765:
for the invalid victims of the crimes against humanity that had been perpetrated by the
Romanija Corps of the Bosnian Serb Army in their deliberate targeting of the predominantly Bosniak civilian population of Sarajevo and the surrounding area. The history of the atrocities perpetrated against Serbs by the Ustashe at Jasenovac is often referred to by way of explaining and even justifying what might be described as the Bosnian Serbs' "proactive self-defence" between 1992 and 1995 as part of which Stanislav Galic and others committed the war crimes and other atrocities against Bosniaks that so massively inflated the invalid population of the Sarajevo area. The research contained in this book poses a significant challenge to a part of the substance of those explanations and justifications that remains particularly valid while Dragomir Milosevic's trial continues at The Hague and pending the detention and trial of radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. I'm not arguing that this interview is a determining factor in conferring notability, just another element to be taken into account. --
716:. A Cincinnatti Enquirer story by Cameron McWhirter at Enquirer.com includes an interview with Nihad Halilbegovic seeking his views on the outcome of the Dayton Agreement as "the Bosnian government's secretary for invalids around Sarajevo" (a translation suggesting ministerial responsibilities - can a Bosnian speaker please investigate and confirm?), suggesting that he is a figure of sufficient substance and authority to distinguish his writings from the general run of the mill at Wikizon.com -
412:
or an agenda. This article could have been left in its present form to take its turn in a process of review based on the practical usefulness of the article, its relative ranking in terms of triviality - perhaps dare I say it, an article dealing with crimes and atrocities of current relevance has the right to a degree of forbearance whatever its formal failings - and the realistic likeliness of this article serving as a precedent for a general process of trivialisation. --
347:
the article as is, when there is an apparent consensus that the article would be accepted if it were on the topic not the book? Those who want so dearly to have this article can easily re-write it as several have suggested such that it is on the topic with the book as a reference. As it stands now, this book does not meet wiki notability standards and if accepted it opens the door for books of far less credibility. There is a standard for a reason and it cuts both ways.
463:
of the title is an aspect of
Jasenovac that I have not seen covered elsewhere. Bosniaks were not the major victim community at Jasenovac and the treatment of what happened at Jasenovac in the main article will inevitably focus on what happened to others (particularly given the determination of some editors to summarise and reduce the length and complexity of Knowledge (XXG) articles). So I would strongly oppose a merger with the main Jasenovac article.
569:
approached on a case-by-case basis, with an eye toward the peculiar circumstances presented. Keep in mind that subjects are not notable because they meet a particular standard, rather things are notable because of their impact, influence, fame, etc., and the standards are an attempt to catalogue that which notable subjects share so that we can recognize that notability."
506:
embodiment of the subject. An alternative to having this book as the subject of an article would be to keep the article but restyle it as a general article whose content is, for the time being at least, entirely drawn from the content of the book. I think we're starting to drift into the realm of discussing angels dancing on pinheads. --
699:
she has offered an alternative which is have a general article on
Bosniaks in the Jasenovac concentration camp, using the book as a source/resource for information and references. If the article were written such (ie. were on the topic rather than the book), then, whatever sentiments I may or may not
614:
Unless, as
Gardenfli suggests, the article is revised such that it is about the topic, not the book. Otherwise, wikipedia becomes amazon.com without the option to buy. Why this book and not every other book about a worthy topic? Is wikipedia going to have an article for each and every worthy book out
585:
as NN, with not a single reference to the book from any source whatsoever. The article itself is clearly about the overall subject --not even about the specific subject at the book, which I assume is this particular camp, , but about the genocide of
Bosniaks back through World War II. Refs 2 & 3
859:
notable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is notable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in
472:
Psychonaut is correct in saying that this book is not written in
English. Which means that I don't have access to the information it contains. And I would find it difficult to access the article if the title were given in its untranslated version. I hope that the article will be further developed
346:
The book has not been the subject of multiple published works. This book has not won a major literary award. This book has not been made into a motion picture. This book is not the subject of instruction at multiple schools. The author is not historically significant. So why continue arguing to keep
730:
The first link is Web
Magazine at Bosnjaci.net; actually, not entire article is devoted to the book, but to the subject of Muslim victims in Jasenovac in general. In the other, Halilbegovic has a passing mention as a government official in an unrelated story. No one here is suggesting that he's not
462:
The subject of the book is a significant one. The atrocities at
Jasenovac were not only a significant element in the history of World War II, controversy over the precise details of what happened continues to feed into inter-communal conflict in the countries of the former Yugoslavia. The subject
