Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:52, 4 October 2015

3 October 2015

File:Sonyvhotz.djvu

File:Sonyvhotz.djvu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Public domain status is unclear as it was seemingly produced by Sony and not fed govt but I don't see a problem with using at least a scaled down version of the doc with a claim of fair use. Assuming there is no free version available, it could be theoretically used that way. 189.25.205.82 (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Question, in which article do you propose to use this document, and how is it essential to understanding that topic? I'm having a hard time coming up with a scenario in my mind for how a DJVU document could meet our Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria. Lankiveil 03:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC).

Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Hotz. --189.25.205.82 (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• endorse if this is a scan of a legal document. it's either going to be readable or unreadable, if it's readable then the 'low-quality' is irrelevant, we are using it for it's original 'market' purpose nfcc#2 and just acting as a file hosting service, if it's unreadable then it's pretty hard to see how it could improve a readers understanding of the matter at hand nfcc#8. from what i can see the document was being used as a reference, we don't need to host a copy of the file to reference the document, so i cannot see the point in this.

Beta Uprising

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDiOmviCq3U https://en.wikipedia.org/Next_Media_Animation

^ if you think the article is worth having please watch this video, it explains everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.132.3 (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Beta Uprising (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as speedy delete on the day of nomination, when multiple people said to keep it, and the closing admin did not provide the speedy deletion criteria she deleted it under, only saying "speedy", completely bypassing consensus. Please revert this bizarre close. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

For reference, the closing admin gave these criteria on the talk page:

Wnt, Chess, Gandydancer and Darth Viller, as you know, it's a question of sourcing. With something like this the first version needs to have solid secondary sourcing so that Misplaced Pages isn't leading with it. Darth, I saw no scholars using the term. The secondary sources were the BBC and one or two others mentioning in passing that some posters on those boards had used the phrase. That's not enough to base an article on, though you could perhaps add the phrase to another relevant article.

It indeed wasn't the main subject of the BBC News source, though it was the main focus of the article in The Frisky, and had additional mentions in other reliable media. Darth Viller (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Darth Viller: True, but it she can't unilaterally say that it is not enough to base an article on and then delete the article. We're supposed to come to those conclusions by consensus, not one admin deciding whatever she says is law. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt and Gandydancer: Thought you'd like to know of this. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I put some other mentions at the AfD discussion. The page was deleted at 20:00 UTC today, when the AfD looked like this. --Rubbish computer 21:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I thought @EamonnPKeane: might also like to be pinged, and I will tell the IP in case they also have anything to add. --Rubbish computer 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. The article began: "Beta Uprising is a phrase used on 4chan and Reddit to refer to violence or support of violence by 'socially awkward' males against 'alpha males' and women." It contained a section on the Umpqua Community College shooting.

I speedy deleted it because notability had not been established, and when I checked it on Google it was obvious that notability could not be established. The sources I found were primary sources, with a passing mention of the phrase by the BBC and two other outlets. Yet the Misplaced Pages article – which contained unsourced passages and SYN violations – had already been picked up by Google. There was therefore a danger that we would become the main vehicle for the spread of the phrase. I hope it is obvious why we ought not to do that given the circumstances.

