Talk:Dragan Nikolić (war criminal)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move

[edit] Requested move

This article was originally Dragan Nikolić (war criminal), ; it was moved, and both it and the redirect were put up for AfD I think the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragan Nikoli%u0107 (war criminal), and the move of 30 November justify that title. Septentrionalis 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Strong support He pled guilty to charges on which there was strong evidence, as the links show. Septentrionalis 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - the 2 (war criminal) redirects have just been deleted today... This is a bad idea to vote on this matter. Also, the term 'war criminal' is POV to say the least. We can only state things such as 'the UN have deemed him to be a war criminal'. Labelling someone by their profession is not POV. Labelling someone by their crimes is. There is not a single other article (or shouldn't be!) that is named in this way.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Localzuk. This proposed move is very POV. The article title is not the appropriate place for this. State it in a NPOV-manner in the article. Bendono 00:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support - the UN called him a war criminal; that should be enough. Besides, (commander) is so incredibly benign, as to be POV on its own, especially given that the only reason for his notability is his participation in the war tribunal. Patstuart^talk|edits 06:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nobody has provided evidence that he would be notable save for his war crimes. I do not agree in the least with the notion that it is improper to call a war criminal a war criminal. Croctotheface 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC) For reference, here is my previous comment: I would want more information on whether he is notable for any reason other than being a war criminal. If he would be notable as a commander independent of his war crimes, then that's the label to use. If we only know his name because he committed war crimes, then that's how he should be identified. I am most definitely not opposed to using a label such as this one that appears to be POV if it fits and its applicability can be substantiated. In this respect I agree wholeheartedly with Patstuart, in that using a bland term that serves to disguise reality is rather egregious POV itself. Is it wrong to call a dictator a dictator or a terrorist a terrorist? Those terms also have negative denotations, but if they fit, they fit. Croctotheface 06:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Names should not reflect notability but should relfect that person's job. Please point me to another article in this encyclopedia which is named in the way proposed. Naming an article by the person's conviction is extremely POV and strange. Maybe we should be looking for a seperate term instead of commander or war criminal? Also, to the other users, as I have said before - the UN does not cover all people, some people do not see him as a war criminal. Please do some thorough reading of our neutrality policy and our citation policy.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - actually, we should avoid words like terrorist. See Wikipedia:Words to aviod. However, if the UN has called him a war criminal, my argument says we should use that.
      • Comment on the above comment I think you mean WP:WTA not Wikipedia:Words to aviod since that page doesn't exist. But anyway, "war criminal" is not on that page as a word to avoid.
• Strong support - This article should definitely be moved to Dragan Nikolić (war criminal). Nikolic's notability is from his being a war criminal (he has no claim to fame as a commander, except for when he committed the crimes), so the title should reflect this. Also the term "war criminal" is not POV, especially if the person has actually been convicted of war crimes. "Bruatl war criminal" or "bloodthirsty war criminal" are examples of a POV title, as they have a negative adjective in front of "war criminal", but if it's just "war criminal" then it is right. - Ivan K 07:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Somewhere in WP:STYLE I saw it mentioned that the (war criminal) disambiguation should be limited to those convicted of war crimes. (Can't find it now to link to, but it's there.) He was, he confessed, so what's the problem? The article's content consists exclusively of details of his complicity in war crimes, so it's not like the move would be in any way misrepresenting the article content. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 08:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The role of the disambiguator is navigation, not information, and we should be as conservatively NPOV as we can be in choosing them. See Kurt Meyer (Panzermeyer) for another case in point. Andrewa 14:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nikolić is known for his role as a war criminal not as a commander per se. I agree that Wikipedia is not the UN but calling "(war criminal)" POV is a stretch with a guilty plea and the accomanying evidence. A case to the contrary can be made in this article and arguments against the concept of war crimes in general can be aired at the war crime article but, if this is POV, then moon landing should be retitled alleged moon landing. —  AjaxSmack  05:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Thin support per my comment below Duja► 09:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I just made the move, since most people support the name change. - Ivan K

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

The AfD discussion includes this comment, which puts it better than I could: Labelling someone primarily famous for being convicted of crimes against humanity a "commander" is POV, or at least weasel-wording. We can't drop the disambiguating suffix entirely, and this one fits well enough. WP:BLP doesn't require us to whitewash history, of if it does, it's faulty. BCoates 13:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so people know, I moved the article from (war criminal) to here and put both of the (war criminal) titled redirects up for deletion (both have been deleted as POV now). Someone else put this article up for deletion (which I disagree with as it is a notable subject).

Also, WP:BLP requires us to provide sources for all claims on people. Please provide a source that covers every person in the world labelling this person as a war criminal. You will not be able to do this. His supporters will label him a hero etc... However, we can provide a reference to state that his job was 'commander'. Please take a look at WP:WTA for more discussion on POV terms such as this.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Localzuk, you said
  "Please provide a source that covers every person in the world labelling this person as a war criminal. You will not be able to do this. His supporters will label him a hero etc... However, we can provide a reference to state that his job was 'commander'."
  Does that source you have stating that he is a hero also state that every person in the world knows he was a 'commander'? It's a bit of a double standard if you want a source saying everybody in the world labels him a war criminal for the title to say "war criminal", but you will settle for a source that has only a few people labeling him as a commander for the title to say "commander". Also, since Wikipedia is verifiability, and it has been verified that he is indeed a war criminal, then it's right for the title to say "war criminal". - Ivan K 07:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to name him as 'war criminal' in the title, therefore you have to provide a reference to state that he is universally believed to be a war criminal. On the other hand, labelling him as commander should not be a problem - as this was his job and is backed up by a source...