432:
What is the question here? Bosniaks were taken to the
Jasenovac Concentration Camp. Maybe not as much as Serbs were, but there is proof that they were taken to jasenovac. Can someone present a real argument against these books besides simply saying "let's question them and maybe this way the 'third
411:
This article has been targeted for action when many other articles of relative triviality are completely ignored. This is one of the issues with
Knowledge (XXG). It is not subject to a systematic review process and consequently rule enforcement often carries with it the suspicion of arbitrariness
393:
I have no argument with the case that turning the article into one about the subject rather than about the book would be reasonable, although others appear keen to have it deleted without reservation or to have the subject lost in the general article on Jasenovac. But that suggests that the status
375:
Yes, but Knowledge (XXG) wisely leaves the door open to a case based on other criteria when it inserts the qualifier "generally". Is it really an absolute that the work can be considered notable if its author is historically significant even if the work itself is trivial or worthless while a work
266:
Can the editor above link to the policy or guideline that says that published books are not notable? Because there are likely more than one hundred million articles on the English Knowledge (XXG), and there does not seem to be any shortage of photons in the world that would hamper the energy supply
151:
and that your advocacy for keeping or deleting this article must be supported with reference to relevant Knowledge (XXG) policies. The closing admin should be aware that this article touches on a politically charged subject about which many editors may have strong feelings, and should therefore be
764:
Although this is not explicitly stated in the Enquirer article it is not unreasonable to assume that Halilbegovic was being interviewed about the impact of the settlement imposed by the 1995 Dayton Agreement - ie the division of Bosnia between the ethnic communities - because of his responsibility
310:
The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and
599:
You ignore points previously mentioned such as the fact that the original title is not in English but that this English rendering of the title and the article itself help inform us that a treatment of the subject exists. I thought librarians were supposed to be helpful, information facilitators
505:
The subject's significance is relevant when you are suggesting that the article's content should be subsumed into the main Jasenovac article where it may be be lost and certainly will be more difficult to locate. The book is also significant in that at present it is for practical purposes the
568:
Duja, thanks for the reference to the guidelines on the notability of academic works, which are to be treated differently to general and fictional works. I find the following advice: "Try not to apply guidelines reflexively; as if they are written in stone. All deletion discussions should be
376:
that is the sole accessible work by a respected author dealing with a historically significant event or situation is not notable? The reason why we have the expression "Rules are made to be broken" is because we are supposed to be intelligent beings with recourse to judgment and common sense.
279:
While one would need to be rather naive to think the Clearspeak user is truly a new independent voice here, the question posed can be answered by reading the criteria given by wiki policy which follows. The real question is quite simple. Does the book meet this criteria? If so,
903:
This criteria does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or
394:
quo is intolerable and action needs to be taken. The question is why has this article been targeted for action when its content is agreed by a reasonable proportion of respondents to be significant in its substance even if not in its form.
522:
Without taking into consideration angels dancing on pinheads; perhaps one option could be to have a general article on Bosniaks in the Jasenovac concentration camp, using the book as a major source/resource for information and references?
251:
Can the editors above link to the policy or guideline that says that published books are notable? Because there are likely one hundred million published books in the history of the world (excluding self-published books).
318:
The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the
331:
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.
572:
I suggest that the case advanced that this book is an academic work which is a unique and respected contribution in a significant subject area enables it to satisfy the guidelines for notability. --
91:
86:
894:
of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
95:
78:
890:
for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people
846:
The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
148:
626:
Gardenfli has chosen to keep this article and your anti-Bosniak sentiment is nothing new. I always wonder, why do people have so much hate against certain groups. It's really sad.
442:
The question is not about the content of the book (i.e., whether the events described are true or notable), but whether the book itself meets the notability standards set out in
749:
The point I was making was that the book was cited in the Bosnjaci.net article as a significant reference on the subject. Hence the book's claim to a degree of notability. --
118:
712:
It's worth noting that the book is cited with its title given in both Bosnian and English as a significant reference in an English-language review of the subject at
486:
That the subject of the book is significant is irrelevant. The article in question is about the book, not about the subject of the book, and therefore the
341:
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.
