Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Content deleted Content added
SkepticAnonymous (talk | contribs)
- putting back proper template now that I found the problem.
Syrthiss (talk | contribs)
rv 3, 1 well meaning removal of poorly formed template, and 2 unsubstantiated sock strikethroughs. see my talk page.
Line 30: Line 30:
<s>It's clear why some want this page eliminated. Obama chose "forward" as his campaign slogan. The historical use of "forward" in a political sense is now embarrassing to him. Thus the page must be removed. This is an effort at political censorship. Obama chose the word for his campaign. Wikipedia should not protect him from the consequences. The choice of "Forward" as his slogan should have been more carefully vetted. It wasn't. Now the Obama campaign should have to live with it. And just because someone uses the information on the historical use of "Forward" in socialist and communist publications to oppose the Obama reelection is insufficient reason for Wikipedia to delete the entry.</s>
<s>It's clear why some want this page eliminated. Obama chose "forward" as his campaign slogan. The historical use of "forward" in a political sense is now embarrassing to him. Thus the page must be removed. This is an effort at political censorship. Obama chose the word for his campaign. Wikipedia should not protect him from the consequences. The choice of "Forward" as his slogan should have been more carefully vetted. It wasn't. Now the Obama campaign should have to live with it. And just because someone uses the information on the historical use of "Forward" in socialist and communist publications to oppose the Obama reelection is insufficient reason for Wikipedia to delete the entry.</s>
:: PLEASE [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forward_%28generic_name_of_socialist_publications%29&diff=490188485&oldid=490178402 stop it,] Nintendude64. Not funny. [[User:SkepticAnonymous|SkepticAnonymous]] ([[User talk:SkepticAnonymous|talk]]) 20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
:: PLEASE [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forward_%28generic_name_of_socialist_publications%29&diff=490188485&oldid=490178402 stop it,] Nintendude64. Not funny. [[User:SkepticAnonymous|SkepticAnonymous]] ([[User talk:SkepticAnonymous|talk]]) 20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
:::<s>'''Comment''': What the hell is you problem? Why are you trolling your own AfD? --[[User:Nintendude64|'''<font color="#000099" face="Arial Black">NINTENDUDE</font>]][[User_talk:Nintendude64|<sup><font color="#FF0000" size="2">64</font></sup>''']] 23:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)</s>
:::'''Comment''': What the hell is you problem? Why are you trolling your own AfD? --[[User:Nintendude64|'''<font color="#000099" face="Arial Black">NINTENDUDE</font>]][[User_talk:Nintendude64|<sup><font color="#FF0000" size="2">64</font></sup>''']] 23:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
: '''SIGH''' The fact that there is a series of political hit pieces about this, combined with a repetitive [[WP:BLP]] violation on the subject, doesn't register with you? This is not an effort at political censorship. As I note, on closer inspection the original writer seems to have slipped into his list of "socialist" newspapers [[The Forward]], which is a Jewish-American paper published in New York and '''has absolutely nothing to do with socialism'''; in other words, it appears this was one of those "hey look jews are communists" troll articles, well written to slip by at first glance and nothing more, which happened to become popular with another group of political troll types later on. [[User:SkepticAnonymous|SkepticAnonymous]] ([[User talk:SkepticAnonymous|talk]]) 20:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
: '''SIGH''' The fact that there is a series of political hit pieces about this, combined with a repetitive [[WP:BLP]] violation on the subject, doesn't register with you? This is not an effort at political censorship. As I note, on closer inspection the original writer seems to have slipped into his list of "socialist" newspapers [[The Forward]], which is a Jewish-American paper published in New York and '''has absolutely nothing to do with socialism'''; in other words, it appears this was one of those "hey look jews are communists" troll articles, well written to slip by at first glance and nothing more, which happened to become popular with another group of political troll types later on. [[User:SkepticAnonymous|SkepticAnonymous]] ([[User talk:SkepticAnonymous|talk]]) 20:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
::The Forward was founded as a socialist paper and was quite famous for being so in the 20s and 30s. [[User:GabrielF|GabrielF]] ([[User talk:GabrielF|talk]]) 21:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
::The Forward was founded as a socialist paper and was quite famous for being so in the 20s and 30s. [[User:GabrielF|GabrielF]] ([[User talk:GabrielF|talk]]) 21:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 69: Line 69:
* '''Delete''' as improper disambiguation page of [[Forward]]. Key publications merit their own pieces; else this is a random accumulation just sharing a name. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 23:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' as improper disambiguation page of [[Forward]]. Key publications merit their own pieces; else this is a random accumulation just sharing a name. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 23:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


