Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. TL;DR. AfD is for deciding whether an article stays or goes, not for whatever happened on this page. Would recommend starting a new AfD with that in mind. -Scottywong| chat _ 20:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gligor Zisov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I didn`t find any source on the internet (Google Books, website etc ) about this person and I don`t think that this person is notable according to the policy for people here in english wikipedia. It`s an article with many problems (POV, verification of citations, strusture etc.) Vagrand (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The source provided for the creation of this article is the last book from Professor Blagoy Shklifov - На кол вода пиехме, ИК "Изток-Запад", София, 2011, ISBN 978-954-321-961-2. It is based on different stories of Bulgarian eyewithnesses about the events in Northern Greece between 1912 and 1927, which were recorded from Professor Shklifov. One of them is the story from Zisov. Jingiby (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The link that you provided is from a blog. Was this books published ? The almost reliable Dimitris Lithoxoou doesn't mention any fact about accrocities at Aposkepos neither at Vasileiada (Zagoritsani) in this period [3].Vagrand (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is part from the book published online by the publishing house Изток - Запад. Jingiby (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't read Bulgarian. Could you please verify the year of this event descripted by person. II think that the year is wrong cause the village was destroyed on 1903, after the Illiden uprising, by the Ottoman army. Another fact is that Kastoria was liberared from the Τurkish authorities on November 1912. The presence of the Greek army this year does not seems right, when the front at the 2nd Balkan War was in Eastern Macedonia.Vagrand (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably there was garrison as in every other village, same as greek troops in city of Kastoria, Thessaloniki, on islands or elsewhere. So works every army in case of military occupation. Do you need source the Wehrmacht dispached troops in Aegean Macedonia or Thessaly during World War II, no matter they fought on Eastern front, Northern Africa, Western Europe, etc.? I don't see anything wrong with the article and i will vote with "no" for it's deletion. --Подпоручикъ (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can not. There is only the beginning of the book. The cited in the article pages are not included. Jingiby (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There were Greek troops in this part of Macedonia during the Second Balkan War. Just one example - in July 1913 the Bulgarian revolutionary Vasil Chekalarov was killed by Greek troops (and Greek andartes, too) near Drosopigi, Florina (Bel Kamen).--AKeckarov (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Drosopigi and Polykeraso are not in the same side of the mountain of Verno (Vitsi). The article still can not fulfill the criteria of the encyclopaedia of life and the text lacks references attesting to the biography and the historical events that took place. And we still don`t know any other fact about his death, why he was send to Zagoritsani, why the other 8 persons are not mentionned anywhere, the month of the execution and the most significant WHY this person is significant.--Vagrand (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2nd Balkan War started on 16 June 1913. According to the article, Gligor Zisov was killed in the period between the two balkan wars.--Vagrand (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the article Zisov was beaten by Greek soldiers In May 1913 "on the eve of the Second Balkan War". It is said that "soon after" he was arrested and killed, but there isn't a date or some other benchmark - before or after 16 June. How do you know when he was killed? Are you have any further information?--AKeckarov (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You questioned the presence of Greek troops, pointing out that the Greek troops at that time were in Eastern Macedonia. I answered: "Not only in Eastern Macedonia (in Western too)" and prove it. (I can add more arguments for that).
- The article referred to a serious source: a book by a recognized professor, a specialist in this region. In this book, Professor Shklifov used one of the approved methods of modern research: interviews. More than one of his informants confirmed the facts about the teacher Zisov. It is true that it is better to add more sources, but it does not make the information false.
- Which "other 8 persons"?--AKeckarov (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perchaps it`s my fault. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources:
- On the article now, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (WP:Identifying reliable sources#Overview)
- Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.(WP:Identifying reliable sources#Questionable sources)
- Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.(WP:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper)) [The book was published after the death of the author Blagoy Shklifov who died in 2003. The book is published (?) in 2011. I think his works are not accepted by the most historian or scholars of balkan studies.]
- As for his father, *Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves (the bold is not mine), especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 5 the article is not based primarily on such sources.(WP:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves)
- Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.(WP:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources)
- Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.(WP:Identifying reliable sources#Quotations)
- The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.(..)Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.(WP:Identifying reliable sources#Academic consensus)
- The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it.(WP:Identifying reliable sources#Usage by other sources)
- Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest.(WP:Verifiability#Sources that are usually not reliable)
- As for the POV issues of the article:
- Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views.(WP:POV#Explanation of the neutral point of view)
- Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity.(WP:POV#Explanation of the neutral point of view)
- Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.(WP:POV#Explanation of the neutral point of view)
- Thinking of quotations: The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. (WP:POV#Article structure)
- As for the accessibility of sources
- When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote.(..)Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations.(WP:Accuracy#Accessibility) [Note:Sources must be translated in English, keeping in parenthensis the original title and the publisher)].
- challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest.(WP:Accuracy#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources)
- Οther thoughts:
- His father was from Aposkepos and lived their. But he did not witness the events. (The fathers author is one of the interviewrs). They are many accurancy issues (see version [4] before it was changed without providing sources) about if he was a schoolmaster (when he was the only teacher), if he was born in the city of Kastoria or not, the reason why he was arrested in the end, if all facts are real when their is not other sources about the burning of the village in 1913 (, the beating of the Bulgarian school teacher, the presence of the Greek army in the village, and the killing of residents of Zagoritsani including Gligor Zisov. The second quotation arw POV as the beating of the teacher could discribed in one phrase. The part I watched all this, wondering if a mother could have possibly birthed such animals. is an example of it. There are σομε things that I cannot understand such as why a teacher of Bulgarian language who didn`t educated or studied in Greek (?) was forced to teach in Greek, why he said that Greece and Bulgarian were allies when their was war among them (2nd Balkan War), why he was not executed (;) in first place, why he executed in the end and why, why he was sended to Zagoritsani, if the Greek soldiers had orders to torture Bulgarian teachers if they refuses to teach Greek or to execute civilians in Zagoritsani and the most significant, why he was send back to Polykeraso to teach in the school as an example.
- --Vagrand (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the fault is mine, because I didn't show you previously that I am familiar with this policy. Then you could avoid part of these quotes - some of them are pointed even twice. There is a term "Primary source" in Wikipedia. Primary sources are permitted (“primary sources are permitted if used carefully”). We have here a primary source used by scientist, specialist of this region. Of course, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". So, if you find "interpretive claims" etc. you are free to mark them in the text and discuss. It is always better to find more sources and to point not only the facts, but also to improve the interpretations.
- If you suggest that we have here "poor reputation" of the source etc., you should prove it. Also, if you suggest that these sources are extremist (or even widely acknowledged as extremist?!?), you should prove it. Of course, then you will need to discuss whether Carnegie endowment for international peace. Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan wars, Published by the Endowment Washington, D.C. 1914 is "extremist" too. (There are facts there about many atrocities of the Greek army on the eve of and during Second Balkan war. They have been identified by an international committee with representatives of the contemporaneous Great Powers.)
- What that means: “I think his works are not accepted by the most historian or scholars of balkan studies.” You think so? And which scholar?
- I don’t understand this: "As for his father, Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves ..., especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 5 the article is not based primarily on such sources…” Which father? Do you remember my words that this Wikipedia article is based on the on the interviews of more than one contemporary?
- You are right here – “Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject”. Let's see what are your suggestions for improving phrases. Or maybe you can propose some different view for this person and his life?
- Regarding this “When quoting a source in a different language” – We have three times quoting the source. In two of them the quotes themselves are in English. I'll try to improve this gradually.
- Which “many accurancy issues”? How of them do you try to improve? Or maybe you just not like this article because of other reasons ?
- Please dont be irritable. I dont access the book and I dont understand phrases of it, like how his was a schoolmaster in a one-teacher school, why the first editoer mentionned as place of birth the city of Kasroria, why he cooporatited at first with the authorities and then was exexuted, was he was at first sended to Thessaloniki (ie. report) but then in the village of Zagoritsani sth probably happened and he was executed, why he was simply beated and not arrested or jailed if was a member of the Bulgarian agent, why they didn't execute him at first but after, who said that he was Bulgarian and not Slavophone, Macedonian Greek or what ever, if the bodies of militia had orders for these events etc. I cant edit an article if I dont have access to the book or the text has many open issues.--Vagrand (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not irritable. I just don't understand why do you writing things that have never been included in the article. Let's start one by one. Where the first why the first editor mentioned as place of birth the city of Kasroria? His/her first edition was Zisov was born in the village of Aposkep. If you are claiming otherwise, please give a link.--AKeckarov (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, be more accurate about some facts:
- Where did was written in the article, that he was born in the town of Kastoria?