130:; article also has a misleading title, as the book does not appear to have been published in English. Suggest that this article be merged into
815:
785:
769:
753:
740:
724:
704:
684:
630:
619:
604:
592:
576:
562:
527:
510:
494:
477:
450:
437:
416:
351:
271:
258:
241:
227:
195:
181:
156:
138:
60:
695:
I thought Bosniak was against victimhood politics as he calls it? In any case, yes, as all can see, Gardenfli has voted to keep the article
553:; if anyone can demonstrate otherwise, I might change my opinion (but the burden of proof is on the one who wants to include the contents).
237:
because the book has been published. ISBN: 9789958471025. The publisher: The Congress of Bosniak Intellectuals, in Sarajevo (2006). Thanks.
652:
473:
in order to provide me with more otherwise inaccessible information about its subject, its author and the context of its publication. --
212:
17:
82:
208:
55:
487:
443:
220:
126:
74:
66:
646:
300:
808:
538:
131:
882:
Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be
830:
36:
855:"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not
887:
873:
mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular book.
433:
view' parties will delete the article". These are books with evidence in them, not 'novels' written by amateurs.
829:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
658:
325:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
166:, as none of the links provided describe the importance of the book, but provide information on its subject.
731:
competent on the issue or that the book is fringe, just that its relevance and notability is (quite) iffy.
204:
664:
586:
are to the general subject and irrelevant. Ref 1 is to the listing of the book in an online bookstore.
268:
200:
192:
52:
48:. Nothing has been put forth indicating that the book itself is notable, though the subject may be.
311:
reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to
812:
640:
334:
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities
253:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
796:
701:
616:
348:
800:
312:
782:
491:
447:
434:
224:
174:
153:
135:
49:
717:
550:
736:
680:
558:
524:
296:
713:
545:
of the book is a significant one, like Opbeith said. I don't see, however, that the
766:
750:
721:
635:
627:
601:
573:
507:
474:
413:
238:
112:
913:
For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study.
169:
732:
676:
554:
588:
295:
Accordinig to wiki policy... quote: A book is generally notable if it
823:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
152:
careful to examine not only the !votes but the rationales. —
134:
and deleted, unless evidence of notability is provided. —
807:
notable? This book should be used as a reference in the
670:
108:
104:
100:
718:
http://www.enquirer.com/bosnia/stories/bosnia0421.html
549:
is a significant one. I fail to see how it satisfies
570:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
714:http://www.bosnjaci.net/egt.php?id=1169&polje=
338:post-graduate programs in any particular country.
833:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
860:no way interested in any third party source.
75:Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp
67:Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp
839:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
307:or more of the following criteria:
488:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books)
444:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books)
221:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (books)
191:All published books are notable.--
24:
313:grow past a simple plot summary
886:writing about the book. (See
795:Per guidelines established in
600:rather than rule enforcers. --
219:No, they are not. Please see
1:
888:Knowledge (XXG):Autobiography
809:Jasenovac concentration camp
675:blocked yet again for this.
539:Jasenovac concentration camp
132:Jasenovac concentration camp
930:
797:WP:NOTE#General_notability
700:have, I would vote "keep".
324:The book has won a major
826:Please do not modify it.
816:16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
786:12:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
770:15:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
754:13:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
741:13:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
725:11:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
705:22:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
685:07:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
631:01:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
620:04:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
605:17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
593:01:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
577:22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
563:08:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
528:03:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
511:19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
495:14:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
478:09:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
451:14:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
438:03:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
417:21:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
352:18:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
272:06:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
259:01:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
242:00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
228:14:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
196:23:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
182:19:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
157:12:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
139:17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
61:02:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
267:of Knowledge (XXG).--
213:few or no other edits
551:WP:BK#Academic books
215:outside this topic.
