Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is the Holocaust

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was deletion with strong apparent consensus, single substantial contributor does not wish to oppose - Vianello (Talk) 07:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is the Holocaust[edit]

If this is intended to be humorous, it fails grandly if only on the ground of tastelessness, despite WP:NOTCENSORED. It further fails because of the gratuitous use of images of once real people; it further fails because the leap between the Holocaust and what happens here is too great to be substantiated. FWIW, I am not Jewish, but this essay does us less than no credit and should go, whatever its intention. Rodhull andemu 22:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are too many "humor" essays anyway. And this one isn't funny, so it fails in its intended effort. Will Beback talk 22:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (I am also not Jewish, but I am German, which may have a similar effect in such a case.) I am able to mentally separate the abstract idea from the finished product: I totally get this kind of humour. The only problem is that the joke relies on the association with relatively recent immense human suffering. The Holocaust was the obvious choice, and in fact, there isn't much of an alternative. It makes no sense to replace the topic by a less offensive one, because the quality and effect of this page are in proportion to its offensiveness. Sometimes a brilliant idea and solid execution are simply not enough because one detail invalidates everything and is impossible to work around.

I am sorry, but the time is not ripe yet for Holocaust-related humour of this kind. (Btw, this has nothing to do with WP:NOTCENSORED, which is only about article space.) Hans Adler 22:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as offensive. Secret ^account 23:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as a minimum. The misuse of any term may well be offensive - many offensive things exist on WP. Deliberately causing offense when it can be avoided is a real problem here, and removing the Holocaust and Nazi metaphors would vitiate the problem. Collect (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try as I might, I cannot imagine a rename that would preserve the majority of the content under a different umbrella. Renamed to Wikipedia is the Spanish Inquisition might avoid that, but has many of the same problems, save recentism. However, I did expect the Spanish Inquisition. Humour aside, which is so easily misinterpreted, such comparisons to major idealogically-based massacres, I repeat, do Wikipedia no credit, and should be avoided. Not because they offend people, but because they make us look stupid, unless superbly argued and written, which the case in point isn't. Rodhullandemu 00:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are entirely correct that it is offensive AND stupid. The offensiveness and stupidity of such analogies is the entire reason the essay was written. - Vianello (Talk) 01:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to assume that nobody taking part in this discussion has encountered the wild howls of "Nazis" that fly up when people don't get their way on Wikipedia, or the insinuations of "jackboots" and "fascism" and suchlike that people throw when they get angry? This page is a direct rebuttal to this behaviour, pointing out what such comments are actually saying in an attempt to stop them being used. Yes, it is tasteless, because it is explicetly saying what these comments imply, and what these comments imply is tasteless. A tasteful article would not convey how offensive these comments are, and thus would not have any effect on the people who use them. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You quite fully grasp the purpose of the essay. It is, indeed, meant to be shocking, expressly to draw attention to how profoundly tasteless such comments are (the entire core point). It is offensive because such analogies are offensive, and seeks to illustrate that more clearly in hopes of causing those who use said analogies to re-consider. I would like to draw particular attention to referring to the Rwandan genocide as a "debate tool". Yes, it's appalling to think of it as such a thing - which is exactly what the essay is intended to give people cause to consider. However, if people consider the actual comparisons of Wikipedia to the Holocaust less offensive than this attempt to explain why they are offensive and should be avoided, then I suppose this has to go. - Vianello (Talk) 00:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what point you're making here; accusations of "Nazism" tend, in my experience, to come from those who cannot get their own way, even when they've been directed to our editing policies and guidelines. That, to me, is a certain indication that they haven't fully understood our goals and rules, and that loses the argument for them from point one. However, there isn't any particular reason to exploit human suffering on a gross scale to state that as far as I can see; most arguments can be made without resource to such metaphors. In other words, in my view, seeking to make such an equation as being made in this essay by far exceeds any rational ideal of proportionality that to seek to do so goes beyond an example and ends up being gratuitously offensive, to no particular practical purpose. Hard to understand? Try. Rodhull andemu 00:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the point: the article does not seek to make such an equation. The article starts from the point of people already making this equation and points out how truly offensive and ridiculous it makes those people look. This article is not making the metaphor: this article is about people making that metaphor, and how stupid it is to do so. It especially points out that the Holocaust is a particularly stupid and offensive thing for people to chose when making such metaphors. Of course such people automatically are already losing the argument: again, the article points this out. It should be noted that the article is written entirely sarcastically: when it says something will work, it is pointing out how stupid the idea is that it would work. When it says something will win an argument, it is pointing out how stupid that idea is because of course it will lose an argument. Taking the ideas at face value is supposed to make you angry, because the article wants you to think the opposite. I would probably take the picture out, although it does add a human face to how offensive people are being when they make these comments. