Talk:Code name Geronimo controversy

Merge, Keep or Delete

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

---

The Merge proposal seems to have kind of petered out. The following are the suggestions that were made.

• Merge into Death of Osama bin Laden - Since it is has to do with Operation Neptune's Spear, not Osama bin Laden's death.
• Delete - Not notable enough
• Merge into Reactions to the Death of Osama bin Laden - Not notable enough

If there is no further feedback, I'm going to put this Article on AfD, since it isn't notable enough on its own, and doesn't exactly fit anywhere else.

Homo Logica (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Merge How exactly is it non-notable? The coverage in news articles is more than enough to prove notability of the subject. The information currently available is far too expansive to place into one of the other articles, it would be a violation of WP:UNDUE, thus it should stay its own article, with a short summary style section in other articles. Silverseren^C 00:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually have any objections to its notability. There was a near consensus in the discussion, however, that it was not. My sole point was that it had no business in the Reactions article. New point is that it should be resolved one way or another :-P.

Keep for now Personal opinion is that we wait and see. My only sense on it is that it might fall under WP:RECENTISM. Only way to tell that, though, is to wait and see. If no more comes of it, I would say to compact it to bare essentials, find a relevant article (probably one on Native American relations with the United States), and merge it in there as an example.

Homo Logica (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and don't merge. It is WP:Notable in itself and is not a reaction to Bin Laden's death, but rather use of the term "Geronimo" in the mission. It is not like Wikipedia is running out of space.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

While I agree it should be kept for now, I do feel it necessary to point out that there are potential problems with notability coming up. The general criteria are: WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSITY. Now, we can certainly get a diversity of sources. No question there. However, examining the others, it comes up quite short, at the moment. There is no evidence that this will be a significant catalyst for anything long-term. It is confined to the United States. There is no in-depth reporting on the issue, though, that's a matter of degree, and thus arguable. By the general description under WP:INDEPTH, though, it does not meet the criteria. And I think it is most likely that the topic will never be heard from again in another week.

However, as is indicated, this can, oftentimes, be difficult to accurately determine so soon after an event. It is possible that it will lead to a reform in the military, or that it becomes a case study in Native American relations. That's why I would hold off judgement for now. I do want to point out, though, that the entire event seems to stem from one or more reporter's speculation about what Geronimo meant. That would decrease the likelihood of both WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE.

Homo Logica (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep for now - I started to wrote up something and realized it would just be restating what Homo Logica wrote. In my mind, the use of "Geronimo" is a high profile example of the continuation of the suppression of a culture or ethnic group. Initially I was thinking of suggesting a merge into Stereotypes of Native Americans but that article is headed in a different direction. Cultural suppression is another potential place for this. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

In looking further, this may be a real flash in the pan. The news for May 2, 2011 has 14 articles, 70 articles on May 3, 2011 and then zero articles since then. Using 'Geronimo Obama' it's, 10, 69, and then zero. Am I doing this right? Obama mentioned Geronimo on 60-Minutes on May 6th. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Potential sources = "Geronimo + Bin Laden" = 6,990,000 results in google. "Geronimo + Bin Laden" = 2,240 results in google news.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:GHITS. A large number of Google hits does not give notability, and even if it did, that's still a small number of hits. Homo Logica (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There are more hits for "Geronimo + Bin Laden" (6.9 million) than just "Geronimo" by himself (5.8 million).  Redthoreau -- 15:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not looking so much at the total ghits but trying to see if this story had run its course in the media by looking at the number of articles per day.The search I did returned results that did not make sense to me. I just did a general news search and there are articles as recent as 15 and 18 hours ago.

This article changes the story and now the claim is that the goals were lettered A, B, C, D, E, F, and G with "Geronimo" being the code word for step "G". --Marc Kupper|talk 10:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

While continuing to point out that WP:GHITS does not give notability, I do feel it important to point out that the claim that "Geronimo + Bin Laden" gives more results than Geronimo is logically false, and evidently false. Geronimo gets 26,000,000. Worth pointing out.

