justify that." Thus he had significant criticism from religious scholars and people pointing out the factual mistakes he made about the West. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• The article was a collection of isolated controversies of two people with overlapping, but different careers. It was not an article of "criticism", which has a different meaning than "controversies". While most of the content in the article was relevant for inclusion in the respective biographies, WP:SYNTH and a disregard for WP:NPOV would be necessary to keep such content in a dedicated article about Clinton controversies. - MrX 21:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)