This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
War criminals in Canada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am not even sure this article should exist under this title? The lede is also opinionated so I have added a NPOV template until its resolved - Youreally can 22:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Explain your statements here, I cannot make any sense of them nor will the editor. I also suggest you remove the NPOV template and challange specific facts BO; talk 23:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned in my edit comment the article does present two point of view. If you have and so does not merit a POV tag. If you can find a specific issue here please tag it with an inline tag so we can fix it. BO; talk 19:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Thanks
JunoBeach - please expand the lede section to about 4 sentences - include any other war criminals from canada. BO; talk
An article could always use more sources and more content. This article's single source supports all the facts. Thus WP:V is satisfied. My issue is that the use of NPOV has not been done according to
Responsible Tagging. Putting up a tag which cannot be supported and providing no backing for its use is not responsible tagging.
There is no coatracking, no POV issues. Youreallycan has made a ugly ad baseless accusation and worse - that there is a conspiracy working against him and that we do not work here in good faith. Examine the edit history and see that his version is inacurate and manipulative and does little but perpetuate a fued from previous articles. Including bringing more people to support his actions. I don't think I should defend all you accusations - ony the NPOV issues, since I removed the notice and this is the only official challange of policy. We are not telephatic - a NPOV notice by it nature should only be used if there are specific NPOV problems. If these exist point them out and we can discuss them. So far the only criticism of note is the lead:
If you don't understand the different POV issues I can break them down for you and justify why I remove the NPOV tag. BO; talk 13:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
p.s. once the protection expires the lead can be augumented with with this reference: [1]
Since it may take some time to resolve whether this article remains at its current title, I would propose the following as an improved lede:
"The Canadian government's record regarding war criminals in Canada has been controversial. It has been estimated that about 2,000 Nazi war criminals obtained Canadian citizenship based on false documentation after World War Two, and the government has been criticized for a lack of speed in pursuing them."
I realize there are several issues with this proposal, but it is much better than what is there now. Given the lack of information in the article, it is as neutral as I can make it, and it does summarize what is in the article, such as it is. The most glaring omission in the article is the lack of any information on what has happened in the 12 years since the current statute was adopted.
I would have "been bold" and changed the lede myself, but it seems the article is fully protected. Neutron ( talk) 15:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
just as inclusion of a (less notable) article does not establish notablity of a new article, non existance of many articles is not ground for establishing non-notablity of new articles. In fact it is completly illogical thinking. The proper criteria is to judge the article by its own merits according to established policy. BO; talk 01:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The book is not about Canada but does discuss in depth the moral and legal issues related to prosecuting (and non prosecution) of War Criminals who have commited crimes against humanity at this late date. BO; talk 01:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I suggest a redirect to the Simon_Wiesenthal_Centre and a line there, if its not already covered - such as - The Simon_Wiesenthal_Centre claims there are two thousand Nazi's in Canada and is investigating them and requesting/lobbying the Canadian government to bring them to justice. - Youreally can 15:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The article presents two points of view which are in conflict.
The above reference is a explains the stigma of Canada's action - though reading the cliff notes version.
I just wanted to highlight a mistake in the sensationalist argument above by my esteemed coleegue. The article's POV does not claim that the Canada is the worst place on earth. It does not even suggest that Canada is the one of the best place to relocate if one is a war criminal - though the sources do seem to lend credibility to such a conclusion.
What differentiates Canada from other countries mentioned above is that:
Is that Canada is a country with a consistently well-regarded Parliament and no stain of fascist (or communist) policies in its history - quite the opposite. It also has laws that could be used against war criminals and politicians who make bold claims to enforce these laws. Yet the real measure of politicians is in action and not words. This is where Canada (not Austria, Hungary etc) fails - representatives prefer to resign than see international law observed. The clock is ticking and all to soon it will be too late for Canada to correct this stain on its history.
As to notability. I have reviewed the guidelines
which looks like
![]() | The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's
general notability guideline. |
I'd like to point out that no such tag is in place and that it seems to me that there are some secondary sources available. Thus for the moment WP:N has been addressed. However if needed I could also use my high beam account to research a hundred more.
Reading over this discussion - the reason for the NPOV has been claimed to be WP:N. This is clearly in contradiction to WP:N policy which have Notability tags.
Consider Nazi_human_experimentation - this article might be considered an embarasement to Nazi Germany. However it has no NPOV tag since an embarrassing POV can certainly be the facts of life. In the emperor's new clothes no amount of shame could hide the fact that the emperor was naked. The article may be an embarrassment to Canada but no one has yet stepped up and said "my POV has been ignored" or even "such and such a POV is missing".
If someone can improve the lead section without white-washing the facts I don't see a problem with accept such a change. The lead however should summarize the information and points of view in the article and it's length should be in proportion to that of the article. I also recommend that the Article be unprotected so that any misconceptions about the neutrality of the lead's section can be resolved.