* <s>'''Strong Keep'''. The article creator in a short amount of time has put in the work to begin [[Wikipedia:SAVE|saving]] this article. Aside from the fact that this AfD is quite frankly bogus on all counts listed, I think the work has been done to justify keeping this as an encyclopedia article rather than trimming it down to a disambiguation page. I've stricken my earlier comments which suggest this possible course of action. --[[User:Nintendude64|'''<font color="#000099" face="Arial Black">NINTENDUDE</font>]][[User_talk:Nintendude64|<sup><font color="#FF0000" size="2">64</font></sup>''']] 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)</s>
* '''Strong Keep'''. The article creator in a short amount of time has put in the work to begin [[Wikipedia:SAVE|saving]] this article. Aside from the fact that this AfD is quite frankly bogus on all counts listed, I think the work has been done to justify keeping this as an encyclopedia article rather than trimming it down to a disambiguation page. I've stricken my earlier comments which suggest this possible course of action. --[[User:Nintendude64|'''<font color="#000099" face="Arial Black">NINTENDUDE</font>]][[User_talk:Nintendude64|<sup><font color="#FF0000" size="2">64</font></sup>''']] 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


**'''Comment''' - it's fairly obvious to anyone that Nintendude64 is the sockpuppetteer behind most of the IP vandals showing up on the page as well as trolling this discussion and violating [[WP:CIVIL]] quite often. As well, nobody has yet explained why the deletion of an unnecessary [[WP:POVFORK]] deliberately designed to be used for nasty political and anti-semitic insinuations is controversial to anyone but anti-semites. The AfD submitter has shown how easy it is to implement the content in a NEUTRAL way on the ACTUAL disambig page as well as an affected page by the slimy linking scheme, and so there is even less justification for this page's existence than might have been claimed at the outset. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/107.28.112.235|107.28.112.235]] ([[User talk:107.28.112.235|talk]]) 04:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
<s>**'''Comment''' - it's fairly obvious to anyone that Nintendude64 is the sockpuppetteer behind most of the IP vandals showing up on the page as well as trolling this discussion and violating [[WP:CIVIL]] quite often. As well, nobody has yet explained why the deletion of an unnecessary [[WP:POVFORK]] deliberately designed to be used for nasty political and anti-semitic insinuations is controversial to anyone but anti-semites. The AfD submitter has shown how easy it is to implement the content in a NEUTRAL way on the ACTUAL disambig page as well as an affected page by the slimy linking scheme, and so there is even less justification for this page's existence than might have been claimed at the outset. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/107.28.112.235|107.28.112.235]] ([[User talk:107.28.112.235|talk]]) 04:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--></s>


*'''Comment''' This page was mentioned on Rachel Maddow tonight (if I heard it right) and may be driving some of the traffic to this page and its AFD. <b>[[User:Soap|<font color="green">☮</font>]][[User talk:Soap|<font color="057602">''Soap''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Soap|<font color="green">☮</font>]]</b> 02:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This page was mentioned on Rachel Maddow tonight (if I heard it right) and may be driving some of the traffic to this page and its AFD. <b>[[User:Soap|<font color="green">☮</font>]][[User talk:Soap|<font color="057602">''Soap''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Soap|<font color="green">☮</font>]]</b> 02:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Line 97: Line 97:
:As to a link to the link above of show that brought me here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#47256402) the relevant portion should begin around 1 minute into that ending segment clip. She was jabbing at a political pundit using it as his sole source that the term "Forward" being used in an ad then means Obama is a socialist. She also poked fun, it seems, at the 'don't delete this' fervor that has come of it. As this interesting piece of historical trivia now rests, in the minds of some, as proof that a politician has anti-American motivations. [[Special:Contributions/68.229.93.129|68.229.93.129]] ([[User talk:68.229.93.129|talk]]) 10:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
:As to a link to the link above of show that brought me here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#47256402) the relevant portion should begin around 1 minute into that ending segment clip. She was jabbing at a political pundit using it as his sole source that the term "Forward" being used in an ad then means Obama is a socialist. She also poked fun, it seems, at the 'don't delete this' fervor that has come of it. As this interesting piece of historical trivia now rests, in the minds of some, as proof that a politician has anti-American motivations. [[Special:Contributions/68.229.93.129|68.229.93.129]] ([[User talk:68.229.93.129|talk]]) 10:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