- To begin with, the first author of this article, had a internal link to the city of Kastoria [5] and his name was added from him in the city`s article [6]. So the fist writter how had access to the book considered his place of birth the city of Kastoria.--Vagrand (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the first author had put wrong internal link in the article, but there wasn't assertion in this article that Zisov was born in the town of Kastoria. The incorrect link was put for the region where he was a teacher. We are talking only about wrong link (and incorrect term for Kastoria region - it was in Bulgarian "Kostursko"), not for assertion that he Zisov born in Kastoria.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Above you wrote about some "other 8 persons"? I asked you “Which other 8 persons"? I see no response.
- I answered that. See in my first line.--Vagrand (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Vagrand, I can not find the answer about these 8 persons. Can you help me?--AKeckarov (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Perchaps it`s my fault.".Period. Search this phrase with Ctrl + F.--Vagrand (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I still cant not find the answer why 8 persons?--AKeckarov (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What burning of the village in 1913?
- It was mentionned by a user in the Bulgarian wiki. I sould not mention it here.--Vagrand (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Maybe it's better not to mix the two debates or when we quote something from the another debate, to indicate it.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ι agree with this. The village was burned in 1904 for the first time for Makedonomahoi and for the second time in 1946 (Greek Civil War).[7] Vagrand (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can not explain certain facts, please ask. I’ll explain what I can, but if we can't understand something that does not make the information in the article false. So:
- You wrote: “ … why a teacher of Bulgarian language who didn`t educated or studied in Greek (?) was forced to teach in Greek”. I will not go into an explanation of educational struggle between Greeks and Bulgarians in Macedonia, but I will offer you one possible explanation - it is on page 44 of the book, where, describing Zisov conversation with the Greeks, is pointed that he knew Greek.
- This is only an ypothesis, no source says that he know well Greek, that he was able to teach this language, then it was katharevousa, more difficult Greek and almost all greek teachers were educated in Athens.--Vagrand (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is good to raise hypotheses, the problem is that these hypotheses are intended to image the information in the article as false. So, the information isn't false - we have a source that this teacher from Aposkep knew Greek. (By the way, off the topic - Can I ask do you have some statistics what percentage of the Greek educational staff in Macedonia was educated in Athens? We have some examples for the contrary.)--AKeckarov (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Its a difficult period for my to find sources. But I know many examples of Greek teachers, like Konstantinos Tsioulkas, who educated in Athens primarily and Constantinople with scholarships). Where is that source that he knew Greek?--Vagrand (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure that there were many Greek teachers educated in Athens. I mentioned above the source about Zisov's knowledge of Greek and the page.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You wrote: “why he said that Greece and Bulgarian were allies when their was war among them?”. I have to ask you, did you read the article that you criticize. It is clearly written: “… on the eve of the Second Balkan War”, i.e. before the formal dissolution of the Balkan Alliance.
- Their was not a formal dissolution of the Balkan Alliance, the alliance broke up with the unexpected attack of the Bulgarian army. As for the "alliance" before the start of the 2nd war, bulgarian rebels was entered in Greek Macedonia.--Vagrand (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I said exactly this. The formal dissolution was later, in June 16th, so it is logical that in May 1913 Zisov refers on Allied Relationships between 2 nations.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How can to countries, after a war, be allies, when guerillas were formed?--Vagrand (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two countries were allies until June 16th 1913. There were repression against the alien population, even armed conflicts (at Angista (bg:Бой при Ангиста)) in May 1913 etc), but until June 16 the two countries were allies.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You wrote “…the most significant, why he was send why he was send back to Polykeraso to teach in the school as an example. Who state that he was send back to Polykeraso to teach in the school?--AKeckarov (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None. The phrase says that he was sended (from the Greek army?) back to Polykeraso. To do what there; Why they sended him there and when? Ι dont have access in the book but all seems to unclear to me.--Vagrand (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes the problem is that you do not have access to this interesting book. He was sent to Chereshnitsa to serve as an example for the locals - edification (εποικοδόμηση I think), intimidation, not to teach anybody.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He was send back "to serve as an example." I still dont understant this, its seems unclear. Intimidation in Greek meens εκφοβισμός, Zisov was send to back to teriffied who? Edification meens διαπαιδαγώγηση, so Zisov was send to back to educate people. What you meen, he cooperated with authorities and after he was executed ??? Pour l'amour de Dieu (Για όνομα του Θεού in French) what happened realy?--Vagrand (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You said it yourself - to terrify the local residents. He did not cooperated with the new, Greek authorities and and therefore he served as an example of what happens to dissenters. Maybe the word "bound" in the article is not very clear. It is clear from Shklifov's book that his hands were tied and thus he was back in Chereshnica by the autorities.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn`t said for any author that he is an extremist, sorry but you said. (And please don't prejudge people). As I said I think that the author of the book Blagoy Shklifov is not cited in any article of english wikipedia or Google Books ([8] [9]) for the general aspects of slavic speakers in Macedonia or the history of the area. In my opinion (that is not part of the discussion because is my personal thought and cannot be used as an argument in wikipedia, when we speak only whith arguments based on the policy), an historian in the end of 20th centunry when he says that all slavic speakers (absolutist view ?) of the region nowdays are Bulgarians and modern Macedonian [sic] language is a Bulgarian dialect, those are not seems accurate for me who I grown up in this area and I read some books about the history of Macedonia.--Vagrand (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you did not say anywhere that the author is an extremist, then, in what context you put these long quotations above for "sources .... widely acknowledged as extremist"? Maybe I should not comment them? I think if we start to express our personal opinion so extensively, there will be no a big progress i this conversation.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I told clearly that is my personal opinion and that's it, I kept the layout clear.--Vagrand (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your personal opinion. --AKeckarov (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For those how can read Greek or Bulgarian, (for Greek the translation of Bulgarian wiki in this blog [10], for the text in the bulgarian wiki bg:Черешница (дем Костур)) the teacher of Polykerasos was Vasilef Traptsef and the name of Gligor Zisov is not mentionned.--Vagrand (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is another mistake: It is pointed clearly that Kuzman Vasilev Traptsef was a member of Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Volunteer Corps, killed in March 1913. Not teacher. How long will we continue with this kind of "arguments"? --AKeckarov (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the name, my false, other person. "Αυτοί είναι ο Αριστιντ Νταμιάνοφ, Βούλγαρος παιδαγωγός.." "(Menbers) were Aristid Damianof (could be translitered in Greek as Aristides Damianos), Bulgarian educator..."--Vagrand (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. The important here is to know that after the Ilinden Uprising Aristide Damyanov (bg:Аристид Дамянов)) emigrated to Bulgaria. At the outbreak of the First Balkan War he was in Bulgaria and joined as a volunteer in the Macedonian-Adrianople volunteers. I.e. he was not in Chereshnitsa and teaching position was vacant.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability[edit]
All the evidence that we have so far is that there was a Greek military section in the village. We have also some oral testimonies about the beating of the teacher (which is original research by the author of the book), and there is no information about his death that can be verified from other sources. He is not an historical figure because he was a victim (witch is not verified from other sources) as some other who where killed in accrosities of all parts (Greek-Bulgarian-Muslim, accordind to the Report of the International Commission), and nothing something more. He is simly a case of Non-notable.
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]
- Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.(WP:Notability (people)#Basic criteria)
Ref [4]: Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject.(Ref.4, WP:Notability (people))
I think is clear to all of as that this person (Gligor Zisov) was not a notable figure. Gligor Zisov was not mentionned anywhere (Глигор Зисов Глигор Зисов Gligor Zisov Zisov Gligor)The are not in the internet or Goolge Books reference [11] any other reference besides the book of Blagoy Shklifov (Благой Шклифов), witch AKeckarov told that he has access to it.--Vagrand (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither in the University of Montreal (Université de Montréal) database where I can access to many online puplications.--Vagrand (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory Zisos (Γρηγόριος Ζήσου ή Γρηγόριος Ζήσωφ) if we could ascribe his name in Greek, is not encyclopedic (notable) because he was killed by Greek soldiers, but because there are no sources that mention him as a person who participate in an event and because of this is notable. A injustice death of a person do not make him notable.--Vagrand (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What that means: "which is original research by the author of the book"? The author of the book (who uses this interviews) was a professor, academic scientist who had worked in Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, University of Szeged (Hungary), Sofia University etc.
