Talk:Pygmy Kitabu

Deletion

This page should not be deleted.

The bot placed the speedy deletion tag within 2 seconds of the page being created and before edits were completed.

This book details the lives of the single oldest civilisation on Earth, the Efe Pygmies of the Ituri forest, as shown by mitochondrial dNA studies in 2004

This sentinel piece of literature should not be trivialised by a Wikipedia bot.Mbabane (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Mbabane

Or by a Wikipedia "editor".Nutsheller (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is never a good excuse for copy/pasting content from another website here. It violates the WP:COPYVIO policy. The bot will quickly tag such articles for deletion as we do not want articles here that are stolen intellectual property. To avoid such tagging, don't copy/paste from other websites. It isn't an issue of trivialization, its an issue of stealing other people's words. If you had utilized the welcome message left on your talk page, instead of just removing it, this wouldn't have happened. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that current content was plagiarized.Nutsheller (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The original article was plagiarized. It has since bee corrected. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is noted that AnmaFinotera singlehandedly has 1) requested discussion for deletion 2) placed tags for insufficient references 3) questioned notability 4) requested protection from changes to the article to prevent content updates. These tags are suspected of having an undisclosed personal motivation (see discussion below).Nutsheller (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of racism is extremely uncivil and I suggest you drop that line of talk now. If you can't actually discuss the issue without resorting to personal attacks, you may want to reconsider whether you want to be an editor here or not. A single editor can tag an article for issues, question an article's notability, request a page protection during an edit dispute, and can start a discussion for deletion. All was done appropriately and within Wikipedia's guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of racism, only of prejudice. You have a responsibility, after placing tags and requests for protection, to remove tags. There are now links to citations as well as to scholarly journals referencing this book for its anthropological significance, a movie based on it, its humanitarian and ethnologic significance, and its use in at least one university-level course syllabus. It is imporoper that you have elevated this to a personal grudge-match.Nutsheller (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability tag

Book is unique ethnologic treatise

The notability tag was removed. It is clearly stated in the article that the book is an ethnological description of the oldest surviving society. That is not disputed. That is extremely notable. Within the article are links to other Wikipedia articles that verify this. Plannedobesity (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been put back. The topic of the book is completely irrelevant to the book's notability. As I told Mbabane (you?) above, read WP:BK. The notability is NOT established at all and the tag will remain. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Book is basis for documentary film

The notability tag has been removed. The 1973 movie based on the book is reviewed today in the New York Times.Nutsheller (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, see WP:BK. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have. It states explicitly that a book is notable if:

1. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.

This book was the basis for a nationally distributed movie (reviewed by the New York Times), as already referenced in the article.

Your actions to prevent the addition to Wikipedia and negate references have the appearance of abuse.Nutsheller (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Note the key there motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters - Pygmies was not. Its not even notable enough to be listed in IMDB. Its a minor documentary, not a major motion picture. Indeed, the very source you used notes quite clearly that the film was never picked up by any major distributor. Additionally that New York Times reference is NOT a New York Times review. It is a standard film directory listing, no different than a listing in IMDB, nor does that New York Times article support the claim that the film is based on this book. Listings in a film directory do not establish notability. Again, notability has not been established. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is listed on Yahoo Movies, on the Inbaseline movie index, and on the Hollywood.com movie database. What, are you trying to pick and choose what makes a movie well known or not?Nutsheller (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Author is an internationally known and significant figure

An additional criteria for Wikipedia notability states: The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.[6]