803:, what makes this
149:this is not a vote
869:Independent does
490:policy applies. —
216:
58:
921:
914:
911:
905:
901:
895:
880:
874:
867:
861:
853:
847:
844:
828:
781:as nominator. —
779:Merge and delete
739:
683:
674:
653:deleted contribs
561:
301:reliable sources
256:
198:
180:
177:
172:
147:: remember that
127:Non-notable book
116:
98:
56:
34:
929:
928:
924:
923:
922:
920:
919:
918:
917:
912:
908:
902:
898:
881:
877:
868:
864:
854:
850:
845:
841:
837:
831:deletion review
824:
735:
679:
638:
557:
254:
175:
170:
167:
145:Note to editors
89:
73:
70:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
927:
925:
916:
915:
906:
896:
875:
862:
848:
838:
836:
835:
819:
818:
789:
788:
775:
774:
773:
772:
759:
758:
757:
756:
744:
743:
710:
709:
708:
707:
690:
689:
688:
687:
623:
622:
608:
607:
596:
595:
566:
565:
531:
530:
516:
515:
514:
513:
500:
499:
498:
497:
481:
480:
469:
468:
465:
464:
456:
455:
454:
453:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
343:
342:
339:
332:
329:
326:literary award
322:
321:
320:
299:meets through
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
245:
244:
232:
231:
230:
185:
184:
160:
159:
123:
122:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
926:
910:
907:
900:
897:
893:
889:
885:
879:
876:
872:
866:
863:
858:
852:
849:
843:
840:
834:
832:
827:
821:
820:
817:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
791:
790:
787:
784:
780:
777:
776:
771:
768:
763:
762:
761:
760:
755:
752:
748:
747:
746:
745:
742:
738:
734:
729:
728:
727:
726:
723:
719:
715:
706:
703:
698:
694:
693:
692:
691:
686:
682:
678:
672:
669:
666:
663:
660:
657:
654:
651:
648:
645:
642:
637:
634:
633:
632:
629:
625:
624:
621:
618:
613:
610:
609:
606:
603:
598:
597:
594:
591:
590:
584:
583:Strong Delete
581:
580:
579:
578:
575:
571:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
533:
532:
529:
526:
521:
518:
517:
512:
509:
504:
503:
502:
501:
496:
493:
489:
485:
484:
483:
482:
479:
476:
471:
470:
467:
466:
461:
458:
457:
452:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
436:
431:
428:
427:
418:
415:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
374:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
353:
350:
345:
344:
340:
337:
333:
330:
327:
323:
317:
316:
314:
309:
308:
306:
302:
298:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
278:
275:
274:
273:
270:
265:
262:
261:
260:
257:
250:
247:
246:
243:
240:
236:
233:
229:
226:
222:
218:
217:
214:
210:
206:
202:
197:
194:
190:
187:
186:
183:
179:
178:
173:
165:
162:
161:
158:
155:
150:
146:
143:
142:
141:
140:
137:
133:
129:
128:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
53:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
909:
899:
891:
884:someone else
883:
878:
870:
865:
856:
851:
842:
825:
822:
813:laughing man
804:
801:WP:NOT#IINFO
792:
778:
711:
696:
667:
661:
655:
649:
643:
611:
587:
582:
567:
546:
542:
534:
519:
459:
429:
372:
335:
304:
276:
263:
248:
234:
188:
168:
163:
144:
125:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
892:independent
811:article.//
702:Fairview360
617:Fairview360
349:Fairview360
211:) has made
857:themselves
783:Psychonaut
665:block user
659:page moves
492:Psychonaut
448:Psychonaut
435:Vseferović
297:verifiably
269:Clearspeak
225:Psychonaut
201:Clearspeak
193:Clearspeak
154:Psychonaut
136:Psychonaut
50:Cúchullain
671:block log
525:Gardenfli
904:science.
647:contribs
255:Charlene
209:contribs
119:View log
767:Opbeith
751:Opbeith
722:Opbeith
636:Bosniak
628:Bosniak
615:there?
602:Opbeith
574:Opbeith
543:subject
508:Opbeith
475:Opbeith
414:Opbeith
373:Comment
277:Comment
264:Comment
249:Comment
239:Bosniak
92:protect
87:history
793:Delete
612:Delete
541:; the
96:delete
46:Delete
537:into
535:Merge
520:Keep.
319:book.
189:Keep.
164:Merge
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
805:book
799:and
733:Duja
677:Duja
641:talk
555:Duja
547:book
460:Keep
430:Keep
280:how?
235:Keep
205:talk
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
871:not
697:and
589:DGG
446:. —
305:one
223:. —
171:KJS
117:– (
720:--
336:or
315:.
303:,
252:--
207:•
199:—
176:77
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
737:►
681:►
673:)
668:·
662:·
656:·
650:·
644:·
639:(
559:►
328:.
203:(
121:)
115:)
77:(
57:c
54:/
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.