- Regarding the place of the teachers in Macedonia in the beginning of XX century, there is a MA thesis by Julian Allan Brooks with the significant title "Shoot the Teacher!" Education and the Roots of the Macedonian Struggle" ([summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/10178/etd1944.pdf]). The place of teachers in uneducated peasant part of Macedonia is not the same with the place of the teachers in contemporary England, France etc. As Julian Allan Brooks state "In the villages of Macedonia the teacher was all there was for an intelligentsia. Thus the teacher symbolized the modernity of peasants cherished..." (p.175). "Teachers were the sole intelligentsia in many places" (p. 9, note 12)... You can read there that the role of these teachers is significant not only from the POV of the education and culture, but from POV of the policy, clerical situation etc. As many other teachers Zisov was a was a leader of the residents of Chereshnitsa and the fact that you can not find additional information about him do not make the information untrustworthy.--AKeckarov (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can a linguistic make a research about the slavic language of the Kastoria (Kostour) area without knowing a single word in Greek ? [12]And to answer what you stated, I should remind you the influence of Catholic Church in many countries, like France, till the late 1960s. Teachers were affiliated and educated from the church. Should we make an article for all of them ? --Vagrand (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't understand how do you know that Shklifov did not knew a "single word in Greek"?!? I can argue, but here more important is that he made many Slavic researches, not researches for the Greek language itself.
- Regarding the other argument, we can not compare in this way the level of education and especially the society role of the teachers in the country of "citoyen" - France in the twentieth century (and even earlier) and the situation in uneducated, peasant part of Macedonia - haunted by transnational and religious feuds. Please, read the work by Julian Allan Brooks pointed above. Of course, there are other sources, too.--AKeckarov (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To sum up, what according to the policy (notability of people) makes him notable? And after please vote, above the comments, because is the 7th day today.--Vagrand (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think that I explained my position. Of course, Gligor Zisov was not some greatest person, but he was a leader for this village in Macedonia at a time of great changes and tests. As many other educationists in comparable position - whether they were Bulgarians, Greeks, Serbs, Aromanians or others. As I pointed, one position in different eras and geographical regions have different weight.--AKeckarov (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Of course, the article needs significant improvements.--AKeckarov (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources[edit]
Greek army presence in Tseresnitsa (Polykeraso) and general mention about killing teachers and priests in Kastoria (Kesrie) Area[edit]
Some days after Mr. Venizelos's declaration, the heir, Prince Constantine, became King of Greece (March 6/19).
The effects of this change made themselves felt on the relations between the Greeks in occupation and the indigenous population. We may begin our examination of these relations with Castoria. From the beginning of the occupation, the authorities there pretended to ignore the very existence of the Bulgarian population... The Bulgarians were not
"Christians" in "our sense." The Greek bishop of Castoria received the deputations sent to him from all the villages, and was in fact the center of this active assimilation. The evzones played the part of apostles in this conversion at the bayonet's point. As examples we may cite the villages of Gabreche, Drenoveni, Tchernovitsa, Tourie, Ragoritchani, Dembeni, etc. In the villages of Breznitsa, Gorno and Dolno Nestrame, all the inhabitants were thrown into prison and driven thereby to call themselves Greeks. The reply given to a man who said he was a Bulgarian was : "Wast thou born at Sofia ; there are no Bulgarians in Macedonia; the whole population is Greek."... Victory secured in the villages which were disarmed, then came the turn of the intellectuals, the Bulgarian clergy, schoolmasters and officials. A number of persons whose names and cases are cited in the documents in the possession of the Commission, were arrested, beaten, put in prison and even killed. The Bulgarian Metropolis of Castoria was, at first, ignored by the authorities so far as its legal institution went : then cut off from the population under severe penalties for any communication; and finally, about the beginning of June, formally blockaded by twenty or thirty soldiers and searched by the police... We have also sufficiently complete data on events at Vodena (now called Edessa). Our informant there, as at Castoria, remembers how the Hellenic army entered in triumph on October 18/31, amid cries of joy from the population. Each house harbored ten to twenty soldiers, freely and without asking pay, and the town distributed gratuitously 6,000 okas of bread per day. The time had not come of forced requisitions, without receipt, demanding everything without allowing any merit to the giver, who had to obey. Ten days later, the Greeks were beginning to say, "We shall cut your tongues to teach you to speak Greek." They began confiscating private property, and sending things they liked to Greece; furniture, cattle, etc. The churches and schools were immediately taken, the Slav inscriptions destroyed, the offices burned, the priests beaten and driven out. Then began the arrest of influential persons in the different villages,
such as Vestchitsa, Tsarmarinovi, Piskopia, Arsene, St. Elvas, Vettecope. The soldiers said to the notables in prison in Vestchitsa, "If you want to be free, be Greeks."
(bold text is mine, two type mistakes: Wast thou born at Sofia to be read as Was you born at Sofia and Ragoritchani - Zagorichani; text taken from "Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan War" (1914) by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, p.197-199 [13]). --Подпоручикъ (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The Balkan wars were commonly a nasty business. I am quite prepared to believe that the Greeks were not kind to a Bulgarian minority (and probably vice versa). One result of the conflicts of the 20th century and the rise of the nation state in Europe has been to gather people of a single ethnicity in one country. The collection of eye-witness statements by academics is a legitimate variety of research, commonly known as oral history. Sometimes the results of such research do not make pleant reading for the perpetrators and theri descendants, but that does not make them untrue. Personally, I would have preferred to see a more general article dealing with the subject as a whole, before we got down to the biographies of individual victims, however heroic. Here we have an issue about propaganda, as I am sure that the Bulgsarian authorties particualrly in the Communist era would ahve made the best they could of anything to the credit of theri own and the denigration of a capitlaist neighbour. WP requires reliable sources. Self-published works are frowned upon as close to WP:OR. On the other hand, peer-reviewed works, whether books or articles, are normally good sources. Since I do not read Bulgarian (or even the Cyrllic alphabet). I am not qualified to judge. This article does cite a source. Until some one can discredit that source, I would suggest that he article should be kept, but I know lilte of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you thing that Gligor Zisov is notable according to notability of people; Because here in this wikipedia discussion, we examine the notability of the person.--Vagrand (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify that my intent in putting up this article was to translate an existing one from Bulgarian wiki, because I thought it was worthy of preservation for an English-speaking audience, not simply a Bulgarian one, whose language, I confess, is rather obscure to the rest of the world. I would like to keep regional propaganda debates out of it, for as Peterkingiron has stated, the Balkan Wars were a nasty business. What is important to note is that as far as we know, Gligor Zisov existed, and the accounts given describe true events. For this reason, I would like to see this article kept, until a broader article of the events following the First Balkan War can be produced, which will contextualize the article I did my best to translate. --C3august (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2012 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The reasoning provided by JFHJr and DGG pushes the consensus to delete as they offer the most compelling and policy-based argument, even though the keep/delete votes are numerically similar. It has not been convincingly demonstrated that this individual passes WP:GNG or WP:PROF, despite the walls of text provided here by various SPA's. -Scottywong| babble _ 21:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Klemen Jaklic[edit]
- Klemen Jaklic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails WP:GNG and more importantly WP:PROF
Criteria for inclusion from WP:PROF
- 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
- 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
- 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE).
- 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
- 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
- 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
- 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
- 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
- 9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
Support as nominator The subject in question seems to fail each of these criteria. So far there is nothing to indicate that any sources have found this subject's academic work to be notable. The fact that the subject holds multiple degrees from prestigious universities does also not confer notability unless we have RS reporting on this facet. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
1.) Venice Commission members are "senior academics, particularly in the fields of constitutional or international law, supreme or constitutional court judges or members of national parliaments". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Commission Klemen Jaklic also referenced there. The Venice Commission and the European Court of Human Rights are two two highest institutions of the Council of Europe. Membership in those requires mention and is one of the highest honors in academia. See membership list (Deans, former Supreme Court Judges, etc).
