Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Romanian discrimination

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Closer's note: The scope of this AfD nomination is limited to the article Anti-Romanian discrimination only. It was not affected by nor should it affect the closing decision of any other AfD nomination of a similarly-titled article. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Romanian discrimination

Anti-Romanian_discrimination (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This article should be deleted along with all other Anti-X articles, for example anti-Hellenism, anti-Macedonian sentiment etc. It is full of WP:OR and cannot get any better. In the Balkans if we are to believe the Wikipedia articles everyone has discriminated against everyone else. And every piece of history is somehow discriminating or cast in a negative light towards some ethnic group. This is ridiculous. We essentially have a load of POV forks that contradict each other. Delete.

Alternatively merge into an article History of ethnic discrimination in the Balkans which would cover the subject in a neutral manner, split on a historical, not ethnic basis. - Francis Tyers · 10:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Note: Other articles in this deletion series:

  • Delete them all. But what about Anti-Japanese sentiment, Anti-Quebec sentiment, Anti-Australian sentiment, Anti-Pakistani sentiment, Anti-Mexican sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiments and so on? These articles are usually just full of edit wars, arguing, unsourced claims and such.--Svetovid 14:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the Balkan lot first, and then move on to deal with the others. Common rationale, repeated here for convenience: Articles like this are legitimate only in cases like Anti-Semitism where there is a substantial body of academic, third-party literature that discusses the phenomenon as such in its entirety (as opposed to simply individual events described as "anti-X'ist"). Otherwise the synthesis of such events constitutes WP:OR. Legitimate information pertaining to individual historical situations can be integrated elsewhere, for instance in articles on "History of X" or "X-Y relations". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hellenism. Tankred 19:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: The article is sourced and informative. Perhaps the title of the article should be changed, but the information gathered should not be throwed out. It took a lot of work from many people to collect all of this information. How dare you people suggest that it should be deleted? Perhaps a more suitable title would be "Romanian relation with hostile nations," but if such a title is to be adopted, then the edit history should be kept. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - an endless mountain of POV forks. And Anittas, if you think that hysterical personal attacks and threats such as the ones you just made angainst Francis will bring any sympamthy to your point [1], you couldn't be more wrong.--Aldux 14:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I checked your profile and I saw that you have relations to Chad, or are interested in the country. That reminded me of the time when Chad accused Romania of using its flag colours on its flag and demanded that it should change its flag. This despite the fact that the Romanian flag was created in the middle of the 19th century and that the colours used in the flag were used earlier than that; some say 17th century, others say even earlier than that. I think that we should add that to the article. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Svetovid and Future Perfect at Sunrise's arguments. And, of course, apply to all such articles in the future. Dahn 14:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:SYN. KissL 14:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - well-sourced description of a real phenomenon, though it needs improvement. Biruitorul 15:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: So, please clarify for us on what academic publication you are going to base the claim that the loss of "Estate" status of Transsylvanian Romanians in 1366 historically forms part of the same history of Anti-Romanian discrimination as the conflict with Tchad over the colours of the national flag that occurred in 2004? Unless you can find a reliable, academic source that mentions these two events as part of the same story, you are committing OR by presenting them together as if they were. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I will answer your question. This article is a summary and a collection of what we can find as discrimination towards Romanians. The Chad issue is not related to the discrimination of Romanians and will be removed. I added it there because Aldux ticked me off and I didn't know how to retaliate. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Then the point still stands. Just replace "conflict with Tchad" in the paragraph above with "issue over Moldavia and Transnistria". Where's the academic publication linking that to 1366? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
There are academical sources on the matter. I have read some of them myself. However, in this article, due to a few incompetent editors, the sources were not added to the article. Therefore, as I have stated here, all unsources material should be removed. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Academic sources on the matter are rare enough that we can invoke WP:IAR on this one, and let readers judge for themselves whether the phenomena are connected. Biruitorul 16:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That's the most bizarre assertion I've seen on AFD in a long while. IAR never beats WP:V and WP:OR. If reliable sources don't exist, the obvious and only solution is not to write an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
          • As far as I'm aware, WP:IAR trumps the other two. If you can show the contrary, I'd be glad to admit error. Biruitorul 17:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Are the sources that we presented not enough to have an article kept? And how do we know that IAR nevet beats the other stuff that you mentioned there? I mean, what do you think Ignore all Rules means? --Thus Spake Anittas 17:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
            • WP:IAR is a principle of wiki process. The three core principles WP:NPOV, WP:NOR (part of WP:NOT) and WP:V are our content policies. You can't simply waive them on a "ILIKEIT" basis. And no, your sources are not enough, because they cover only the individual events but not the synthesis of them that is attempted by the article. This is precisely what WP:SYN (another part of the fundamental content policy) is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I don't see a WP:SYN violation. Some sources say the 1366 events were anti-Romanian discrimination; others say that of the 2000s events. We're presenting both because that's what they've been called. Trying to create a stronger link between the two would be strained. I stand by the WP:IAR claim: this article, written as it is, helps create a better encyclopedia, so it should stay. Biruitorul 18:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The phenomenon exists and discussed in reliable sources. If the article is bad, it must be cleaned, not deleted. Mukadderat 16:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. It is documented and describes real facts. These kind of situations occured and there is no real need to delete the article, but to improve it. And per this search also. --R O A M A T A A | msg  18:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. WP:NOR, WP:POVFORKs. No exceptions = no bitching. NikoSilver 19:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep -- actually after having read this one and noticed its layout and sources, I think it is one of those that Anti-X articles that have a good