I also think we should consider the POV/Notability issues in the matter of the Siege_of_Mostar. BO; talk 00:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes - after three four days of discussion, there is no clear assertion on this talkpage in any of the citations provided, that the current article/title is a notable topic for an encyclopedic article - If further discussion fails to assert clear notability - and especially considering the POV in the lede I will nominate it for deletion in the near future Youreally can 18:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
That this mean that you plan to ignore the two books from google scholar? BO; talk 21:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Even out of context the sources would only seem vague to someone completely uninitiated with this field - to assuage anyone's doubts the source will indeed be used in differently:
BO; talk 09:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
In the news:
In Print
from highbeam
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Text "מאמרים וטורים באתר אגודת הסופרים העברים" ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=
, |laydate=
, |laysummary=
, and |authormask=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=
, |laydate=
, |laysummary=
, and |authormask=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)(subscription required)
{{
cite news}}
: Text "via
HighBeam Research" ignored (
help) (subscription required)
A lot of externals have been posted by User:OrenBochman - I would like to suggest that the user adds 'content as that is all that really matters in regards to notability assertions - what is it that is notable from these links - there are war criminals all over the world - where is the assertion that war criminals in Canada is special - there are almost no convictions and almost not even many accused - would the user consider writing something in his userspace? - as I wrote above - Write what you want to add to assert notability of the title/topic from any of the provided externals on this talk page. Youreally can 20:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think any demonstration of notability not any level of sourcing nor would be acceptable to the counterparts in this dialogue. I can no longer sanction a view that we are working to create a neutral article — though a consistent evading and ignoring all facts presented, a prolonged strategy of attrition is permitted to continued - one which instigated the protection of this page due to a blatant violation of he three revert rule. On the facts rather than the words I only see a bold attempt to censor Wikipedia. I plan to continue to research this when this dispute has been settled at a better qualified forum. BO; talk 11:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
{{Request edit}}
Due to my involvement in the above discussions I am requesting a third-party to perform the following changes - to try to finish this process amicably:
Please introduce any undisputed, WP:RS sources I have provided above to improve sourcing, and establish WP:N and demonstrate WP:V, so that the WP:NPOV may be resolved.
BO;
talk 04:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
{{Request edit}}
tag for now, please feel free to re-submit when you have a more specific request. Thanks. --
Eclipsed
(talk)
(COI Declaration) 13:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)I'll work on this in my user space and post it here when it is ready. BO; talk
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
War criminals in Canada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2012. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am not even sure this article should exist under this title? The lede is also opinionated so I have added a NPOV template until its resolved - Youreally can 22:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Explain your statements here, I cannot make any sense of them nor will the editor. I also suggest you remove the NPOV template and challange specific facts BO; talk 23:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned in my edit comment the article does present two point of view. If you have and so does not merit a POV tag. If you can find a specific issue here please tag it with an inline tag so we can fix it. BO; talk 19:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Thanks
JunoBeach - please expand the lede section to about 4 sentences - include any other war criminals from canada. BO; talk
An article could always use more sources and more content. This article's single source supports all the facts. Thus WP:V is satisfied. My issue is that the use of NPOV has not been done according to
Responsible Tagging. Putting up a tag which cannot be supported and providing no backing for its use is not responsible tagging.
There is no coatracking, no POV issues. Youreallycan has made a ugly ad baseless accusation and worse - that there is a conspiracy working against him and that we do not work here in good faith. Examine the edit history and see that his version is inacurate and manipulative and does little but perpetuate a fued from previous articles. Including bringing more people to support his actions. I don't think I should defend all you accusations - ony the NPOV issues, since I removed the notice and this is the only official challange of policy. We are not telephatic - a NPOV notice by it nature should only be used if there are specific NPOV problems. If these exist point them out and we can discuss them. So far the only criticism of note is the lead:
If you don't understand the different POV issues I can break them down for you and justify why I remove the NPOV tag. BO; talk 13:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
p.s. once the protection expires the lead can be augumented with with this reference: [1]
Since it may take some time to resolve whether this article remains at its current title, I would propose the following as an improved lede:
"The Canadian government's record regarding war criminals in Canada has been controversial. It has been estimated that about 2,000 Nazi war criminals obtained Canadian citizenship based on false documentation after World War Two, and the government has been criticized for a lack of speed in pursuing them."
I realize there are several issues with this proposal, but it is much better than what is there now. Given the lack of information in the article, it is as neutral as I can make it, and it does summarize what is in the article, such as it is. The most glaring omission in the article is the lack of any information on what has happened in the 12 years since the current statute was adopted.