2.) Harvard Law School, Faculty member http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/handbook-faculty/2011-12/2011-2012-faculty.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
3.) Author of notable opinions/decisions by this leading body (The Venice Commission) on common european standards in electoral law. See eg http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2008/CDL-AD(2008)037-e.pdf Mcsngrca (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Mcsngrca — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
4.) Notable public figure. National TV Interviews such as http://www.rtvslo.si/odprtikop/vecerni_gost/ddr-klemen-jaklic/ Mcsngrca (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Venice Commision members are not inheritly notable. In fact they are appointed memmbers and the membership satisfies no criteria in WP:PROF Where is the published opinion you cite referenced by a RS? That is what makes this and all academic work notable.
- There is nothing notable about being on the faculty of Harvard and/or Oxford
- A single (was it only one?) showing on TV does not make the case for notability. Multiple apperances (with context) would certainly help however. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His work on democracy won the Harvard 2011 Mancini Prize ("best work in the field of European Law and European legal thought"). https://ces.fas.harvard.edu/#/people/profile/jaklicMcsngrca (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Moreover, national TV interviews and appearances in debates are many and widespread. His appearances also widely discussed. See eg http://blog.kvarkadabra.net/2012/08/neizkoriscen-kapital-slovenije.html or see many more on the web Mcsngrca (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Members of the Venice Commission are no less elected than members of National Academies. In both cases an appointment is made first and, based on that appointment, a vote is taken by the body itself to either confirm or reject membership. Now you can call this either appointment or election, but the process is exactly the same. And the rank as well. There is no higher honor for a European academic in the field of constitutional law. This is well known among legal scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) 22:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
In addition, this is a top academic society of Europe. According to point 6 of the criteria for WP:PROF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROF) (see above) a person who is EITHER "elected or appointed" meets this requirement. Mcsngrca (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You also asked for RS regarding the study on the electoral thresholds that Jaklic authored for the Venice Commission. Here you go one RS (out of several): http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=the-venice-commission-favors-3-5-percent-election-threshold-2010-02-16 Mcsngrca (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The key is The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. of which the RS you cite makes no mention. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The person is explicitly named as the author of the study of the Venice Commission's official opinion on electoral thresholds in that very opinion (see p 1 of the opinion cited above under point 3.)). The report in the media then specifically refers to, and discusses the importance of, this same opinion by the Commission authored by this person. Therefore, it is this person's research (as the very author of the opinion) that has made that significant impact. Mcsngrca (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Besides, I gave you the example of Mancini Prize ("best work in the field of European law") that was awarded to this person by Harvard University. Cited above. An award by Harvard for the "best work in the field of European Law and Legal thought" in and of itself constitutes proof of "significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline". And the Harvard Center for European studies, where this is mentioned (cited above), is a reliable sourceMcsngrca (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The last I checked an award from Harvard is not an an national or international academic award. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 00:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Harvard is a global university in its reach, student body, faculty and fields covered, and is officially ranked world's number 1 university. Any award from the top university in the world that is a global player is in and of itself considered an international award of the highest rank.Mcsngrca (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC).
In addition, appointment to the European Commission for Democracy Through Law (The Venice Commission) is likewise itself "a highly prestigious academic honor" at the "international level". The Commission is, again, not a national body but a Europe-wide body, actually one of the two highest bodies of the Council of Europe comprising of the most notable academics, former Supreme court judges, Deans, and the like. If this does not qualify then nothing does. Mcsngrca (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- There might be a case for the Venice Commission, however it is not an academic society, but an advisory council of a political nature. And once again an award from Harvard, no matter what their standing or global reach does not meet the criteria under WP:PROF
More accurately: "The Venice Commission is composed of “independent experts who have achieved eminence through their experience in democratic institutions or by their contribution to the enhancement of law and political science” (article 2 of the revised Statute)." Mcsngrca (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcsngrca (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Regardless if the VC is comprised of little green men from Mars, it is not an academic society under WP:PROF, and even if it were, there still needs to be sourcing specfically about this subject's acumen/ little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While appointment to the Venice Commission may not meet the letter of WP:PROF criterion 3, it meets its spirit in that it constitutes recognition that the appointee is considered to have achieved eminence in this field, and also meets criterion 7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their [sic] academic capacity." Remember that this is not a bureaucracy, so we follow the spirit, not the letter, of policies and guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:PROF. And the award from Harvard is not a national award, but an award to a student, stating "the Mancini Prize is awarded annually to the student writing the best paper..." He is considered "local affiliate faculty", not even on the full faculty list. Jaklic is not listed on the Venice Commission's website as a current member. Hardly notable. GregJackP Boomer! 11:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. According to his CV (on file with AALS, Association of American Law Schools) he was the recipient of, among others, the Fulbright Research Scholar Award (national). Mcmlacademic (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC) — Mcmlacademic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. Appointment (past or present) to the Venice Commission itself confirms highest "academic eminence". It constitutes the very recognition of that, otherwise cannot pass their muster. In the leading Slovenian daily (Delo) Jaklic has recently been described as "the most eminent Slovenian legal scholar abroad" http://www.delo.si/mnenja/blog/ne-racunajte-na-nas.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.225.120 (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC) — 140.247.225.120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. This legal scholar is an eminent academic, and this biography should be kept. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I think the subject falls short of WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:PROF. As to the latter, I agree with the reasoning put forth by both Rosetta and GregJack. WP:PROF can't ride on claims in a CV, or WP:INHERIT notability from the Venice Commission alone. I don't see any non-academic impact that's actually significant, either. JFHJr (㊟) 06:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete academic in early stage of a career. Awards are fellowship awards, not senior awards, indicating promise, not accomplishment. The most eminent Slovenian legal scholar would be accomplishment, the most eminent Slovenian legal scholar abroad is not, especially when he has gone abroad for advanced training. The award asserted, the Mancini prized,is an award for student writing. [23]. The emphasis on this is the proof of non-notability. Similarly being an Affiliate of the Harvard University Center for European Studies is not notability, in contrast to being a Member of the center. The claimed status as a Harvard faculty member is a lectureship for one term, the lowest of the academic ranks, a temporary position, not tenure track or even with any expectation of an eventual tenure tack appointment. Being awarded two law degrees is not notability; it's being a diligent student. Rereading the arguments above, I am beginning to wonder about a possible speedy deletion for G11, promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nice CV, but does not meet WP:PROF. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThe Venice Commission reports that Jaklic was a Fellow of the Justice, Welfare and Economics branch of the Weatherhead center for International Affairs at Harvard University during 2003-2004. This is a highly notable academic group of carefully selected Fellows that was, during that year, lead by its founding director, Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen. Membership in the academic society led by the Nobel Laureate, the Venice Commission membership, the Fulbright (national) award, the fact of holding two PhDs from both top ranked universities (itself a rarity in academic world, and discussed by several RS), and the like, make him, it seems, known by other academics (RS) as “the most prominent Slovenian jurist abroad” http://www.delo.si/mnenja/blog/ne-racunajte-na-nas.html. In my view it is the cumulative effect of the multitude of factors that makes the case for his notability stronger than just a narrow focus on this or that single factor alone, or the focus on non-seniority criterion (though note that the Venice Commission confirms its members are selected from “senior academics” who have gained “eminence”. It might be easy to dispute one criterion, but hard to do away with the cumulative picture for notability. So agree with Phil Bridger (talk): "Remember that this is not a bureaucracy, so we follow the spirit, not the letter, of policies and guidelines". Also, I would feel uncomfortable replacing the Commission's judgment ("emminence", "senior academics") with my own.140.247.225.129 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — 140.247.225.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
-->
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Even after a renaming and intense editing (culminating in an edit war and page protection), opinions are divided between those who want to keep the article because they believe that there are sufficient sources to establish this as a notable topic, and those who object to its contents on WP:POV and WP:COATRACK grounds. Given the evident lack of consensus, all that remains is for me to determine whether any of the "delete" opinions are so compelling as to mandate deletion in the absence of consensus. That is not the case, because the defects that the article has been argued to have and that have been given as reasons for the article's deletion can generally be remedied by editing. Sandstein 15:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Islam and censorship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I fail to see how the article reflects the religions stance on censorship and I think this is perhaps one of it's biggest failings. It just seems to be a hodgepodge of statements about what certain fanatically religious Muslims have done. These issues have already been covered in many other articles, such as Theo van Gogh's murder and Depictions of Muhammad. The article seems more slanted in that it gives undue weight towards "Muslims and Censorship" rather than what Islam has to say (this obviously violates the neutral point of view). Having articles on Christianity and Censorship and Buddhism and Censorship would seem equally mad. Furthermore there are numerous issues with (poorly) used sources and original research. For example in the lede:
- "Some Islamic societies have religious police, who enforce the application of Islamic Sharia law" - Violates WP:OR as only Saudi Arabia is mentioned. There are at least 50 Muslim majority countries, it seems strange only one is mentioned. [43] [44]
- "In non-Islamic countries, Islam has often been cited as a reason for self censorship. Sometimes this self censorship is because of threats of violence" - Again it's original research as nothing is mentioned in the source. Nowhere does this appear.