<s>*'''Off Topic''': Would someone explain to me where striking comments that are NOT your own is an acceptable practice? This appears to be tendentiously disruptive, but I'm willing to Assume Good Faith; however, if comment counts as vandalism, it should be treated as such. Striking out another person's comment on the whole of it would appear to delegitimize their point, valid or otherwise, and the actual interpretation is meant to be that of voluntary retraction or change, thus making the strike out vandalism, and at least two users at risk of uw-warn. [[Special:Contributions/173.242.89.38|173.242.89.38]] ([[User talk:173.242.89.38|talk]]) 10:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC) EAZen: Never logged in, always annoyed</s>
*'''Off Topic''': Would someone explain to me where striking comments that are NOT your own is an acceptable practice? This appears to be tendentiously disruptive, but I'm willing to Assume Good Faith; however, if comment counts as vandalism, it should be treated as such. Striking out another person's comment on the whole of it would appear to delegitimize their point, valid or otherwise, and the actual interpretation is meant to be that of voluntary retraction or change, thus making the strike out vandalism, and at least two users at risk of uw-warn. [[Special:Contributions/173.242.89.38|173.242.89.38]] ([[User talk:173.242.89.38|talk]]) 10:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC) EAZen: Never logged in, always annoyed
**'''Comment''', because it is prone to vote-stacking and socking. Several of the different anon comments in this AfD are seemingly made by the same users. It is also always suspicious with users with no previous edits prior to an AfD, they are usually sock-puppets. If you wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, register an account. It helps a lot to maintain a dialogue. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 11:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
**'''Comment''', because it is prone to vote-stacking and socking. Several of the different anon comments in this AfD are seemingly made by the same users. It is also always suspicious with users with no previous edits prior to an AfD, they are usually sock-puppets. If you wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, register an account. It helps a lot to maintain a dialogue. --[[User:Soman|Soman]] ([[User talk:Soman|talk]]) 11:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
<s>***'''Comment''' Who makes that decision? You? It seems like proponents for keeping the article are the ones have their comments struck out and then you justify it by further denigrating them. I have unstruck my vote as it is completely valid. If you wish to denigrate me further, I will elevate the issue. [[Special:Contributions/214.13.69.132|214.13.69.132]] ([[User talk:214.13.69.132|talk]]) 11:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
***'''Comment''' Who makes that decision? You? It seems like proponents for keeping the article are the ones have their comments struck out and then you justify it by further denigrating them. I have unstruck my vote as it is completely valid. If you wish to denigrate me further, I will elevate the issue. [[Special:Contributions/214.13.69.132|214.13.69.132]] ([[User talk:214.13.69.132|talk]]) 11:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
***'''Comment'''. NOT A BALLOT! That is not a legitimate point or logic. Furthermore, having followed up on previous claims regrading these points: I find no geographical or commercial proximity of the IPs compared and BabyDoc23 may have simply signed a name which that person might use elsewhere. Assume Good Faith seems hard for you if you can't back any of your claims justifying these activities. You either show actual evidence to the claims of an organised edit war, intent to deceive or an explanation that is aware of the phrase NOT A BALLOT, show an acceptable logic to claim vandalism OR identify the WikiPolicy that allows you to strike other people's comments in this context, or there may be a more aggressive review. [[Special:Contributions/173.242.89.38|173.242.89.38]] ([[User talk:173.242.89.38|talk]]) 11:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC) EAZen: Never logged in, seriously considering</s>
***'''Comment'''. NOT A BALLOT! That is not a legitimate point or logic. Furthermore, having followed up on previous claims regrading these points: I find no geographical or commercial proximity of the IPs compared and BabyDoc23 may have simply signed a name which that person might use elsewhere. Assume Good Faith seems hard for you if you can't back any of your claims justifying these activities. You either show actual evidence to the claims of an organised edit war, intent to deceive or an explanation that is aware of the phrase NOT A BALLOT, show an acceptable logic to claim vandalism OR identify the WikiPolicy that allows you to strike other people's comments in this context, or there may be a more aggressive review. [[Special:Contributions/173.242.89.38|173.242.89.38]] ([[User talk:173.242.89.38|talk]]) 11:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC) EAZen: Never logged in, seriously considering

