Wikipedia talk:There is a deadline

Good article

This article is full of good reasons, to be inclusionist, deletionism is a babary --Kamil Hasenfeller (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

problem

the destruction of source material would mean that any article based on it would fail WP:RS.©Geni 18:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. We need to put further efforts in primary sources like WikiSource and Commons. emijrp (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Shortcut

WP:DEADLINE redirects to Wikipedia:There is no deadline, not to here. I think this is the more obvious target when applying common sense, but convention is such that most references intend the other. Thoughts?--~TPW 15:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but for historical purposes we can leave WP:DEADLINE as is. Regards. emijrp (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what historical purpose is served by indicating that this essay has a shortcut which it does not, in fact, have? I am boldly removing same.--~TPW 12:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Two thoughts

1. I've long considered culture/education is little more than a prolonged rearguard action against ignorance. Perhaps even an inevitably unsuccessful one. For despite our best efforts in the here & now, a new generation emerges who must be educated & acculturated; we do not inherit, through telepathy, what our parents know.
2. Entropy is the enemy here. It eventually destroys everything, but man's efforts have slowed it an observable degree. -- llywrch (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We actually speed it up. We just slow the increase in certain areas in exchange for larger increases in others. Rich Farmbrough, 12:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

Signpost

This essay was included in the Opinion essay section in the October 24, 2011 Wikipedia Signpost. emijrp (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Translations

Translated into German (webcite). Thanks. emijrp (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Translated into French too (webcite). Thanks : ). emijrp (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese, Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want to translate this essay, I will be more than happy. You can translate from the original design for this essay, without so many sections/lists. emijrp (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

More examples of cultural destruction (to add)

Tlacaelel: He also instigated a policy of burning the books of conquered peoples with the aim of erasing all memories of a pre-Aztec past. [1] emijrp (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

File:15346 Purila mõis.jpg. emijrp (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost all the population schedules of the 1890 United States Census were damaged in a fire in the basement of the Commerce Building in Washington, D.C. in 1921. The surviving records were destroyed in a 1930s bureaucratic screwup. This is a notorious problem for American genealogists and other researchers. Ntsimp (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

People don't last forever...

... and some human knowledge exists only in people's heads - it has not been documented anywhere and will be gone forever after these people pass away. Yes, I know we must only document for Wikipedia "notable" things that have secondary reliable sources, but what about stuff that no one has thought to document, such as the history of out of favor computers/ [your favorite gadget here], or things that are happening in countries with less access to the internet [I was looking for information about a tornado in Ottawa, Canada that happened about ten years ago - nada, what if something more earth shattering happened somewhere more remote?], interesting tidbits about a "notable" person who is already dead, but still has living relatives who can recount those stories?, or even events/people that have been documented, but will disappear as web services are shut down, but do not pass the strict Wikipedia notability guidelines today? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

An example of that are the last known speakers of languages. emijrp (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia's own rules prevent us from preserving such knowledge. For one instance, at the beginning of 2022 I managed to have a private interview with the last survivor of the drif of self-propelled barge T-36. That interview turned out to be his last: he died of old age shortly thereafter. I would LOVE to publish it -- but Wikipedia will not accept it because it's WP:OR! -- Wesha (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Very late response, but go for it. After all, if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. Cyb3rstarzzz (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Books

Increasingly books I buy online are from libraries, whether public or university libraries in the UK, or from as far afield as Nigeria and Washington (Army Education Center, Fort Lewis). Mnay of these important books will soon be only available in the five big copyright libraries in the UK, and maybe a dozen or so in the US and and Canada and handful elsewhere. Since they are in copyright, physical presence will be required. The content will also become far more suppressable. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 08:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

Destruction of monuments =/= destruction of knowledge

Destroying statues of Lenin does not constitute destroying knowledge, especially where the statues concerned are facsimiles or copies of photos. This section is dedicated to examples of lost knowledge - i.e., things that people knew in the past and made records of but which are now lost to us. Pulling down statues of Lenin does not do this. Do not treat this page as a list of examples of things you regard as bad. FOARP (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a decision about whether or not this article should just be about the loss of knowledge or about the loss of culture - including and focusing on their knowledge output. For instance this sentence is right at the top of the page: "When a natural disaster hits a region or a war breaks out, libraries, archives, museums, monuments and other artifacts of heritage, valuable buildings, incunabula and unique objects are destroyed or face the threat of destruction".

So I think it's not an error to put images such as the destruction of statues/buildings/monuments there (for example images of the destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL) - it's just a matter of this page's purpose. I don't know if it's a good idea to just limit it to "knowledge" but maybe there are good arguments for that (I guess one of those would be that taking down monuments of political leaders is less the destruction of cultural heritage than the expression of counter-movements or alike). If Wikipedia would just be comprised of text (and not also photos etc) I would endorse cleaning this page up appropriately and having it kept onto the topic of knowledge-loss. Currently I'd rather support also including the loss of cultural heritage and just highlighting the knowledge part of it.

Either way it seems there's still no clear line found on what this article's about and what isn't an issue of the article(/basically Wikipedia's preservation and perpetuation purposes). So I'm hoping for a discussion on finding that line and a subsequent clarification in the article... --Fixuture (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This essay is not only about written stuff. As explained in the introduction, it includes destruction of monuments, heritage, buildings, etc. Anything notable to be included or referenced in Wikipedia, any historic, art piece or landmark. Also in the "Future threats" section, there is an encouragement call for Wiki Loves Monuments to success in preserving monuments by taking photographs or creating articles. That said, in the section that you have edited, there are more examples of destroyed monuments in other events, but you only removed the sentence about Euromaidan, it is strange. --emijrp (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In ever other instance the at least reference why destruction of the specific monument equals a loss of knowledge, but simply destroying a monument does not equal a loss of knowledge if it is not unique. The Lenin statues referenced here were copies, destroying them resulted in no loss of knowledge - it's that simple.FOARP (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody cares if they were copies or not (they weren't). They were monuments and were destroyed. Re-adding. emijrp (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, you haven't substantiated your claim that their destruction resulted in loss of knowledge. FOARP (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Every monument is a piece of art. They were made of different materials, with different styles, and by different artists. They were not copies. Again, in the section there are more examples of other monuments or buildings destroyed, but you are only removing the Euromaidan case. We don't need to reach a consensus, I started this essay, this is not an article. This page reflects my view on the preservation of heritage. emijrp (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

But, if so, why the destroyed monuments of Hitler after WWII are not mentioned in the text? --Mmh (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Because me and nobody added them. The Nazi argument is boring. emijrp (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree with the concerns listed here. The burning of a library or museum with rare, possibly irreplaceable artifacts is not on the same level as a liberated people destroying monuments to their former oppression. The fact that destruction of Soviet-era monuments was ever listed -- is that really culture? Do we also mention destruction of Nazi iconography? Or the removal of Confederate statues in the United States? We could, but I think that would dilute the message. This page is supposed to be a call to action: its intent is to drive Wikipedians to redouble their efforts by listing all the horrible things that have happened to notable cultural items and records. Including in this list monuments that are the subject of controversy -- that have outright been condemned by many -- would be contrary to this mission. (You could also argue that the Soviet, Nazi, and Confederate monuments were not, in fact, expressions of culture, but which were imposed upon a population by an occupying force, hence why the local population in many cases justified destruction of said monuments by virtue of the fact that "we live here, those don't represent us.") RexSueciae (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The Roman Empire was oppressive too. Are you OK with the destruction of Roman statues? The wind of history removes all the contemporary POV like dust. Everything historical should end in a museum. That's the point. emijrp (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)