- And the section on "Censorship in Non-Islamic Countries" has little to do with Islam and more so the actions of deranged zealots, and specifically for a murder case and other related crimes.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to create an article on Islamic societies and Censorship rather than Islam and Censorship, because as far as I am aware the religion does not condone censorship save the depictions of Muhammad alone. To have an article on this statement alone seems rather silly. Granted that a religion forbidding drawing Muhammad seems rather stupid and childish, it is the only piece of censorship in Islam I can find. Furthermore it's already covered in Depictions of Muhammad. It would be far more appropriate to create Islamic societies and Censorship as a lot of the material regarding censorship can be moved there (minus the European incidences of course since these societies are not Muslim in general). NarSakSasLee (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Wasn't aware of WP:COATRACK. Seems like a good reason for deletion. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. My first response was keep and clean up, largely because we have articles summarizing the history of censorship in various countries and this seemed similar. However, I think the coatrack concerns carry the day in this case. A list of crimes by extremists that follow a particular religion is certainly POV, and state-sponsored censorship can be handled with equal quality and less controversy in the country-specific articles. VQuakr (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Country specific articles seem likely the place to write about the issue of censorship with respect to Islamic beliefs. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambivalent: Topic is notable, the phenomenon of Islamic censorship is real and important, but the sources should be scholarly, not just a mishmash of press articles. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article does not deal with the religion and that's simply the biggest problem. There doesn't seem to be any censorship in the faith except for drawing Muhammad (which is already covered here). NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My very best wishes (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither "the Western sense" nor any other sense of censorship refer to actions by individuals against content they dislike. There is no possible way in which the murder of Theo van Gogh or the reactions to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons constitute censorship. Censorship is suppression by an authority. (The Satanic Verses thing would count, but we have an article on that; without demonstration that an actual topic exists, there is no reason to copy it into a new article with the goal of demonizing Muslims.) Rather than claiming WP:ITEXISTS because of X, Y, and Z invalid things, please provide sources which concern the ostensible article topic. (News incidents of censorship by Muslims or in a Muslim country are not sufficient, as VQuakr and NarSakSasLee point out.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to disagree, but there are many books specifically about Islamic censorship (please see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) starting from book "Censorship in Islamic societies". You tell: "Censorship is suppression by an authority.". Yes, exactly. That's how it's accomplished in Islamic societies for centuries. By authorities.My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a point at which you or the other keep voter here intend to add any of these sources to the article? WP:NOEFFORT notwithstanding, this article has no content; it just briefly summarizes an existing article. This suggests that if we should have an article on it, WP:TNT may be the best route until such point as it contains any content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All right. As you suggested, I quickly looked a few sources. Some of them, in particular the book "Abuse your illusions: the Disinformation guide to media mirages" does claim that violent attacks and murders by Islamic activists represent Islamic censorship. But it will take some time to properly research and source. Please do not revert my edits. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that there is a related CfD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_13#Category:Censorship_in_Islam. This main article at least has the advantage of being less problematically named (imo) with "...and...", in that it doesn't suggest that it addresses censorship within a single entity "Islam," rather than a faith is that is interpreted and applied very differently. I'd point out that there is an equally poor section on Islam in Censorship by religion. I'm also a bit concerned that much of what we are terming "censorship" by religion may often be better described as heresy, which has its own category tree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be correct for societies where Church was separated from the State. Not so in Islamic societies if they are ruled by the Shariah Law. Fight with heresy conducted by the State becomes censorship, just like during Spanish Inquisition. My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment False dichotomy I'm afraid. Shariah law seems changeable since it's based on the interpretations of the Quran and other such holy texts in that particular religion. The religion has nothing to do with censorship as has been rightly pointed out by another user, more so blasphemy or heresy. Again, it's one of the reasons why I proposed "Islamic societies and Censorship" rather than having this article which can only be written about "not drawing Muhammad" (as silly as that sounds...) which isn't exactly censorship. NarSakSasLee (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is WP:N. It is more then simple governmental censorship. "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body." There have been several attempts at censorship by various organization other then the government and also calls by groups to censor material. The recent film on Islam is one example of censorship, for example. Casprings (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Censorship in Islamic countries, or by extremist groups not in charge, are functions of Governments or extremists. Issues of censorship IN Islamic countries are obviously therefore best discussed in relation to the COUNTRY, rather than associating the religion IN GENERAL with censorship. The article as presented is a WP:COATRACK to paint a religion with a broad brush. Also, the issuance of a fatwah against someone in another country may have a chilling effect on speech,an effect similar to censorship, but by definition, since the issuer has no authority OVER the individual, it is not strictly defined as censorship; there is a threat, not an effect of law. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC) (user changed his vote, please see below My very best wishes (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- The agents of Islamic censorship are sometimes not government, but religious organizations. I started fixing this... My very best wishes (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I started making some improvements [45]... My very best wishes (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Clearly a notable topic, POV issues can be solved by regular editing. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hell, why stop there? How about generalizing Israeli censorship law into Judaism and censorship? Then there's work to be done on Buddhism and censorship... Not to mention the ever popular Zoroastrianism and censorship... And that's just the start — we can have a whole panoply of unencyclopedic original essays asserting connections between religions and censorship! Carrite (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to disagree, but Censorship by religion is a mainstream concept. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are reliable sources discussing a topic, we should cover it. It's unfortunate to see you resort to such crappy arguments, Carrite. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Recent edits to the article continue to demonstrate the inability of "keep" voters to find a topic here. Of the material added by MVBM, the vast majority is not censorship, and the rest are at present "incidents" that clearly would be better in country-based articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You suggested to actually improve the content (see above), and I started doing just that. But it takes time. Since you prefer to revert my edits without discussion at article talk page, I can only stop editing and wait until the end of this AfD discussion. I do not want to waste my time if the page is going to be deleted. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Such edits would not magically become appropriate if the article were kept; instead, they would demonstrate that deletion would have been the better option. You would be better off trying to improve the article, so that more people might want to keep it, instead of making it worse by adding irrelevant coatrack content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - MVBW - the article again fails to demonstrate how ISLAM (ie the religion) censorship's anything. Blasphemy and heresy are not forms of censorship. Governments can censor things but not religions - even Fatwa's which are religious rulings can't even said to be censorship since they are not law. You've simply added the same nonsense as before more or less. It's clearly violating WP:COATRACK. A better idea is to rename the article to "Islamic societies and Censorship" since things can be added to it for individual countries. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, I renamed article as you suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no, you didn't. You've named it something worse. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've weeded out the bits that seemed not to refer to Islam in general. But honestly I'm surprised no one has listened to what I've said above this comment. Honestly it would suit the article more. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a rename, this book looks like it would be very helpful if we took that focus. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, I think that mass removals of sourced texts about Islamic censorship with OR edit summaries like "actually that would be political censorship counter to the revolution not of Islam" (?) during AfD discussion to prove that subject does not exist is a little pointy. My very best wishes (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it kind of hard for it to be coatrack when you have a series of academic articles written on the very subject? To list a few:
- Heroes Or Heretics: Religious Dissidents Under Islamic Law, 14 Wis. Int'l L.J. 349.
- Law And Religion In Israel And Iran: How The Integration Of Secular And Spiritual Laws Affects Human Rights And The Potential For Violence, 19 Mich. J. Int'l L. 109.