Revision as of 12:48, 2 May 2012

Forward (generic name of socialist publications)

Forward (generic name of socialist publications) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a candidate for deletion because:

  1. - it is Patent Nonsense (CSD:G1)
  2. - it is being used for a blatant political attack which constitutes a violation of WP:BLP.
  3. - it appears to be being gamed by a compromised account
  4. - the only two sources on the page are invalid because the first does not concern the topic and the second is related to the political attack above.
  5. - it cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources.

I have thus submitted it to be deleted. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)SkepticAnonymous (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I know why this article was created. It was a "disambiguation" deliberately made to cause tilted mentions on the top of certain pages. See my re-edit comparison here. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New slogan by Obama-Biden 2012 campaign. There ya go. If you're far enough on the right wing loony fringe even a tepid, unprincipled, warmongering, capitalist centrist like Obama looks like a Socialist; ergo, out comes the POV tarring brushes for an exercise in Baffling 'Em With Bullshit... Carrite (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That disambiguation page already exists. I'm not sure what the original motivation for creating this article was save for tying the word "forward" to the concept of "socialism" for some strange reason. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The gratuitous mention of Obama's campaign slogan in the article history is of course completely inappropriate, but I don't see the nominator's rationale for deletion as valid. It is not patent nonsense. The fact that it has briefly been the subject bad editing is irrelevant, as is the nature of editor User:Spazoto. I'm predisposed to thinking that a reasonable article could be written about this topic, but if not then the article should be converted to a disambiguation page (as suggested above) instead of being deleted. Peacock (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, a disambiguation page for the word "Forward" already exists. I have looked and can find no sourcing to ever indicate any notable papers being written on the word "Forward" being uniquely associated with Socialists or Communists over any other group; indeed, quite to the contrary there are a large number of other groups and newspapers as well as counties, states and countries, that use the word "Forward" as all or part of a slogan. Could you please give an example or draft of what such a supposed disambiguation page - or addition to the existing page - might look like? SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be too much work to simply take the list of publications currently in this article and format it per guidelines at WP:MOSDAB and have a good disambig page which collects similarly named topics. Peacock (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will try your suggestion. I note another problem here: the page lists The Forward, a Jewish-American newspaper published in New York, as a "socialist publication" when it is not so. I think I spy WHY this page was created in the first place on that basis. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the change to the disambiguation page here. Will it suffice? SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd also endorse rewriting as a disambiguation page similar to the The Times as GabrielF suggests. The page content clearly demonstrates a pattern and is not original research. I could see this article as being expanded with further sources, or in its current state being turned into a disambiguation page pretty much leaving the lede intact. Regardless of either of those two solutions, I see absolutely not grounds for deletion here. --NINTENDUDE64 20:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. "I'd also endorse rewriting as a disambiguation page similar to the The Times as GabrielF suggests." This article is fact based. There is plenty of information to back up the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.66.98.98 (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

    • Comment. Yes, it is fact based but the question is whether it is encyclopedic to have an article on the concept. Initial consensus of participant appears to concede that at least a disambiguation page is warranted. AfD's run a few days before any decision is made so there is still plenty of time to save the article by expanding it. --NINTENDUDE64 20:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear why some want this page eliminated. Obama chose "forward" as his campaign slogan. The historical use of "forward" in a political sense is now embarrassing to him. Thus the page must be removed. This is an effort at political censorship. Obama chose the word for his campaign. Wikipedia should not protect him from the consequences. The choice of "Forward" as his slogan should have been more carefully vetted. It wasn't. Now the Obama campaign should have to live with it. And just because someone uses the information on the historical use of "Forward" in socialist and communist publications to oppose the Obama reelection is insufficient reason for Wikipedia to delete the entry.