I've offered to email a copy to its creator, if he doesn't already have one, so that he can create Draft:Beta Uprising. That way, other editors can be involved in the search for secondary sourcing and the decision to publish. Sarah 21:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Do you mind trying to keep a consistent deletion rationale? At first you said that it was deleted because "We would need secondary sources to show that Misplaced Pages was following the sources and not leading", which doesn't seem to be based in CSD policy. You then proceeded to say that it needs to be deleted because "This was an admin action based on my view that we were about to cause this idea to spread, rather than simply reporting it", which is also not at all rooted in policy whatsoever. You also said before, something which added on to your deletion rationale by saying "The secondary sources were the BBC and one or two others mentioning in passing that some posters on those boards had used the phrase. That's not enough to base an article on...". You essentially said that the article either did not pass WP:GNG, or WP:VERIFIABILITY, both of which should be decided in an WP:AFD discussion, not a unilateral decision by one person. You've now proceeded to state in that the article was deleted "because notability had not been established", which also is not rooted in policy, and appears to be a misreading of A7, which states that certain types of articles needs to have a claim to notability in them. This article did not fall under one of the certain types of articles listed in A7, and did make a claim to notability. You also said "There was therefore a danger that we would become the main vehicle for the spread of the phrase." You're now stating that we need to suppress information because you don't want people knowing about it. You're essentially saying (and doing) censor Misplaced Pages. You really need to restore the article, and re-open the deletion discussion, because it is obvious you are very confused about how the WP:AFD process works. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I readily admit I am not familiar with how wikipedia works in terms of getting things removed, but I just don't understand how this could possible be an article. I stated something similar on the talk page before it was deleted, but the entire concept of a "beta uprising" is just a joke on r9k, it isn't something that people are actively taking part in and trying to go out an kill "normies" or whatever. Far from being confirmed that this guy posted on r9k, it's even being stated his beef was with organized religion, the only reason "beta uprising" is even being talked about is because news reporters saw the thread, and not understanding the joke, took it to be something real.

Again, just my opinion, but from the way the wikipedia article was worded, it really seemed like there was a desire to try and frame these shootings using these type of concepts as a pretext or cause, when there is no evidence that that is what is causing them. People have a view point of why these shootings are happening, and with a lack of concrete evidence, turn to using a phrase said in jest as evidence. There is even a fair chance that the entire reason that this is being talked about, the perpetrator of the shooting in Oregon, never even used the term in his life, or knew what it meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101C:40D9:8981:97A8:9F44:E95C (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Restore. I realized that this article might have a tough time at AfD - there are sources about it, but they are not exclusively about it. However, the deletion log message cites A7 "no indication of importance", which is clearly wrong, and "WP:SNOW", which is clearly contrary to fact when 2/0 voted Keep. Moreover, deleting admin's comment " It's important, for obvious reasons, to make sure Misplaced Pages isn't responsible for spreading that idea." is clearly an indication of personal bias rather than a reason for deletion, and contrary to WP:CENSOR. In short, there is no policy reason for deletion. "It is inappropriate to re-argue the AfD here" - people love to say that on DRV when an AfD finds for deletion, so I think I'll say it this time. Wnt (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wnt, what exactly is the "indication of importance" that was clearly present in the article? I can't see the original, but from what's posted here, the only alleged indication is that it's a neologism used on two websites. That's not exactly an "indication of importance" (or, if that really is an indication of importance, then AFD could be turned into an CSD-proof article with the lead sentence, "an initialism used on one of the world's most popular websites to mean that your article is probably going to get deleted"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment & reply I read the article before it was deleted. The article seemed problematic. The lead opened with something ominous sounding and something not true to the limited sourcing. I can't remember word for word, but it originally opened with something like: "The Beta Uprising is the name given to the upcoming violent revolution..." It went on to suggest "alpha men" and women would soon be violently targeted by "uprising" "beta men". The lead made it sound like BBC saw this as legitimate and impending revolution. Before it was deleted, I rewrote the lead to match the very limited sourcing which briefly discussed "beta uprising" as a phrase used online by people source called "socially awkward". My rewrite of lead was as follows: Beta Uprising is a phrase used on 4chan and Reddit to refer to violence or support of violence by "socially awkward" males against "alpha males" and women. The violence or support of violence carried out by others is said to be a response to lack of intimacy, romantic success and sexual gratification. The phrase "beta uprising" has been used by media organizations like BBC News in the aftermath of the Umpqua Community College shooting.

