Jump to content

Talk:National Library of Serbia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isolated event based on news report

[edit]

I am against adding information about the case of "Andrej Nikolaidis, advisor to Montenegro’s parliamentary president" to this article.

Arguments:

  • It is not directly related to the topic of this article, which is National Library of Serbia, one of the most important culture institutions of Serbia and Serbs.
  • It is against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, precised under WP:UNDUE section: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
  • It is based on POV misinterpretation of the source which can make a particular nation or ethnic group look bad

If nobody presents an argument for inclusion of this information to this article, I will delete it within one week.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an isolated report[1], the sources aren't POV(i.e please don't suggest that there is an attempt to make an ethnic group look bad), they're not targeting any social group in particular and adding 3 lines on an article about the National Library of Serbia about its director isn't UNDUE. Labeling edits/sources POV and then blanking them out falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Btw I used the least strong wording that could be used regarding the issue as the case was labeled among others as a Good opportunity for the political witch-hunt and a return to the Milosevic era by media and Serbia's Writers' Forum.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't present any argument for the relevance of this isolated event for the article about National Library of Serbia.
Your reply is Straw man fallacy which is "based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position".
  1. I quoted the policy because this one isolated event, not isolated report like you say.
  2. I did not say that sources are POV. I wrote that your misinterpretation of the source is POV (based on POV misinterpretation of the source)
The source does not say that his statement is "controversial in Serbia". The source says that "Andrej Nikolaidis, advisor to Montenegro’s parliamentary president, was the author of a controversial article called “What’s Left of Great Serbia”, which was published on January 11". It is obviously controversial because he stated that explosives should have been used during the celebration attended by president of Serbia Boris Tadić and many other people, state officials and church representatives. Statement which supports using explosives is controversial by itself, especially if it is a statement of state official who supports using explosives against president of neighboring country. It was considered controversial in Montenegro too and "Podgorica distanced itself from the article that Nikolaidis wrote".
The same source presents information about a positive aspect of the topic, precisely that "the library obtained a new building and a modern library system". It was a big news, even on the same website you used.
I do believe that information about this isolated event (connected with the news article “What’s Left of Great Serbia” and "return to the Milosevic era" ...) which is not directly related to the subject can make an ethnic group look bad. I did not comment your intention to do it. Maybe it is pure coincidence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article explains that the intent of Nikolaidis's was to make an ironic statement, but if that's your concern about POV then I'll change that[2], however, the subject is notable per WP:NN so it should be mentioned. If something is big news as you labeled it or not depends on the coverage i.e the new system of Serbia's National Library didn't generate the same amount of attention as this event, however, it too should be mentioned in the article as it is a notable event too.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You again used Straw man fallacy. I did not say that this event is not notable (this event is notable and you can create an article about it if you want). The main point is that this event is irrelevant isolated event in case of article about National Library of Serbia and should be removed per Wikipedia:Content removal. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Content about the dismissal of the head of an institution is relevant to the institution itself. Btw you've been quoting an essay, not a policy.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again fallacy. I mentioned a word policy when I explained that it is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy which deals with giving an undue weight to isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.
You did not add only the information that the head of institution has been dismissed. The article already contained information about Sreten Ugričić being ChiefExecutive till 2012. Here is the information you inserted:
  • widespread attacks were made against him by Serbian media and state officials after he joined a Belgrade writers’ forum that called for freedom of speech and particularly the right of the Montenegrin writer Andrej Nikolaidis to express opinions that were considered controversial.
I still believe that above mentioned information you inserted is completely irrelevant and unrelated to the topic of this article. Since you continued with fallacies instead of presenting arguments for your position I do not intend to continue this discussion with you.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the policies and the sources even you don't intend to continue the discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that per WP:UNDUE and WP:CRV this section cannot stick to the article notability. Topic of this article is National Library. This event may be much better mentioned in separate article, if notability is established. Per that, and per vast arguments and wiki guidelines presented by Antid, i have removed the sentence in question. As only two users where in dispute, this may be counted as 3O, also. --WhiteWriter speaks 23:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The event is notable and I will start an article about Sreten Ugričić. A couple of lines are certainly not a case of undue weight regarding such a notable incident.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 01:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of these silly objections. This is obviously a notable event: the chief executive of a national library for over 10 years being sacked over statements which have been politicized is something worth mentioning, especially since it is recent. All of the arguments against this inclusion seem to boil down to WP:IDL.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gaius Claudius Nero, your disrespectful comment about other users' arguments ("silly objections") violate Wikipedia:Civility policy, especially in this case when those arguments are grounded in wikipedia policies and common sense.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Antid. please stick to WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, which you have quoting since the start but you're misrepresenting.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Library of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Library_of_Serbia&oldid=1209325632"