Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Abuse

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: delete . Huge potential for BLP issues, on top of the rest of the arguments for deletion. As has been pointed out below, we are not here to right great wrongs, we are here to report on the righting of wrongs by others. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Abuse

Grab bag of topics around a dictionary word. So broad a group of possible topics it is useless. A basic wikipedia search with even a little distinction would be a better way to navigate to what a reader is really interested in. This page was listed at AN as " This portal has display errors which make it hard to evaluate properly. It's had plenty of manual input, possibly in attempts to fix it." Legacypac (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Keep, expand what is there. Enough dioceses have admitted neglect and cover-ups. The current nomination can be viewed as a cover-up. Would you like me to cite my local paper? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 23:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to fill in some blanks here if you like --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 23:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They have articles here, by the way. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 23:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The portal reads with items which are apropos of abuse. What is the problem? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 23:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – Meets WP:POG. The article is not a dicdef and neither is the portal. Furthermore, I'm having no problems with display errors as stated in the nomination. Maybe try using a different browser? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The dosplay errors part was reported at AN in the WP:X3 discussion. I'm not seeing errors but I see a very disjointed selection of articles and DYK etc that happen to include the word abuse. Mimd of weird choice for a portal topic. Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic was suppressed for decades; the problem spans social classes; 'weird' bespeaks a blind spot in our reconstruction of our world. It helps to have a diverse selection of editors in the search for appropriate coverage. Meaning it doesn't help to delete anything and everything that does not fit our personal reconstruction of what we believe. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 01:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I have struck my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The argument being made for keeping this portal as a portal appears to be the same as the reason for the Alexander Litvinenko portal, to publicize a crime or crimes, but that is not the purpose of a portal. That is not even the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to summarize human knowledge from a neutral point of view as stated by reliable sources. That knowledge includes the knowledge of the murder of Litvinenko and the abuse by McCarrick and Pell, and does not mandate the use of portals for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comment, and as per Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to Right Great Wrongs including those by Weinstein, McCarrick, Pell, and others. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then please explain why an organization would de-name buildings which bore names of the leadership. When an Army names some building for an enlisted man, it's not about rank, it's about (moral) leadership; and when an organization named for a saint does a good deed, namely to pay the survivors of abuse "In 2006, as part of the plan to pay the sexual abuse settlements in the California litigation, De Sales Preparatory Seminary made the decision to guarantee the loan the archdiocese took with Park Bank to settle with victims/survivors. In addition, De Sales Preparatory Seminary made the decision that it would sell the Cousins Center to assist the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in satisfying its debt to Park Bank" it's about debt. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We are not debating the content of the articles on Weinstein, McCarrick, or Pell. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. This contains unreferenced BLP material and since portals never have references that's a problem. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The archbishop is now deceased; that's in our article about the prelate. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ancheta Wis - Which archbishop is now deceased? I was referring to Theodore McCarrick and George Pell, who are both living, one of whom is currently an archbishop, and the other of whom was until recently an archbishop, and Harvey Weinstein, who is living and was never a priest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Edward Cousins —now dead— was the archbishop for whom 'Cousins center' in Milwaukee was named. That building is to be renamed, today, apparently. Archbishop Cousins never laicized (meaning defrocked) the priests who sexually abused their flocks. However the archbishops have paid out enough in damages to force the archdiocese of Milwaukee into bankruptcy. And now there is quite a list of laicized men on their website; so you can argue the archdiocese has repented their coverup. (Archbishop Listecki —the current prelate— is to be commended for owning up to the situation). I actually never was aware of these details until I read about it in the paper, and then followed up on the portal deletion thread. Maybe today we will find out the new name for 'Cousins center'. I will post it on this thread for completeness. I can't speak for Pell etc and I don't have the time to document any other abuse of trust, other than to state that abuse is a syndrome (Abuse --> Neglect --> Cycle of despair --> on and on .. Suicide .. I forbear from continuing). We can do better than this, obviously. But the topic is not well understood and abusers will always be with us unless people take a stand. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC) One week later (13:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)), there is still no announcement of the new name for the Archdiocese office building. I will post here when it appears, if ever. (This could take a while) --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The BLP argument is a strong one. Portals often include living people but rarely focus on negative aspects of their lives. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snippets of some of these topics is not an ideal way to present with no refs and little context. Legacypac (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crosscutting, like naming, is a literary technique, a doorway to another world, sometimes hidden or in shadow. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crosscutting is a literary technique, primarily used in film but also in the novel, and occasionally in historical exposition. Wikipedia is not a work of literature, and techniques that are appropriate in fiction are not necessarily applicable in an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against creation of portals about specific types of abuse that do not mix drug abuse and child abuse just because they both contain the word "abuse". —Kusma (t·c) 09:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.:Doxing is one of the featured articles. Legacypac (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what was the reasoning? The portal is neutral: it crosscuts multiple kinds of abuse with a database query. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, the argument to keep this portal is "cover up!!! censorship!!! right great wrongs!!!" CoolSkittle (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Minimisation (psychology) is a featured article. Off topic - this is a mess. No one is trying to censure anything. We are discussing the wisdom of a portal vs letting the articles do the job. Legacypac (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Count me out; I refuse to work on the dark side of the human condition, thank you very much. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC) (But I would have worked on the portal) --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles to improve. Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is Minimisation (psychology) a featured article? I saw no details in Minimisation that the maligned portal (or even this deletion thread) included, other than an invitation for some editor to perform some WP:SYNTHESIS to flesh out. That would not be a good road for that editor to travel. Again, no thank you. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 21:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It shows up when you scroll through the featured articles. There is no coherent topic here. Legacypac (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a hodgepodge of topics around a dictionary word. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major topic area of encyclopedic interest. The claim that they're unrelated subjects is false, or we could not have Category:Abuse. The content could be clarified and the scope made clearer, but this is a WP:AADD#Surmountable problems matter, not a deletion rationale. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

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.