PLEASE stop it, Nintendude64. Not funny. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What the hell is you problem? Why are you trolling your own AfD? --NINTENDUDE64 23:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SIGH The fact that there is a series of political hit pieces about this, combined with a repetitive WP:BLP violation on the subject, doesn't register with you? This is not an effort at political censorship. As I note, on closer inspection the original writer seems to have slipped into his list of "socialist" newspapers The Forward, which is a Jewish-American paper published in New York and has absolutely nothing to do with socialism; in other words, it appears this was one of those "hey look jews are communists" troll articles, well written to slip by at first glance and nothing more, which happened to become popular with another group of political troll types later on. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Forward was founded as a socialist paper and was quite famous for being so in the 20s and 30s. GabrielF (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. This article, while a snub, addresses a specific list i.e. the names of socialist publications using the term "Forward," therefore it is not nonsense. Nowhere in the article does it address a current political situation in an attack method, therefore it is not a Blatant Political Attack. (Please note that if someone uses this page as a reference in a Blatant Political Attack, that does not mean that this page itself is a Blatant Political Attack.) An Argument can be made that since each of the items listed in the list are references, and each of those publications have references including the applicable websites of said publications. Therefore, ample resources are listed. Finally, it is impossible to make a valid argument that referencing a publication's name in an article "discussing publications' names" is not a reliable source. Therefore the arguments that (SkepticAnonymoustalk)use for deleting the article are not valid arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyDoc23 (talk • contribs)

    • User:BabyDoc23 has no other edits than this AfD, and is thus the same as the anon ip commenting above, seemingly an attempt to fake a wider consensus by gaming the AfD. Striking out his/her comments. --Soman (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After further research, it appears the creation of this article was a racist attack designed to stick the name "socialist" on the page of The Forward in an oblique and unnoticed manner. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Comment. This AfD is one of the weirder in recent times, and I'm not sure were to begin. I'll try it like this:

1) The rationales for deletion given in the nomination are faulty. To try to invoke BLP, CSD, etc. is blabant nonsense. Accusing other editors of racism, is not helpful either. User:SkepticAnonymous needs to take things down a notch, for the sake of reason. 2) One questionable edit is not a basis for deletion. There is no relevance to the Obama edit to the article, and that passage can be switfly removed. 3) The article in question is one of the those cases were it got started but never took off. My ambition has however been to expand it further than a disamb page, to give an historical overview of the name in the socialist movement. Recently, I found some material that could be used for an expansion, mentions of how the name fell out of fashion in Soviet Russia following 1917 (see Nachrichten). I'll try to search for other sources as well, to provide more detail. --Soman (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble with your logic, Soman.
1 & 2 - The article has been the subject of continued IP-based and new-account (in one case a presumably compromised account, which makes more sense than an account last used in 2009 spontaneously returning) vandalism trying to insert mentions of the Barack Obama presidential campaign; these are not-coincidentally connected to spreading blogposts based on a Washington Times hit piece. In short, it's a vandalism target.
3 - You have only one source for the entire article, and even that source doesn't qualify as an WP:RS. This has existed in that state for months, apparently unnoticed.