Also, as I said, he has been labelled a war criminal by a single organisation - not everyone. The onus is on you to show that he has been so universally labelled. How about a different term?-Localzuk^(talk) 07:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're still repeating your flawed argument from before. Why do you think it has to be universally labeled as a war criminal, but not universally labeled as a commander? There are references stating that an international court has convicted him of war crimes, so it's both truth and verifiability to call him a war criminal. And as I said before, "war criminal" on it's own is not POV, but adding a negative word in front of it (e.g "brutal", "bloodthirsty") or even an ethnic/national term in front of it (e.g Serb) would be POV, but on it's own, "war criminal" is just another neutral descriptive word, just like "commander". - Ivan K 07:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Conviction by the War Crimes Tribunal does it for me. I will consider if Localzuk's actions amount to disruptive eiting. Septentrionalis 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The War Crimes Tribunal does not represent a full world view - simple really.

Also, I am a bit worried that you would think my actions would be considered in any way disruptive... I come to the article, remove a large amount of POV material in order to make it neutral, provide a reference for a previously unreferenced article. I then make use of the deletion process to see whether or not my thought that labelling an person as 'war criminal' in the title is POV - to which end the result was to delete both the redirects. Look how disruptive that is!! We now have an article with a pretty neutral tone, references and a neutral title! I am such a tyrant! Seriously, please take some time to read our 'assume good faith' policy.

I also note that you don't actually respond to any of my points regarding WP:WTA and WP:BLP regarding neutrality and words that we should not be using...

Please leave your POV at the door when editing, it does not help the site. I had not come across this article until recently when the POV category 'Serb War Criminals' was put up for CFD (and has now been deleted as POV - I'm seeing a pattern here).-Localzuk^(talk) 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight. For what it's worth, I mostly edit fluffy articles related to my hobbies. If there is a concerted effort on the part of some editors to POV push Serbs as war criminals, I can see why that would be cause for concern. However, to the idea that we should disambiguate based on occupation rather than notability, the point of disambiguation, per WP:D, is to resolve ambiguity. It follows that someone's most notable identifier be used to disambiguate. If this individual is most notable as a war criminal rather than anything else, then the label is appropriate. And for the record, to the point above, WP:WTA does allow for people to be labeled as terrorists, but acknowledges that the term should not be thrown around. "War criminal" does not appear in that guideline. Croctotheface 05:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My mention of WP:WTA is to show that the general feeling on terms such as this is to avoid their usage. Yes, the word of the guideline doesn't mention it, but to me that is besides the point. Far too many people stick to the word of a policy and ignore the general purpose of the policy.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't even think the spirit of the guideline supports what you're saying. Most of it deals with weasely words like "claim" and "linked". The closest parallel is "terrorist", and the guideline holds that under certain circumstances articles can use the word. Futhermore, If this guy is a convicted war criminal, I don't see what's wrong with saying as much. And again, if he is more notable for reasons other than his war crimes, then those other actions or accomplishments should be used to disambiguate. if most people who might be looking for information on him know him because of his war crimes, then that's the most useful way to disambiguate. Croctotheface 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, who cares. Wikipedia is not the UN, and the world won't stop spinning either way. But I still say support. -Patstuart^talk|edits 05:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. There's actually a bigger problem with the article than the ostensibly POV title — the person is only notable for his war crimes but there's no article whatsoever (Sušica detention camp?) about the crimes he was convicted for. If there were one, this article would probably be redundant and merged into that one; his sole notability lies in the crimes he was convicted for, and apart from that episode, his biography is fairly unremarkable, as he wasn't a notable commander or war leader. Duja► 09:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If an article needs creation, then it should be created. Being censored by the UN is a quite rare enough event that it automatically makes one notable (yes, yes, a subtle jab of the organization is worked in there). One has to do something pretty bad and notable to be censored. Or so I think. Can anyone come up with information that says multitudes of people have been censored? -Patstuart^talk|edits 10:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quire follow you. My sole point is: if/when Sušica detention camp article is created, the individual we're discussing about should earn a couple of sentences regarding his trial and conviction in that article, in its "Aftermath" or whatever section, as all other details of his life are fairly unremarkable. We don't have individual articles about e.g. 9/11 WTC bombers, do we? I'm not saying that out of censorship or anything, but just for the reason that this article cannot grow behind stub level, as the war crime and conviction is bound to be the only encyclopedic thing about Dragan Nikolić. Duja► 16:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

...in other words: I don't think that every person from List of ICTY indictees should have an article: some more notable do, but many don't — it's often sufficient to mention their trials and/or convictions in article(s) regarding the massacres/events they participated in. Duja► 16:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Duja here. The majority of the articles in the lists of indictees are never going to pass stub level. The information should be merged into articles about the places/events/actions the people were involved in. That would solve the issue of the article name also...-Localzuk^(talk) 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.