The author received Zaire's highest order of decoration, and was internationally known as a humanitarian. His work has been the basis for many efforts to recognize the Pygmie's plight. Even the San Diego Zoo has an Ituri Forest exhibit that features Pygmy culture, largely based on Pygmy Kitabu and the movie based on Pygmy Kitabu, Pygmies.Nutsheller (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are attempting to twist the notability guideline to support your claims. His is not so historically significant that any of his written works are notable. He isn't historically significant at all. So historically significant would apply to people like Mother Theresa, the Pope, Shakespeare, etc. Not a standard humanitarian in an obscure field who is not himself the subject of multiple books and with significant coverage in reliable sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the most small minded statement I have ever seen. Jean-Pierre Hallet is indeed historically significant. He dedicated his life to help prevent the extinction of an entire culture, which just happens to be one of the oldest still existent. He risked civil wars, rebellions, and two regional conflicts (the largest in Africa) on behalf of this people. He was described by an independent source as the Abe Lincoln of the Congo, which actually puts him in the category you just outlined. Just because you personally are not familiar with him hardly makes him insignificant. There is already an extreme amount of prejudice against the Efe and other pygmy tribes of Africa (such as the Twa of neighboring Rwanda). Please disclose any prejudice you also may harbor.Nutsheller (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing small minded about it. Your seeming fan love for Hallet aside, he himself is notable, this book is not. Accusations of prejudice are completely inappropriate and personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you can't actually argue your position without making such inappropriate comments, it would seem unlikely you can actually support your position. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Books by notable people are notable by Wikipedia standards. QED.Nutsheller (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they aren't. The AfD will decide the notability issue now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Book is a sentinel work

You are on some sort of crusade to have this removed from Wikipedia? In 2007 the pygmy musicians invited to an annual music festival were housed in a zoo in Brazzaville, Congo. Pygmies have been presented in zoos in the Bronx (in 1906) and have been described as subhuman for decades. There are few works that attempt to correct the perceptions of the pygmies and describe their culture. This is an important and sentinel work. Any contributors to this discussion can decide for themselves what the motivation for your crusade is.Nutsheller (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Book is referenced in reference media

Prior to this article Pygmy Kitabu was referenced in Yahoo Answers, on a prior Wikipedia article as a reference, and in Websters Online dictionary. It is also discussed and referenced in the textbook A Modern Theory of Language Evolution by Carl Becker.Nutsheller (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Book is used in university level course syllabus

Both the book and the movie are part of the syllabus of at least one university, San Jose State University, Fall 2008 -- Pristine Religions, Animism, and Ritual. Nutsheller (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It is listed on the syllabus of a sociology course at the university of Hawaii.Nutsheller (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Other references to Pygmy Kitabu book

Janssen, D. F., Growing Up Sexually. Volume I. World Reference Atlas. 0.2 ed. 2004. Berlin: Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology Nutsheller (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Collective Political Violence by Earl Conteh-Morgan (Professor of International Studies at Univ. of South Florida).Nutsheller (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Origins and Diffusion of Patrism in Saharasia, c.4000 BCE: Evidence for a Worldwide, Climate-Linked Geographical Pattern in Human Behavior by James DeMeo, Ph.D. -- published in: Kyoto Review 23: 19-38, Spring 1990 (Japan) ; Emotion 10, 1991 (Germany); World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution, 30: 247-271, 1991; and Pulse of the Planet 3:3-16, 1991.

Meprises et admires: l'ambivalence des relations entre les Bacwa (Pygmees) et les Bahemba (Bantu) by Ntole Kazadi, Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 51, No. 4 (1981), pp. 836-847.Nutsheller (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Vivre et ‘soigner’ la vieillesse dans le monde International congress: "Vivre et ‘soigner’ la vieillesse dans le monde" in Genoa Italy, March 16, 2002.Nutsheller (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Tags

The references tag was removed. An explicit reference to the Journal of Human Genetics was added.Plannedobesity (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an abusive use of tags on this website. References are tagged for verification when the external reference explicitly supports the statement referenced. This has been apparently done by a single user for personal reasons unrelated to the article. A request for third opinion has been requested.Nutsheller (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

This article was listed at WP:Third Opinion for an outside point of view. As the article has already been brought to AfD, the WP:3O request has been superceded. Jim Miller (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD Opinion

A small consensus on AfD appears to support that this article be merged into the author's main article. This has been done. A redirect to that article is entered here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutsheller (talk • contribs) 14:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)