4 - I have a big problem with the publications you choose to list as "socialist", starting with The Forward. There has been a long habit in right-wing circles post-WW2 of trying to tie the Jewish religion/people with "socialism" as a cover for anti-semitism, and to behave in this manner is simply beyond the pale. There is absolutely no reason on wikipedia to have a "disambiguation page" that labels any page referenced by it "socialist" when the generic disambiguation page Forward can do just fine to differentiate PUBLICATIONS with similar names, as currently written for Forward#Publications in an actually neutral way.
I ask in the name of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV that you see why I have strong objections to your incredibly non-neutral creation here. There is simply no reason to try to tar any pages, people or groups with an epithet-by-disambiguation when it can be so easily avoided. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I have trouble with your lack of logic:
    • 1 & 2. "Continued IP-based and new account"? That edit conflict is less than 24 hours, if we were to delete every article that attracted bad quality edits at some point, we would delete most of the relevant material at wikipedia. If there would be persistent vandalism, the page can be protected. But we are very far from that stage now.
    • 3. In what way wouldn't the source (Ismael) qualify as WP:RS?
    • 4. Interestingly, The Forward itself choses a different approach than you: http://forward.com/articles/10461/forverts/ --Soman (talk)
      • I have more trouble with yours.
      • 1 & 2. When I cleaned up the article from the vandalism that was ongoing, it removed more than 50% of the article. It wasn't even a well-written stub.
      • 3. While Ismael makes the assertion of "common use" of the word, there's no actual research in the quoted section to back it up.
      • 4. The fact that a publication took a "social democratic" bent does not make it socialist, and in fact, the source you quote points out that it was ardently anti-leninist. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Final point: if you think you can write your article in a neutral manner, and I see you're trying, please do so. I'd like nothing better than to be proven wrong about it and seeing a well-written article rather than a stub of garbage sit in that spot. But the fact remains, an article shouldn't do dual duty as a disambiguation page, especially when it ends up tarring linked pages with a term commonly used as a political epithet. Forward#Publications is far better for disambiguation of any publications using permutations of that name. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OH PULEEEZE. Are you serious, SkepticAnonymous? Racist? Now your true colors have come to the surface. Just another proggie who starts screaming "racist" when the argument is lost. Time to grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.195.186 (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete -OR at best, patent nonsense at worst. This is Campaign 2012 fooliganism related to the new Obama campaign slogan, with the Right Wing POV warriors starting the offensive to skew WP content with a view to affecting public perception of that campaign. Start taking names for the inevitable topic bans to follow. Carrite (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the almost unthinkably unlikely event of a keep result here, note that this is an improper name for an article. Carrite (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that this is a POV fork of the valid disambiguation page Forward. Carrite (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm sorry Carrite, but since when do I qualify as a 'Right Wing POV warrior'? --Soman (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having just finally looked at the edit history, I was just diving back in to remark that it's hilarious that this was started by Soman, who is a long term, quality editor on this topic. My bad. The title is still improper and the page still needs to go bye-bye, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as improper disambiguation page of Forward. Key publications merit their own pieces; else this is a random accumulation just sharing a name. Carrite (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The article creator in a short amount of time has put in the work to begin saving this article. Aside from the fact that this AfD is quite frankly bogus on all counts listed, I think the work has been done to justify keeping this as an encyclopedia article rather than trimming it down to a disambiguation page. I've stricken my earlier comments which suggest this possible course of action. --NINTENDUDE64 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