I would have "been bold" and changed the lede myself, but it seems the article is fully protected. Neutron ( talk) 15:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
just as inclusion of a (less notable) article does not establish notablity of a new article, non existance of many articles is not ground for establishing non-notablity of new articles. In fact it is completly illogical thinking. The proper criteria is to judge the article by its own merits according to established policy. BO; talk 01:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The book is not about Canada but does discuss in depth the moral and legal issues related to prosecuting (and non prosecution) of War Criminals who have commited crimes against humanity at this late date. BO; talk 01:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I suggest a redirect to the Simon_Wiesenthal_Centre and a line there, if its not already covered - such as - The Simon_Wiesenthal_Centre claims there are two thousand Nazi's in Canada and is investigating them and requesting/lobbying the Canadian government to bring them to justice. - Youreally can 15:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The article presents two points of view which are in conflict.
The above reference is a explains the stigma of Canada's action - though reading the cliff notes version.
I just wanted to highlight a mistake in the sensationalist argument above by my esteemed coleegue. The article's POV does not claim that the Canada is the worst place on earth. It does not even suggest that Canada is the one of the best place to relocate if one is a war criminal - though the sources do seem to lend credibility to such a conclusion.
What differentiates Canada from other countries mentioned above is that:
Is that Canada is a country with a consistently well-regarded Parliament and no stain of fascist (or communist) policies in its history - quite the opposite. It also has laws that could be used against war criminals and politicians who make bold claims to enforce these laws. Yet the real measure of politicians is in action and not words. This is where Canada (not Austria, Hungary etc) fails - representatives prefer to resign than see international law observed. The clock is ticking and all to soon it will be too late for Canada to correct this stain on its history.
As to notability. I have reviewed the guidelines
which looks like
![]() | The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's
general notability guideline. |
I'd like to point out that no such tag is in place and that it seems to me that there are some secondary sources available. Thus for the moment WP:N has been addressed. However if needed I could also use my high beam account to research a hundred more.
Reading over this discussion - the reason for the NPOV has been claimed to be WP:N. This is clearly in contradiction to WP:N policy which have Notability tags.
Consider Nazi_human_experimentation - this article might be considered an embarasement to Nazi Germany. However it has no NPOV tag since an embarrassing POV can certainly be the facts of life. In the emperor's new clothes no amount of shame could hide the fact that the emperor was naked. The article may be an embarrassment to Canada but no one has yet stepped up and said "my POV has been ignored" or even "such and such a POV is missing".
If someone can improve the lead section without white-washing the facts I don't see a problem with accept such a change. The lead however should summarize the information and points of view in the article and it's length should be in proportion to that of the article. I also recommend that the Article be unprotected so that any misconceptions about the neutrality of the lead's section can be resolved.
I also think we should consider the POV/Notability issues in the matter of the Siege_of_Mostar. BO; talk 00:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes - after three four days of discussion, there is no clear assertion on this talkpage in any of the citations provided, that the current article/title is a notable topic for an encyclopedic article - If further discussion fails to assert clear notability - and especially considering the POV in the lede I will nominate it for deletion in the near future Youreally can 18:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
That this mean that you plan to ignore the two books from google scholar? BO; talk 21:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Even out of context the sources would only seem vague to someone completely uninitiated with this field - to assuage anyone's doubts the source will indeed be used in differently:
BO; talk 09:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
In the news:
In Print
from highbeam
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: Text "מאמרים וטורים באתר אגודת הסופרים העברים" ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=
, |laydate=
, |laysummary=
, and |authormask=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |trans_title=
, |laydate=
, |laysummary=
, and |authormask=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)(subscription required)
{{
cite news}}
: Text "via
HighBeam Research" ignored (
help) (subscription required)
A lot of externals have been posted by User:OrenBochman - I would like to suggest that the user adds 'content as that is all that really matters in regards to notability assertions - what is it that is notable from these links - there are war criminals all over the world - where is the assertion that war criminals in Canada is special - there are almost no convictions and almost not even many accused - would the user consider writing something in his userspace? - as I wrote above - Write what you want to add to assert notability of the title/topic from any of the provided externals on this talk page. Youreally can 20:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think any demonstration of notability not any level of sourcing nor would be acceptable to the counterparts in this dialogue. I can no longer sanction a view that we are working to create a neutral article — though a consistent evading and ignoring all facts presented, a prolonged strategy of attrition is permitted to continued - one which instigated the protection of this page due to a blatant violation of he three revert rule. On the facts rather than the words I only see a bold attempt to censor Wikipedia. I plan to continue to research this when this dispute has been settled at a better qualified forum. BO; talk 11:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
{{Request edit}}
Due to my involvement in the above discussions I am requesting a third-party to perform the following changes - to try to finish this process amicably:
Please introduce any undisputed, WP:RS sources I have provided above to improve sourcing, and establish WP:N and demonstrate WP:V, so that the WP:NPOV may be resolved.
BO;
talk 04:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
{{Request edit}}
tag for now, please feel free to re-submit when you have a more specific request. Thanks. --
Eclipsed
(talk)
(COI Declaration) 13:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)I'll work on this in my user space and post it here when it is ready. BO; talk