- Palestinian Christians: Equal Citizens or Oppressed Minority In a Future Palestinian State? 7 Or. Rev. Int'l L. 26.
- Of Prophets and Proselytes: Freedom of Religion and the Conflict of Rights in International Law, 49 Harv. Int'l L.J. 249.
- Universal Versus Islamic Human Rights: A Clash Of Cultures Or A Clash With A Construct?, 15 Mich. J. Int'l L. 307.
- All of these were found using the search terms of "international religious censorship" on Lexis. GregJackP Boomer! 15:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Original essay. Generalized religions do not have specific censorship policies. Here's the lead: "Some Islamic teachings and arguments have been used to censor certain opinions and writings in Islamic countries..." Any other subjective perspectives you wanna jam into this thing by any chance? Carrite (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Recent edit-warring by keep voters to put into the article non-censorship and non-Islamic censorship - in short, to create as long a list of incidents unfavorable to Muslims as possible, regardless of sources or policy - continues to demonstrate that WP:TNT is the best possible option even for users who believe that the sources will support an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - would that include "edit-warring" by delete voters who are removing sourced materials? Why don't we wait and see what the consensus is first? GregJackP Boomer! 18:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tend to agree with you that most of this article is crap, coatrack, an attack page, but now that the Name has changed, there is a least a possibility of an NPOV article. It is not presently even close, but that could be changed by editing. Censorship in Islamic Societies would include moderate regimes, or non-majority countries, such as India, where the sensibilities of Muslim citizens are given deference, and how Islam INFORMS censorship law.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I do not really understand why this article was challenged. We do have article Censorship by religion, and this is a part (a sub-article) of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the article is a coatrack for promoting Islamophobia by synthesizing irrelevant incidents. I've also removed some irrelevant material from other religions' categories, and I'm skeptical about some of the material that (currently) remains in the article, largely because it lacks sources to confirm that this was actually censorship. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you telling that religious police in Islamic theocracies does not conduct censorship? My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm telling you that sources that merely attest the existence of religious police, like the BBC source that you've previously tried to restore, are insufficient. This seems pretty obvious, really. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then let's improve sourcing. But the subject does exist and can be sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the purported qualitative differences from other forms of censorship sufficient to justify this article are firstly overblown (I suggest that if the editors supporting this were to investigate suppression in 'western' nations with as much fervor they would find qualitatively similar cases, and an examination of Soviet suppression would perhaps highlight even greater similarities) and do not to my reading require an independent article at all, but secondly and most importantly the article in its current form is a thinly disguised attack piece editors are trying to work around and we would be better served by blowing this one up and starting over if the consensus is that it is neccessary for Wikipedia to have an article on this subject.--Talain (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good example of a blatant WP:COATRACK that this article COULD attract; the Libyan embassy attacks. No censorship has thus far happened in what the editors thus far refer to as an Islamic society, but there are threats to civil liberty (though for a stupid and insulting film) in THE USA. Whether you would presently consider the US an Islamic society.... for whatever reason.... that is where the potential censorship would happen.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete [This commenter is the nominator, whose vote is assumed to be delete –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC) - I've somewhat changed my mind again. I thought I was convinced by the user "my very best wishes" and Greg but from their edits it's more than obvious they want to include individuals who censor stuff (ie ordinary protestors) when this actually isn't censorship. I tried to work to see if the article could be relevant, and change, but we already have "censorship by religion" to cover the Muhammad drawing case (including other numerous articles on this subject that's been done to death). The religious police stuff (since there aren't that many Islamic theocracies - only Iran and Saudi Arabia would fit into article) would also contribute a small amount to the article. Sources are also unverifiable. Also what's this nonsense about inserting weird quotes such as "She was arrested by "men with big beards ... saying they wanted to kill her"" - mob justice is not censorship especially for a case as in Sudan. The article still seems a bit of a mish mash and directed towards "those nasty Muslims". In this way I suggest a reddirect to "depictions of Muhammad" since only drawing Muhammad is considered a sin within the faith. Suggesting "Islamic societies and censorship" wasn't even taken seriously. The user changed it himself to fit in a WP:POV by re-writing it as "censorship in Islamic societies" which suggests something worse that Muslims are censoring stuff within their own communities. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think you suppose to vote "delete" and two times "endorse" as an AfD nominator. There is a book with precisely same title as this article, along with other books about the same [46]. Yes, I think that some of your comments about specific sources and phrases are not unreasonable. This should be fixed if article is kept.My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nar; looking up the non-extreme examples (ie not talking about the Taliban or Iran or the KofSaud), like Nigeria, or Indonesia, or Indian law's accomodation of Islam, and their extra provisions for depiction of the Prophet, they very much resemble US hate crime laws. Am just working this up, but they have very different approaches to speech provisions; if the crap can be trimmed, that might be worthy of inclusion, and would give balance to a very stilted article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Islamic law is obviously very different from US constitution. Yes, what Islamic law means on practice vary from country to country. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per whomever above said Censorship by religion is a mainstream notable subject, and this subtopic is well-sourced enough to be, too. —Cupco 01:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a blatant coatrack article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A significant part of the nominator's rationale has been dealt with: the nominator suggested that instead we should have an article on "Islamic societies and Censorship" rather than "Islam and Censorship", and indeed the article has been moved to Censorship in Islamic societies, which is exactly what the nominator wanted. Other aspects of the nomination are really reasons for editing particular details of the article, not reasons for deletion. For example, ""Some Islamic societies have religious police, who enforce the application of Islamic Sharia law" - Violates WP:OR as only Saudi Arabia is mentioned." Well then, edit that particular sentence. The essential thrusts of most of the remaining "delete" arguments seem to be (1) "this is about how particular muslims interpret islam, not about what islam really says", and (2) "this is a coatrack article, collecting together various unrelated things". In answer to (1), so what? There is certainly a good deal of censorship done, in which islam is claimed as a justification. That is a well-documented and notable fact, and whether it is the "true" interpretation of islam is a question for muslims to debate. Even if we were to accept the point of view that it is not "true" islam, that would not mean that the phenomenon does not exist in the real world, and we should not censor the fact that it does because we take the point of view that it is a wrong interpretation of islam. In answer to (2), no it isn't. There are numerous facts which are connected by the fact that they involve censorship, and by the fact that islam is cited to justify that censorship. That is a very real and genuine connection, and documenting the connection is not coatracking. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just noticed that the nominator, after suggesting "would be more appropriate to create an article on Islamic societies and Censorship rather than Islam and Censorship" and seeing that indeed the article has been moved to Censorship in Islamic societies, instead of welcoming the change, regards this as a bad move, using the words "something worse". Have I missed something? Unfortunately I fear there may be a danger that some people could see this as suggesting that the nominator is just trying to find pretexts for deletion. Is there some deep significance in the difference in wording between "Islamic societies and censorship" and "Censorship in Islamic societies"? If so, it is lost on me. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the current title is better, but I do not really object to moving it back or changing to something else. Except it would be a good idea to suggest exact title and discuss. But I think that would be easier to discuss as "suggested move" at article talk page, rather than during AfD.My very best wishes (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:POVFORK. Already covered in other articles about fundamentalist Islam, specifically when it relates to depictions of Muhammad. And those articles are written using far more objective criteria, versus the tenuous links endorsed by this topic title. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Perhaps name it Censorship by law, violence, or harassment, in the name of Islam or something more fitting. The article shouldn't have been renamed to include in "societies" since the censorship affects things worldwide. Something is done that offends them in America, their leaders can rile them up, and they go insane and start committing violence against people not even remotely connected to the event. Dream Focus 14:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So instead of maintaining the article such that its content adheres to the title and the ostensible topic, you're suggesting broadening the title to something meaningless so that the unrelated coatrack information looks like it belongs. Way to go. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that something like
Censorship by Islam Islamic censorship would be unreasonable. The censorship by religion has been described in numerous RS. This is a form of censorship where freedom of expression is controlled or limited using religious authority or on the basis of the teachings of the religion. This form of censorship has a long history and is practiced in many societies and by many religions. Examples include the Edict of Compiègne, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (list of prohibited books) and the condemnation of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. (sorry for copy-paste). My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Islam" does not censor people. (Nor do "Christianity," "Judaism," "Communism," etc.) We could write about censorship described in the religion's texts, we could write about censorship motivated by the religion or exercised by a religious authority, assuming users can provide sources, but we will not write about every incident of violence against a writer and claim it's censorship because the perpetrators are Muslim. (It's been my impression that the censorship by religion page is analogous to "X by country," not to "works by Mark Twain.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure they do. The Encyclopedia of Censorship has an Index entry of "Religion (religious censorship). See also The Bible; blasphemy; heresy; specific headings, e.g. Catholicism" and then lists 18 separate entries, not counting the see also entries. As an example, the Roman church was notorious for its censorship. GregJackP Boomer! 17:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