**Comment - it's fairly obvious to anyone that Nintendude64 is the sockpuppetteer behind most of the IP vandals showing up on the page as well as trolling this discussion and violating WP:CIVIL quite often. As well, nobody has yet explained why the deletion of an unnecessary WP:POVFORK deliberately designed to be used for nasty political and anti-semitic insinuations is controversial to anyone but anti-semites. The AfD submitter has shown how easy it is to implement the content in a NEUTRAL way on the ACTUAL disambig page as well as an affected page by the slimy linking scheme, and so there is even less justification for this page's existence than might have been claimed at the outset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.28.112.235 (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment This page was mentioned on Rachel Maddow tonight (if I heard it right) and may be driving some of the traffic to this page and its AFD. Soap 02:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP The page was around before the Obama campaign chose their slogan. Wikipedia should not allow censorship based on shifting political winds. In a few weeks this will be a non-issue. Just leave it be. Why not protect it to limit the vandalism? The page can be kept without it being fodder for a political attack. 214.13.69.132 (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I might try to give an explanation as to why the article was started (in the spring of 2011, obviously without any linkage to the Obama campaign). I had wanted to write a passage for the Vorwärts article on other publications named after it, but was then confronted with the fact that there had been 2 'motherships' so to speak, and it was not possible in a non-OR way to determine which was related to which. The conclusion is that the term, or better said the name, has a specific place in early modern socialist discourse. For me, the intention was never that the article would merely be a link page or disamb, but would be dedicated to the evolution of the name and its usage. The subject is notable, it is not OR, it is not POV, and Wikipedia should not be tailored to fit political campaigns. Btw, 'Mitt' is the Khmer Rouge word for 'Comrade'. --Soman (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (actual thought is Merge). The difficulties Wikipedia often has with English is American politicians warping political, economic and social sciences, primarily through the misuse of terminology. Simply reading the end of the article on Liberalism makes it clear that associations within the sciences are foreign to US citizens. This is amazing as I've had three required high school classes that cover the terminology objectively. It would be nice if Wikipedia required the correct and scientifically objective use of such terminology.
    That aside, however, the term, "Forward," became a political point in the transitional period between the Enlightenment and Liberalism, as noted by the State of Wisconsin's own adoption of the motto in the 19th century. The Wisconsin Idea that followed this era would lay the foundation of US Progressivism, giving US citizens direct elections of Senators, progressive taxation, compensation for on-the-job injuries, regulation of private infrastructure upon which the public depends and some protection and extension of rights for former slaves.
    These points made, as this article is over a year old, I'd say only politiwag editing wars have really made this stand out as an AfD. My logic isn't the editing as much as the novelty of organising a non-disambiguation page with little else to qualify it. With that point made, I'm not saying it's useless information, but when considering collective semiotic works, there may be greater potential in incorporating a page of political/philosophical cultural semiotics, or include an appropriate subsections to those pages. I feel the latter would provide greater value. Also, someone who was ACTUALLY seeking this information could seek an article along the lines of "Notable Publications Advocating Political Philosophies".
    As mentioned before, Americans will likely edit war even that article through every election. After which, they will look up Meatwad to see what he specializes in.
    Thanks for the background, Soman. The disambiguation point in my comment is not meant to negatively assess the intent, and I feel contributors can continue from the exploration of the term as part of a cultural semiotics sub-section to Socialism 173.242.89.38 (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC) EAZen: Never logged in, always contributing[reply]
  • Comment: This article (and the deletion discussion!) got a substantial mention on the May 1, 2012, edition of The Rachel Maddow Show. - Dravecky (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of the arguments against this page either center around "It's BS" or swipes at the right (and a strange, unsupported accusation of racism). The fact that the article is inconvenient for one side or the other doesn't change its validity. Is this any less valid than having an article on Macaca? Izuko (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the explanation above "The conclusion is that the term, or better said the name, has a specific place in early modern socialist discourse", I have not checked but have you created articles for Arbeiter, Genosse, or frei? I ask because it seems this article is simply focused around the idea that some words, actually that one word, had a political meaning at one point. Interesting, to be sure. However, many words take on political meanings, does this fact merit an individual article? While I invite that for consideration, I'm not voting either way, I just came to know about the article. I would say from the little I read, I would not encourage a blanket delete. The information seems at cursory glance to be properly sourced. It may need another home, but it does not seem to be simply conjured for some unknown purpose.
As to a link to the link above of show that brought me here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#47256402) the relevant portion should begin around 1 minute into that ending segment clip. She was jabbing at a political pundit using it as his sole source that the term "Forward" being used in an ad then means Obama is a socialist. She also poked fun, it seems, at the 'don't delete this' fervor that has come of it. As this interesting piece of historical trivia now rests, in the minds of some, as proof that a politician has anti-American motivations. 68.229.93.129 (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off Topic: Would someone explain to me where striking comments that are NOT your own is an acceptable practice? This appears to be tendentiously disruptive, but I'm willing to Assume Good Faith; however, if comment counts as vandalism, it should be treated as such. Striking out another person's comment on the whole of it would appear to delegitimize their point, valid or otherwise, and the actual interpretation is meant to be that of voluntary retraction or change, thus making the strike out vandalism, and at least two users at risk of uw-warn. 173.242.89.38 (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC) EAZen: Never logged in, always annoyed[reply]
    • Comment, because it is prone to vote-stacking and socking. Several of the different anon comments in this AfD are seemingly made by the same users. It is also always suspicious with users with no previous edits prior to an AfD, they are usually sock-puppets. If you wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, register an account. It helps a lot to maintain a dialogue. --Soman (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Who makes that decision? You? It seems like proponents for keeping the article are the ones have their comments struck out and then you justify it by further denigrating them. I have unstruck my vote as it is completely valid. If you wish to denigrate me further, I will elevate the issue. 214.13.69.132 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. NOT A BALLOT! That is not a legitimate point or logic. Furthermore, having followed up on previous claims regrading these points: I find no geographical or commercial proximity of the IPs compared and BabyDoc23 may have simply signed a name which that person might use elsewhere. Assume Good Faith seems hard for you if you can't back any of your claims justifying these activities. You either show actual evidence to the claims of an organised edit war, intent to deceive or an explanation that is aware of the phrase NOT A BALLOT, show an acceptable logic to claim vandalism OR identify the WikiPolicy that allows you to strike other people's comments in this context, or there may be a more aggressive review. 173.242.89.38 (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC) EAZen: Never logged in, seriously considering[reply]