The article didn't appear to meet notability guidelines. The phrase "beta uprising" was only mentioned in passing in the BBC piece as phrase used on 4chan. If additional sourcing is located, I do support Sarah's suggestion on her talk page that this article be created in draft format first, preferably with input of multiple wikiprojects and experienced editors so Misplaced Pages isn't misused as a tool to promote this as a thing by the guys involved in online chatter about this, which seemed to potentially be occurring. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

There wasn't at any one time a statement of an upcoming revolution, it was "expected" in the sense some group may have eschatological expectations - though some stuff did get vandalised away all the time, so the qualifying statement wasn't always there. The immediate use of "alpha" and "beta" was also a later edit. The article did lack a clarification that the phrase also gets used a lot for teh lulz, but that was absent in the sources, too, except for some quotes from Reddit in a pair. Darth Viller (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it was "expected revolution" not "impeding revolution", but it struck me as problematic because it didn't seem to accurately reflect the limited sourcing. The article actually seemed problematic to me on many levels. It seemed to portray "socially awkward" "beta guys" as a group of unstable spree killers the likes of which include Christopher Harper-Mercer and Elliot Rodgers etc...like there is some organized and evil group of shy "nice guys" that are out there plotting to take down humanity via violent revolution. I do tend to agree that "beta uprising" is a somewhat notable phrase on 4chan and has some minimal reliable sourcing, so maybe deserves brief mention in some related article, but it seems to devote an entire article to this we should have some serious scholarly sourcing (or at least the kind of sources that investigates how much of this is Internet trolls trying to be funny) . Seems that perhaps WP shouldn't make socially awkward guys seem evil and crazy, even if a small number of sensational reliable sources sort of do. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: A7 mentions that only articles falling under the topics of "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event" can be nominated for A7. As mentioned in WP:WEB, "Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals." An internet "meme" does not fall under "web content". Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It says that web content "includes, but is not limited to" a variety of things. It does not say that a phrase on some website is not included, even if we say that it's a meme. I am therefore dubious of your assertion that it doesn't qualify for A7. The very next sentence in WP:WEB says, "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline", which appears to describe "a phrase used on 4chan and Reddit" quite nicely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The "Beta Uprising" might (hypothetically) be an organized event, so I would prefer to focus on demonstrating what the importance is. A number of news media publicized that Edinburgh University had been threatened by a copycat killing after Umpqua, and said that the UK police were investigating, a comment about the "beta uprising", which they proceeded to define. Just before that, posters citing "Beta Uprising" are alleged to have cheered on the Umpqua killer's rampage (The FBI is said to be investigating 4chan right now, and there is a chance we could see quite a reprehensible purge indeed before this is over) Many of these quoted the "beta uprising" specifically - do read the archived thread here, which is quite entertaining. Wnt (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

These links do not demonstrate any importance to me; based on this, at most, I would give this phrase one short paragraph in the article about actual events. If the article did no better at conveying importance than the links, then I think that A7 is not an unreasonable interpretation. I would therefore endorse deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The beta uprising is a sort of "idea", like Helter Skelter as preached by Charles Manson. Just because it is on the internet didn't make it "web content". It is wholly divorceable from the internet, unlike things like an advice animal meme, which are intertwined with an internet culture. The beta uprising is not internet culture, it is more of the culture of mentally ill people who can't get laid. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. For now, this is best covered in the article on the shooting itself. Andreas JN466 22:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we at least give User:SlimVirgin a rebuke for this obviously out of turn deletion? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I posted a lot of this in a different thread, but it is relevant to this discussion.

The entire concept of a "beta uprising" is just a joke on /r9k/, it isn't something that people are actively taking part in and trying to go out an kill "normies" or whatever. Far from being confirmed that this guy posted on /r9k/, it's even being stated his beef was with organized religion, the only reason "beta uprising" is even being talked about is because news reporters saw the thread, and not understanding the joke, took it to be something real. Again, just my opinion, but from the way the wikipedia article was worded, it really seemed like there was a desire to try and frame these shootings using these type of concepts as a pretext or cause, when there is no evidence that that is what is causing them. The entire premise of the article is predicated on the fact that there is a movement afoot for some sort of social revolution, using the actions of one person and their supposed postings as evidence, when it is entirely possible, and in fact becoming more probable that they never posted the statement in question and did not hold those views, how can you have that in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia? Forget him, there is no other instance that can even be brought up as an example of this supposed wide-spread simmering movement in action. It's just conjuncture based off of mis-information from bad reporting in the moments after a tragedy.