- OK, I can see your point and corrected. But I also agree with GregJackP. If the subject was in Encyclopedia of Censorship, it should also be here.My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote change to Keep Due to change in title. Let me stipulate that I agree with almost all points Roscelese and NarSakSasLee have made. It is a terrible article. It has WP:COATRACK within it, there are multiple editors adding criticisms of Muslims or the actions of some Muslims as censorship, when they clearly aren't, plus there is a confusion between the actions of autocratic regimes (which, whether secular or religious, always censor free speech) with their religious character. The question I now ask myself is not whether it is a good article (it isn't) nor whether the article as written violates WP principles (it does), but whether an article CAN be written on the subject. I also agree that to get there, it has to be mercilessly slashed, but falls short of WP:TNT.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect the belief that there could be an article on this topic, but I think that editors like you, who think there may be a topic but that there's basically no content here worth keeping and that the behavior of users promoting the article is inappropriate, can perhaps agree that WP:TNT may be the best option. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Understand the rationale behind WP:TNT, and this article is close. Might be persuaded down the line, but AfD and RfCs are actually (though painfully slow) setting some limits on the article. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator. During this deletion discussion several people improved this article to this version, but it was reverted back to version existing prior to AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You could also say that the article was dragged down to that version, which is even more of an irrelevant coatrack than the original. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure that closing administrator can look himself at this version and decide if the chapter "Limits on freedom of expression in Islamic societies" was relevant to the Censorship in Islamic Countries. I have no idea why you removed this chapter. Of course this is still "wrong version" that needs improvement. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, do note that the author there found it difficult to write about censorship proper/alone in such societies and instead chose to title it "Limits on freedom of expression". Deciding what's censorship and what not from that would be pretty much WP:OR. Note the acrimonious lack of consensus on that issue on the talk page. Using "censorship" as an euphemism for more brutal ways (including murder) in which freedom of expression can be curtailed/violated is extremely silly and a WP:NPOV/OR violation too. (Amusingly, the editors attempting to expand the article with everything under the sun don't seem to realize that they're insulting the victims of the more gruesome acts by cataloging such acts as mere censorship.) Tijfo098 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. If you've got to come up with some contrived "limits on freedom of expression" so you can catch-all anything Muslims did that you dislike, you are demonstrating that you do not have a topic, or at least that if there is a topic, you are incompetent to edit it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. So far, it is nothing but an attractor for random Islamophobic noise. I see little chance to develop the article into something useful - religious influence on secular affairs always has to be properly contextualized (compare Matthew 5:38–5:42 with the Crusades and Gott mit uns). Concentrating on just one property of societies that censor is like having articles on topics like "murders by the Scottish" or "annoying body-odors of Christians" - by careful application of confirmation bias you can surely find plenty of sources to suggest a strong relationship between the elements of the pairs of topics, but this is not a useful approach. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and better work on Human rights in contemporary Islamic societies (note the lack of any section there on [limits on] freedom of expression). That is the topic that this article is creeping towards anyway. Someone being killed after saying something is not how censorship is normally defined. There's also a long list of incidents in Freedom of speech versus blasphemy#Islam (which also covers events outside Islamic societies proper), so there isn't much that's missing from Wikipedia. And look how pretty censorship by country is too... Tijfo098 (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is only about the depiction of Muhamed. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not surprised that people vote "delete" because almost all reasonable content has been removed from this version by someone who most actively argued for deletion and was engaged in sustained edit warring in this article to prove their point. My very best wishes (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not like you and Greg actually added any significant amount of material that was actually related to the topic, and people can always view the history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:GNG --Nouniquenames 15:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources being? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my pleasure to introduce those 11 numbered sources currently visible at the bottom of the page. --Nouniquenames 06:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- O'Reilly Factor, a cartoon blog, another agenda-based source that's irrelevant to the supposed subject, a lot more sources that are potentially reliable but quite irrelevant. Good job, but please try harder. (Likewise some of the history sources - reliable, but relevance is important here and is not demonstrated.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is currently not very good but that seems to be because of there being too many cooks and lots of edit warring. Our editing policy is to persevere and improve the content. Better sources exist such as Censorship in Islamic societies - a reasonably respectable book-length treatment of the topic. Finding and working from such sources is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Note also that I'm here because the matter was raised at ANI. Warden (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain how you would improve the article? The linked source may be fine, but until someone does the legwork of including it, we have one notable incident which is more than adequately discussed in multiple existing articles (the Satanic Verses thing) being used as a coat-rack for coats that aren't actually censorship but that do serve the aim of demonizing Muslims. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first thing to do would be to topic ban the disruptive editors who have been edit warring. When the field has been cleared so that cooler heads can prevail, I would add sober and scholarly content from sources such as that one. I'm not holding my breath though. Wikipedia is poor at handling controversial topics of this sort but it is our policy not to exclude them. Warden (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are plenty of sources in the article.So its meet our requirement for notability.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC).And also like I noted there are plenty of sources out there--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Over half of the sources in the article are supporting a single incident which can only questionably be described as censorship, and a number of the sources are not RS-compliant. You're not even trying, are you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This issue has become far too controversial in the last couple of days. I'll let the community decide on the outcome. I'm happy to do that. It looks like I missed lots of information in the last couple of days to become too involved in it again. My primary concerns were the small incidences of extreme behavior that were in the article and the massive amounts of irrelevant and unsourced information, that should not be in a wiki article since it blatantly violates WP:COATRACK. As far as I see it you can only talk about one thing and that's depictions of Muhammad. Honestly that's about as far as I can see it's gonna get. Someone needs to work on work consensus. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If there is a topic to be brought forward here, what we see today is not it. I am sympathetic to all the "keep" !voters who recognize that there should be a topic written about the kind of censorship that is found in Islamic culture. Such an article would be good. However, that article is not what we have in front of us. That article would have a different title, and different text, and different references. How much should be kept or renamed? Nothing. That is why I say the article should be deleted. Somebody who has read scholarly sources about Islamic censorship should write the article anew, under a new name. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You might want to look at the article history. Everytime a scholarly source was introduced (i.e., peer-reviewed journals, etc.), Roscelese deleted it. That's why the article is locked right now. It's kind of hard to improve the article when one person can ignore consensus and edit-war it into its present condition. GregJackP Boomer! 04:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument would hold water if the sources you added gave any sort of support to the text you added, but they did not. For instance, you added the text, "In 2007, the Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case demonstrated the censorship effect of Islamic blasphemy laws with the arrest, trial, conviction, and imprisonment of British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons in Sudan." This text was backed by the scholarly article "Defamation of Religions: The End of Pluralism?" The source calls it a case of the exercise of anti-blasphemy laws, not a case of censorship. The same problem arises with your next cite, the scholarly article, "Defamation of Religions: A Vague and Overbroad Theory that Threatens Basic Human Rights". This article, too, does not describe the Sudanese teddy bear case as censorship. Your additions violated the guideline we call WP:SYNTH; they were not appropriate and they were to be removed by anyone paying attention. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor quibble: WP:SYNTH is actually a wp:policy. And those edits violate not only that but plainly WP:V being a direct misrepresentation of the sources. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
- It is extremely clear from the context of the article, for example, 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 69, at 73 the article states: " It is important to protect the individuals who wish to express those truth claims in a peaceful manner, without undue burden or censorship." [emphasis added] and 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. at 76 it states: "...international law provides for occasions of incitement to violence and recognizes that it is necessary to censor certain types of speech." [emphasis added] In addition, the article is cited in other articles to support the same position, that the actions amount to censorship, such as: "There continues to be debate about what this actually means and how States can enforce laws meant to prevent giving offense to what amounts to a collection of ideas and beliefs." 2010 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 635, 663, citing Graham 23 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 69. I could go on, but the source does not have to state it explicitly, unless of course one cannot think beyond the explicit text. No policy states that it has to say so explicitly, and it does not come from separate sources as required by WP:SYNTH. It comes from one source. The same thing with the second source. In the second, in the same section as the Sudan case, the source states: "there is a broad range of "permissible" limitations on the freedom of expression so as to preserve the majority religion's freedom from religious injury." [emphasis added] 2010 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 635, at 674. Clearly censorship, and again, from one source, not multiple sources. Government action to suppress speech is in fact censorship, by any reliable definition of the term. See Merriam-Webster, which states that censorship is "the institution, system, or practice of censoring" and links to the following for the definition of censoring:
Act of changing or suppressing speech or writing that is considered subversive of the common good. In the past, most governments believed it their duty to regulate the morals of their people; only with the rise in the status of the individual and individual rights did censorship come to seem objectionable. Censorship may be preemptive (preventing the publication or broadcast of undesirable information) or punitive (punishing those who publish or broadcast offending material). In Europe, both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches practiced censorship, as did the absolute monarchies of the 17th and 18th centuries. Authoritarian governments such as those in China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and the former Soviet Union have employed pervasive censorship, which is generally opposed by underground movements engaged in the circulation of samizdat literature. In the U.S. in the 20th century, censorship focused largely on works of fiction deemed guilty of obscenity (e.g., James Joyce's Ulysses and D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover), though periodic acts of political censorship also occurred (e.g., the effort to purge school textbooks of possible left-wing content in the 1950s). In the late 20th century, some called for censorship of so-called hate speech, language deemed threatening (or sometimes merely offensive) to various subsections of the population. Censorship in the U.S. is usually opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union. In Germany after World War II it became a crime to deny the Holocaust or to publish pro-Nazi publications. See also Pentagon Papers.