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Maybe the article makes a comparison rather than an equation, but it does so without style or humour, even if doing either would be thought acceptable; but in its present form, presented as "humour" I find it difficult to see it as that and as anything other than misguided. Sorry, it should go as it fails in its objective, and badly so. Rodhull andemu 01:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did have second thoughts about the images, but I wanted to reinforce my point that these are the consequences of genuine oppression. You've explained this better than I could hope to, which I appreciate, but if it bothers that many people then I'm not going to fight kicking and screaming for its retention. - Vianello (Talk) 00:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is shocking, for all the wrong reasons, and the enormity of the shock is out of all proportion to the purported subject matter. (The first illustration is in particularly appalling taste, but that is a separate issue.} As a topper, I find no humour in it. Bielle (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question for the masses. My choice of the "humor" tag was less for the "humor" part, and more for the "illustrates behavior not acceptable on Wikipedia" part, for which I was/am not aware of any more appropriate template. It's more "sarcasm" than "humor" (hence one of the see-also links), and meant to provoke thought, not amusement. Would it be less contentious if a tag omitting reference to "humor" was utilized instead? "It isn't funny" seems to be the sticking point for most people here, and that's understandable when you look at the tag, but it was never intended as "comedy" as such. - Vianello (Talk) 01:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cogently-argued on-topic essay, omitting references to the Holocaust and even omitting the "humor" tag would have been more acceptable, and it may be that we already have such material kicking around; however, crossing lines for the sake of doing so, and risking criticism, seems to me to be unwise. But it goes well beyond "It isn't funny", when the metaphors, and images used, cause such offence, and by any rational standard could reasonably be expected to do so. Perhaps a week's watching of The History Channel would indicate that. You might even see my father and grandfather in there. Auschwitz wasn't a holiday camp. Rodhull andemu 01:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound like I'm passing an accusation, but are you sure you understand the intention of the essay? You're 100% entitled to disagree, and yes, to be offended. If, knowing why it was written and with what ideal in mind, you are bothered by it, that's something you're absolutely allowed. But I'm somehow not completely sure I'm picking up the impression here you grasp why it's offensive. I'd simply rather not see this go forward founded on a fundamental misunderstanding. If I'm incorrect, and you do indeed fully "get it", then I have no real further input to add and apologize for doubting you. It's just comments like that Auschwitz "wasn't a holiday camp" that make me wonder if you realize that's exactly what I am trying to argue here. - Vianello (Talk) 01:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make it clear to you. Images like that should be used very, very carefully indeed, with appropriate respect for the individuals depicted, who were once living people, possibly with still-living families. To use such an image in an essay labelled as "humor", with a humorous caption, to me is an unforgivable breach of human dignity, and I'm amazed that you even began to think it appropriate. My father never really recovered from his experiences in the liberation of Auschwitz, such as it was, and refused to talk about it until he died in 1970. So, sorry, even personal views aside, it's misguided even as an object lesson. Forgive me, but even neutrality aside, I am no longer emotionally uninvolved here, so I'll leave it. Rodhull andemu 01:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the point I was trying to make. The essay explicitly, through parody/sarcasm, even visits that exact topic - that there are loved ones and family of victims of real atrocities who are still here. The experience is "real" for them, not detached or academic. It is offensive because it parodies and exaggerates an offensive argument, in an effort to expose said argument's absurdity. I know it's an agonizingly overused analogy, but "A Modest Proposal" (though much cleverer than this) by Jonathan Swift used similar means. I created this essay specifically to show to a person who made similar arguments to what it parodies, and because I had heard those arguments made a maddening number of times before. My hope was not to amuse (I reiterate, the "unacceptable" part of the template is the key), but to hopefully at least educate one person a little. I think we're going in circles now though, and really, the kindly IP user above summed this up much more concisely and elegantly. - Vianello (Talk) 01:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I doubt that the victims of the Irish potato famine would have understood the Swift allusion; similarly, your target audience. That, if it was intended as satire, is where it fails. Stupid people tend not to appreciate satire, because they take things at face value without going behind the veneer. Rodhull andemu 01:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. - Vianello (Talk) 02:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I totally get what this text is meant for. But there are two major problems: One, the editors who it makes sense to point to this text fall mainly in two parts – those who could also be convinced with less drastic means and those for whom all help is lost anyway. (The latter category is made up of editors with a medical problem that we are not going to fix, and Holocaust deniers.) The other problem is that no matter where we hide this text, it will be found by people who don't get its context and motivation and will read it as a Holocaust joke. I understand the motivation and the possible uses of this text, and in fact I might have been close to writing something like this myself. But it's in the nature of taboos that people get angry when you do something with them that they are not used to. Hans Adler 07:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine set of points raised there. Someone else astutely compared it to an elephant gun leveled at a sparrow. Really, the whole thing was borne of frustration, and there are probably more productive (and less dicey) ways to go about conveying the "lesson". - Vianello (Talk) 07:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Bielle. Unfunny, useless 'humor' & has no place on WP. Sorry - it fails on a whole number of levels. Just kill it with fire already - Alison ^❤ 01:21, 7 October 2010 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.