Homo Logica (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Merge into Death of OBL - There was a fairly clear consensus to delete or merge two weeks ago. The subject hasn't gotten any more notable since then. Brmull (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete or at least merge to "Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden". This isn't notable enough to have it's own article and as it stand now it's fringe opinion from fringe sources. V7-sport (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Which of the sources are fringe exactly? Reuters, perhaps? Or maybe the Associated Press? Oh, I know, The Washington Times! Silverseren^C 21:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge Notable on it's own with enough references and sources that see it as this. IQinn (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep/Oppose Merge Personally I think the whole controversy is just silly and shouldn't need an article at all, but such as society goes "everyone is a victim somehow" might as well keep the article since it does meet notability criteria and doesn't directly relate to the death of OBL. MrCrackers (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge into Death of OBL. Not notable enough for its own article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Merge This was a minor controversy, a blip on the radar. There is no ongoing coverage of this issue. It is worthy of a paragraph or two in the main death article, but having its own article is preposterous to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• Merge into Death of Osama bin Laden. Relevant to the article about the death, not notable by itself. I agree with Muboshgu above and I think WP:RECENTISM applies. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - The controversy continues to receive direct coverage. For example, here is an article from one week ago: "The code name for the operation to kill Osama bin Laden was 'Geronimo'" National Review 6 June 2011. This is in the print edition with the article poking fun at people for making a controversy about the use of the Geronimo's name. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • We consider the National Review to be a reliable source? I don't. It's conservative opinion and will surely bash Obama any chance they get. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • What do the merits of NR have to do with this? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
      • It's the only "source" Marc Kupper mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
        • You're talking about them bashing Obama, they were defending an Obama-approved operation. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Can you show the quote from NR that you plan to use? I don't subscribe. I'm skeptical about this article. The reader clicks on the link in Death of Bin Laden thinking there's going to be more to the story... and really there's not. On the other hand the info in the Geronimo article is outdated so if someone wants to work on something that would be a good project. Brmull (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
            • In the first week after OBL's death the media was giving coverage to anyone who claimed the remotest connection to the incident. In this case the "connection" was that some people did not like the choice of code name and there was media coverage of or about the complainers. This Wikipedia article was created. Last night I decided to review my earlier "Keep for now" to see if it should by delete based on WP:RECENTISM and a complete lack of coverage or if there's a better case for keep or merging. With that in mind, I used the GALE Cengage media (news & magazine) search to see if there had been any coverage since May 21, 2011 which is three weeks after the operation and starting the day after my previous search of the media for coverage. I was working my way through the news articles and thought I had a good case for Delete. For example, this mentions the controversy in passing and this article seemed like a perfect place to mention the controversy but it didn't. When I saw the Daily Review article I decided to not change to a delete as it was an example of coverage dedicated the Geronimo controversy.
              
              While the Daily Review article is not freely available on-line many people should be able to read it. I saw it via my local public library's AccessMyLibrary subscription to GALE Cengage. FWIW, it's not an Obama bashing piece nor even bashing the democrats. Something that can be useful as a direct quote is "The name of the ferocious old Apache chief (1829-1909) has long been favored by the U.S. military as a call sign or exclamation in moments of great daring." --Marc Kupper|talk 17:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Merging this would be too long and too difficult to read the article. JMBZ-12 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Merge into Death of OBL. Not notable enough to have article and more related to death of OBL than not.--MOLEY (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge:Unifying this article with the other one would simply make the other article less navigable. The article is also notable from what I can see. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Systemic bias template

Added the template for systemic bias. On reading the article, it goes unmentioned that "Geronimo" is a phrase that has long history in US military culture - there is even an article on Geronimo (exclamation) on Wikipedia. Yet this article has almost no reference to its long history and honorable associations in US military slang or culture, focusing almost exclusively on a small number of aggrieved activists.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:BC5E:84AB:9C0F:57F5 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not what systemic bias is. That's just you disagreeing with the sources. Because you haven't shown that any significant reliable-source perspectives are omitted here, I have removed the tag. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)