- Clearly not WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR, and definitely not misrepresenting the source. GregJackP Boomer! 18:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does the source explicitly say it is censorship. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly not WP:SYNT. The anti-blasphemy laws and actions is the way the Religious censorship has been accomplished through the history. This is per multiple RS that can be found even by a Google search [49]. The religious censorship is usually performed on the grounds of blasphemy, heresy, sacrilege or impiety - the censored work being viewed as obscene, challenging a dogma, or violating a religious taboo. Defending against these charges is often difficult as some religious traditions permit only the religious authorities (clergy) to interpret doctrine and the interpretation is usually dogmatic. For instance, the Catholic Church banned hundreds of books on such grounds and maintained the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (list of prohibited books), most of which were writings that the Church's Holy Office had deemed dangerous. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The entirety of this response is original research from other sources to justify inclusion of this source which isn't explicitly on this topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think it's quite obvious that this is a legitimate subject for an article. There's a ton of sources that discuss Islam and censorship, from news to books to academic articles. Here's just a few quick news sources that took me a minute to find:
- Islam, Censorship and `The Satanic Verses' - Los Angeles Times
- Censorship and Persecution in the Name of Islam - Middle East Media Research Institute
- As fundamentalist Islam expands, some artists embrace censorship as a shield from society - Los Angeles Times
- Coping With Islam: Censorship in Dutch Academia - Canada Free Press
- A night not at the opera; Germany and Islam (A row in Germany about censorship) - The Economist
- In Egypt, artists bemoan censorship but see society as the real censors - Associated Press
- It's really not that hard to find sources on this topic. SilverserenC 07:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've responded on the talk page about ways these sources are largely unsuitable (unreliability, irrelevance). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There have been many Islamic societies over the centuries, ranging form the most liberal and enlightened to the most tyrannical and repressive. Certainly the majority of artistic censorship in those societies, if not political and ideological censorship, was justified, rightly or wrongly, by appeal to faith. See for example LGBT rights in Afghanistan#Censorship and Mahmoud Darwish#Views on Hamas. Deleting an article that can only be a coat-rack is legitimate, deleting one that might become such is putting the cart before the horse, and indeed would denude Wikipedia of the vast majority of its articles. Rich Farmbrough, 02:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- It's not about "might become" it was a coatrack at the time it was nominated and subsequent efforts to "improve" it have only made it more of one. I'll ask you the same question I asked Warden: how would you propose fixing the article, since the only "keep" !voters (and I specify these - I think there might be a topic there, but the content is not only worthless but actively harmful such that we may as well WP:TNT) who have edited the article have made edits that exacerbated rather than assuaged the deletion rationales? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Possibility of becoming a coatrack is not a legitimate reason to not have a frank and objective presentation on censorship. There is obviously a great deal of censoring of things because they offend the religious sensibilities of certain muslims. -- Frotz(talk) 06:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment to Rich immediately above, which addresses all the points made in your comment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Information Technology and Political Islam OUP p16 Guardians of Faith in Modern Times: ʻulamaʼ in the Middle East Brill p272 Censorship in Islamic societies Saqi The Challenge of Pluralism: Paradigms from Muslim Contexts EUP p21 Encyclopedia of Censorship Infobase p163 Darkness Shines (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you post the material from these books on the talk page? As I've said, the problem isn't that the topic doesn't exist, but that the article is total rubbish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stipulating so, this is a content dispute, and as such is inappropriate for AfD. Make my vote Keep, for the simple fact that this is demonstrably a notable topic, discussed in significant detail in scores of works, and so passes the GNG. (You may, Roscelese, spare yourself the trouble of writing a reply to this asking for a response from me. With WP:KEEPCONCISE in mind, your attempts to filibuster through rebutting over a dozen Keep proponents is unseemly. Yes, we get that you want the article deleted, and yes, we get that you agree with no position contradicting that.) Ravenswing 06:42, 26 September 2012 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
General Grubozaboyschikov[edit]
- General Grubozaboyschikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Failing WP:GNG, WP:JUSTPLOT, WP:V/WP:RS since 2007; I was not allowed to just redirect the article, was told I "should nominate them for deletion" instead. Niemti (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Many of the other articles on Bond characters recently nominated for AfD are about individuals who do not play a role in the plot, except as people in the background or incidental victims. They should be merged and redirected . The General is different: he does play a significant though minor role. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, he isn't ant different. That's all plot/trivia with no independent sources, about a character in a single novel. --Niemti (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a couple of extra references to this particular individual, as a quick search of Google Books and Google Scholar show. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look for appearances in any other James Bond media and/or merchandise, his influence outside of the franchise (inspirations or parodies), awards, top lists, etc. If there's nothing of that, than it's not a notable character at all. --Niemti (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that's what's on display in a number of the Books and Scholar references above. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citations needed. --Niemti (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Balls are citations needed. All I've done is point out that there are other sources of information: there are quite a lot of them and a number are exactly what Wiki aims for. Other people can look through them use them if you're too lazy to do it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And now you can use those other sources of information to show any proof of the character's independent notability (see above of what to look for, but I think it's unlikely, given it's a character that is only in a single novel, according to the article). Or "you're too lazy to do it" but that's not my problem. --Niemti (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mine neither. I have not supported or challenged the deletion: I have merely offered a number of third party sources which people can use and which any editor should have looked at before blithely sticking the AfD tag on the page. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia has no place for these minor, non-notable fictional characters. Put them on a Bond fansite. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Search in Google books [57] shows sufficient coverage by RS. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - All Bond-related reliable sources. One can make the same argument for virtually every character in the Bond universe. The character is unknown and non-notable outside of hardcore Bond/Fleming fans - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (As I couldn't have it just redirected.) --Niemti (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG, no coverage in Gbooks that goes beyond trivial mentions.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 01:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and then redirect to From Russia, with Love (novel) - Fails WP:GNG. If we use sources that are not independent of the topic, Wikipedia will no longer be distinguished from the rest of the internet. Since there are a few reliable source mentions of the topic, [58][59][60], redirect to From Russia, with Love (novel). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable third party sources, providing more than just a plot recap. There's nothing to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is nothing to demonstrate that the character has any notability outside of the single book he appeared in. All sources available are merely plot summaries, which is not enough to demonstrate notability for fictional characters. Rorshacma (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is a lack of significant coverage from reliable third party sources and is nothing more than a plot recap. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:05, 22 September 2012 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.