potential. NikoSilver 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This article can only be dealt with inside a more global policy aiming Anti-* articles. For instance: Anti-Polish sentiment. BTW, there is actual sourced info in the article. Dpotop 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. These are well-documented historical facts. Icar 07:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all anti... sentiment articles, except for anti-Semitism, as Fut.Perf. wrote above. We should not motivate people to elaborate articles about "how other nations were behaving as enemies to my nation" - this is the first step towards xenophobia. Or, if we keep them, there should be articles about Pro-Hungarian Sentiment, Pro-Romanian sentiment, etc., too. --KIDB 09:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve I think this article presents real facts. But we must take care with the NPOV. --Mocu 13:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. per Roamataa's arguments, and per Mocu. I do understand the frustration when one reads about so many anti-X, especially if one has got an impression that people in the Balkans only know to hate each other. The truth of the matter is that unfortunately a fraction of the people do hate each other on ethnic grounds. It is sufficient that 5 or 10% of a given population to hold such views, and you'd be talking about millions of people, among which many politicians, or maybe especially polticians. If by deleting these articles we would help decrease the anti-X,Y,Z sentiments by 1%, I'd vote with both hands. However, unfortunately, by deleting them we would cut a small streem of information (WP is nothing but an encyclopedia, a sourse of information), the absense of which in turn would encurrage the rise of anti-X,Y,Z sentiments (even by a fraction of a percent). When I read anti-Hungarian discrimination or Serbophobia, as a reader volens nolens I think "do I have prejudices about Hungarians or Serbians that steem the ongoing sentiments?" Unless you read how things are perceived "by the other side", how would you know if you are wrong? Of course, the "smart" answer is "I am right. I don't need Hungarians, Serbs or Romanians to tell me that I might be 1% wrong". If the existence of the articles makes me as a reader ponder for a few moments, that in itself is sufficient reason for them to be, IMO. Also, I'd like WPedians to think about this: it is easy to delete articles, but the things there will reappear in one form or the other, because these are real things, not some astroturfing. Why not then try to tackle the sisyphian task of trying to improve. If from time to time you don't dare jump high, one day you won't be able even to walk.:Dc76 13:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
oh, and I forgot the important thing: I believe "discrimination" should be changed with "sentiment".:Dc76 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: That would make it even worse. You may have sources describing some events in 1366. You may have sources stating that these events had an averse effect on Romanians. You may even have sources that describe some of these events as "anti-Romanian". But where did you suddenly find sources about the presumed "sentiments" motivating the people who caused these events? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
As you can notice, I have abstained from editting this article. That's b/c I don't really understand its scope/coverage. Some of the info here (historic examples of discrimination) desearves to be put somewhere else (in articles about those historic events), IMO. As for the sentiments, (cuurent) "racist" declarations is press would be one example. Of course, general sentences without sourses would have to be stripted away. Personally, I think the article need good clean up.:Dc76 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all; fails WP:SYN. See also my refute to "keep and improve" arguments at the Serbophobia AfD. Duja► 14:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Romanian sources only and evidence presented in ambiguous way.--Svetovid 17:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Apart from Romanian and Moldovan sources, including BBC Romanian, there are at least four foreign sources used. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Those sources, however, do not support the premise of the article but only provide general data.--Svetovid 18:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep and improve The sources are too general-- at least every paragraph ought to be sourced to a general history, preferable one available in English/ I suspect the available academic sources will be too specfiic for what is after all a rather general article. I have an general feeling about subjects like this: I believe the worst of all the historical groups involved, and therefore see the accusations as confirming what i would expect to happen. (and I am not just referring to the balkans) I therefore tend to think there will be documentation for abuses, while trying to demonstrate that there were no abuses is much harder, and tends to become as statement that there were equal abuses in the opposite direction. It is of course more pleasant not to talk about such subjects. DGG 05:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(this applies to all other articles nominated in this batch) If these articles are supposed to report on bad things that happened to Romanians (or other nations for that matter), then there is no reason for the name "anti-whatever sentiment" and thus no reason for them to exist.--Svetovid 09:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If one wants to find information on the kind of dicrimination that a particular group of people had to endure, where should they turn to in order to find this information on Wikipedia? Perhaps in ten different articles, where the info is scattered around? --Thus Spake Anittas 11:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming my assertion that these articles are not about anti-whatever sentiment but about bad things that happened to people from the same nation/country.--Svetovid 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome and you are also welcome to answer my question. Also, I wasn't the one who said that the name of the article should be changed to "anti-whatever sentiment," altough I don't see the big difference between the current version and the suggestion version. It's a matter of interpretation. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep (a voice of a noted "anti-Romanian snti-Semitic Sovietic KGB spy" must have weight here, no? :-) `'юзырь:mikka 17:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
One or two Romanians had issues with you. Actually, as I think of it, only Bonny had issues with you. Most Ro are okay with you and act friendly towards you. :) --Thus Spake Anittas 17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Improve.Must.T C 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Massive historizing text picking up events w/o needed context. Unlike other articles does not consist of sensationalist newspaper stories but it is still 'original research' and mee too type of articles. Wikipedia does not need to invent the complete "anti-{every nation on the planet}-phobia" collection of articles. Pavel Vozenilek 16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, however, only if all the other "anti-x" articles go as well (except established ones such as anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism).Osli73 07:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, this is an important topic, and the article is well referenced.AlexanderPar 08:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I would normaly argue to delete this article, but considering the events over the past month all over Italy I have started to believe that this is actually a real issue, that wikipedia SHOULD have an article about. Nergaal 08:41, 13 October 2007 (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.