Most media articles are taking the issue super seriously, and writing a wikipedia article at this time lends that viewpoint credence, because, let's face it, there are a significant number of people who will google the term, end up here, and think it's a real movement. So, even if, a week or two down the line, it becomes clear that the killer did not hold the views in question at all, and that any post related to the matter on places like /r9k/ or reddit are satire, there wont be new media articles saying we were wrong, it was all just some inside-joke, none of these events are related. We will have a wikipedia article that will have been viewed however by many people, perhaps even media personal themselves looking up information to write further articles, that presents the this movement as something taken seriously by people, and that is causing actual harm to other people.

SOFIXIT. Give sources to show it's a joke. I gave sources above to show the American and British authorities were investigating it, and they're traditionally not very funny. You correct the misinformation by providing sourced data for an article that corrects misinformation, rather than having Misplaced Pages not do its job. Wnt (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources? How? Would more 4chan screencaps about how it's all just trolling count as a source? Because that's what every one of these articles have been using, literally one screengrab from 4chan, and then some other posts people made afterwards, as sources for this "movement". If all it takes to establish authority as a source is to publish s screenshot in a "reputed" news source along with some commentary, I think you should be able to accept the screenshots I provide, along with any commentary I give. I hope that sounds as ridiculous to you as it does to me, but here we are debating sources that did exactly that. As for authorities investigating, of course they are. That's there job, to investigate any leads. They have to do so. But notice how they haven't said that he did in fact post the post in question, or give any indications of a viewpoint that was similar? They just said they were investigating, and that's it. I would wager that we never hear of it again as the weeks go by, since it turned out there was no relation. Unless of course we make a wikipedia article about it, and make sure to popularize this theory. This is all just my opinion, I have no knowledge of the workings of wikipedia on how articles get vetted, but this case just seems pretty cut and dry not a real thing to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101C:40D9:8981:97A8:9F44:E95C (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn and trout This looks like an obvious supervote. I can see no justification for invoking WP:CSD here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Restore There was some original info on the first version of the page, but it can be rewritten with sources following investigation into the shooter's motives --The war on shrugs (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is no "beta uprising". It was a non-notable meme picked up by confused writers and mentioned in passing. SV was correct in preventing Misplaced Pages from being used to spread memes without good sources. I suggest everyone who wants to keep this non-topic have a look at WP:NOT as the delete was appropriate per that policy. We are not a rumor mill. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: So do you think any admin should be allowed to delete any article they want to based on their interpretation of the notability guideline? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist; as much as I agree with the sentiment, there isn't a sufficient IAR justification for this clearly out-of-process speedy deletion. CSD A7 is not valid as there are reliable sources that discuss it, even if in passing, which is good enough as an assertion of importance. Let the community decide how they want to handle this. Lankiveil 03:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC).

References

1. ^ "Oregon shooting and the anonymous '4chan' message board". BBC News. 2 October 2015. Retrieved 3 October 2015.
2. Mary-Ann Russon (2 October 2015). "Oregon shooting: Did 4chan trolls incite Chris Harper-Mercer to massacre at Umpqua Community College?". International Business Times. Retrieved 3 October 2015.
3. Robyn Pennacchia (1 October 2015). "4Chan Thinks Oregon Shooter Is One Of Their Own, Cheers Him On". The Frisky. Retrieved 3 October 2015.

Temporarily restored history for discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Relist I'm not sure whether or not it should be deleted, but I am sure it was not a valid speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I'm tending to agree with Viriditas. I've made a few previous comments about this to say it should be kept, however at the time I thought that it was another of the things that kids are talking about these days that I don't have a clue about. That does not seem to be the case here. When I google it, it seems to be a term being used by only a small group...but then on the first page you see Misplaced Pages has an article on it...meaning that we're helping to spread the term as I type, I guess. I can see where an argument could be made to remove the title for now while it is being discussed. Gandydancer (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• IAR Endorse- Sometimes I think we should hold off writing an article about very recent murders until the facts are clarified, and we can do a responsible job. The deleted version is full of poorly sourced speculation and coatrackery, and reads more like an editorial hit piece than an encyclopedia article. Reyk _YO! 06:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)