Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatisation

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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 08:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croatisation

the subject is goes beyond POV is inflammatory, and represents propoganda & WP:POINT iruka 17:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Can you please explain yourself further? Why do you think it represents propaganda? Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion for expanded arguments. iruka 19:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I can't see that much of a POV. Croatization is a fact. Expand instead. --Húsönd 18:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - the same as Magyarization and Anglicisation.--Еstavisti 21:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As much as I hate any article that causes conflict between people we can't delete articles for being POV. We have notability guidelines that we follow and if you can provide arguments why this isn't notable then we can talk about deleting it. I hate nazism/facism more than anything but I don't AfD related articles because of it. I'm not saying these articles are a good idea but really there is only so much AfD can do. If you want articles deleted for other reasons than our policies you have to go to ArbCom as far as I understand. We just look at how the article fits with our policies. MartinDK 23:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I agree with the above, but would add that we certainly can delete articles for POV if that is the principal thrust of the material. The real question is whether this actually exists, since WP is here to reflect, not create. Eusebeus 01:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The major thrust of the article is POV and WP:POINT as can be seen by the choice of examples (pls refer to this stubb's discussion page). It is WP:POINT because it represents a minority trying to push a particular line through the use terms such as Croatisation as opposed to encyclopeadic terms such as assimilation and integration. I also believe the creation of a separate stubb as opposed to expanding discussion in existing stubbs such as Demographics of Croatia or Ustasha or Croatian War of Independence, has the objective of agenda setting outside the oversight and scrutiny enjoyed by said articles. iruka 03:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If the choice of examples is flawed, the solution would seem (to me) to be as simple as adding other examples. You've mentioned yourself the case of the Brazilian footballer who is now a Croatian player, and that would seem to be a perfectly legitimate addition to demonstrate a situation in which non-Croats becoming Croats can be done in a relatively benign manner. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the term in the title (that is highly politically charged) and the use of a separate stubb that are the issues. The examples cited merely reinforce the agenda setting motive and WP:POINT.

As I have stated on the discussion page, I am not objecting to the discussion of the term in the wider context or social integration and assimilation and said examples on the appropriate page such as Demographics of Croatia or setting up a linked paged to the Croatia page titled History of Social Integration in Croatia. Certainly you would agree that it is a far more NPOV title that accurately reflects both benign and non-begign examples and would remove the WP:POINT. iruka 04:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree. The phenomenon itself is generally called "integration" or "assimilation", true. What this particular page is about, though, is integration/assimilation/whatever you want to call it as it applies to Croatia - or as it applies to non-Croats becoming Croats. I don't agree that renaming it would be more NPOV, since I'd argue that ~isation isn't POV to start with. The only reason that it appears to be POV is that there are some perhaps poorly-chosen examples and citations in this article as it currently stands and that issues of ethnic identity around the Balkans are always thorny issues. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think te reference to the Balkans is a red herring. The issue I see it is twofold.

• the use of ~isation term. I see it as POV because they are amorphous and poorly defined (see Anglicisation example in post below); and it is predominantly used as a politically charged term by fringe nationalists whereas the majority will use terms such as integration and assimilation;
• the creation of a separate stubb instead of covering the issue in existing stubbs that are more appropriate, the use of a politically charged term in the title and unsubstantiated examples, makes it look more like just an extra vehicle for pushing a particular fringe view. It is for this reason that I see it as WP:POINT iruka 14:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, since there seems at least to be a perception by some that these things occur - that the "some" are ardent nationalists representing other countries (Milosevic, for example) is neither here nor there for the moment). There's considerable room for expansion, as there is in most "-isation" articles in parts of Europe where the borders have been a bit fluid over the centuries, and as with any other article on Balkan politics this one should be watched very carefully, but there's no reason to delete it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment The term ~isation is WP:POINT and unencyclopeadic. The term & it's POV nature can be discussed within a sub-article on Demographics of the country of interest or an article on Social integration or assimilation. Notions of fluid borders and consequences belong in an article of same name, as an example, Border history of Serbia. Setting up a separate stubb is agenda setting - pls refer previous comment. iruka 03:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, although I can see where you're coming from. The term ~isation is largely value-neutral. Anglicisation, one of the other articles cited here as a comparison point, simply talks about the process of making that which is not English, English. It's a recognised phenomenon, as the article demonstrates. Likewise, any other ~isation is just about making something which is not already X into something which is X. The reason why I made the comment about countries with more fluid borders is that Croatia (or Ukraine or Hungary or wherever else we want to talk about) has historically expanded and contracted and as a result has been in a position where it could make non-Croats into Croats much more easily than, say, Papua New Guinea has had to make non-Papuans into Papuans. Additionally, because the borders have been relatively fluid even quite recently, we do run the risk of having POV information added more readily than we would if we were talking about making non-French people into French people. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree - the terms are politically charged. Take for example the term Anglisation - what does it mean? What does turning non-English to English person mean. If I was Asian; when am I considered Anglicised, by policy makers, general population and myself. Is it when I receive an English eductaion? Do I have to convert to Protestanism? Is it an English accent or acceptance of "English values" (whatever they are). Is it culinary i.e. I must be able to appreciate fish & chips and a good curry? Or perhaps be a fan or black pudding?

This is why we use more broad terms such as assimilation or integration into the mainstream. It is because it is difficult to define precisely what ~isation is, that it is politically charged, a fact reinforced by looking at the groups that use the term.

I think the discussion of fluid borders is a red herring on this issue. Indeed, in Croatia's & BiH's case at least, it has not been as fluid as presented & indeed been relatively stable over the last couple hundred years since the treaty of Karlowiz in 1700's that defined the crescent shape that Croatia still has today. iruka 04:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand The article needs to be expanded to make it more balanced. It does not violate WP:POINT and it is not an attack page, hence we cannot delete it for being POV. If this is notable or not you really need to look at how many examples you would be able to find and of what importance those events are/were. Much of the above debate really should have taken place on the talk page rather than here. If you feel that Croats are being singled out with this article you might want to consider starting related articles for other countries. Also remember that WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. MartinDK 08:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment You may also have a look at Anti-Croatian_sentiment just to compare what is being kept here and what it is you want us to delete... MartinDK 11:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't see the connection WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND has with this case. As explained above, the issue is two fold - 1. use of a politically charged term for the title - I would argue that any ~isation article should be deleted or merged into corresponding demographic section for given country subject; 2. the creation of a separate stubb (instead of covering in relevant existing stubbs), the choice of title and examples, leads me to believe that purpose of the stubb is to push a particular propaganda line - for this reason I see it as WP:POINT. I'ld appreciate it if you could explain why you don't see it as WP:POINT, and if my reasoning is flawed, point out where it is so. Also, what is the relevance of the Anti-Croatian_sentiment stubb. If it contravenes wiki rules then it should be subject to the same criteria and resolution process. iruka 14:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment You are reffering to WP:POINT when you mean WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. WP:POINT is about not using the Wikipedia system such as policies and AfD to prove a point. That is disruptive when people do that (like keep taking the same article to AfD). What you are reffering to above is WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND which I agree with. Articles should not be propaganda but you should also make sure that you apply that policy in all cases and not only when it is of benefit to youyr own views. Assuming good faith I know you would never do so and would view this fairly no matter what but it is a dangerous path for us to take because it allows a whole wave of possible AfD's on the same premise. I showed you the other article to show you how much it takes before an article is deleted. That article would most likely also make some people offended. If you want to merge the article then do so. You don't need to go to AfD to do so. MartinDK 15:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Poor nomination. POV issues should be sorted out within the article. JASpencer 22:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Croatisation indeed oh-so-much-exists - but is it notable enough to have an encyclopedia article? Think about it. --PaxEquilibrium 18:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, though let's try to keep the tone neutral. WMMartin 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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.