Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 1

< May 31	June 2 >

June 1

Template:Ergo Proxy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete --Magioladitis (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ergo Proxy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary navbox that only links together four articles, of which the media list needs to be merged with the others. ···「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk to Dinoguy1000} 21:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — ···「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk to Dinoguy1000} 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A navbox for this topic is not warranted at this time, since all 4 articles are adequately interlinked via in-text links. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete not needed at this time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sockadmit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was subst and delete --Magioladitis (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Sockadmit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template appears to be redundant to {{User Alternate Acc}} or other related alternate account templates. Further to that, the creator of the template appears to have left by now, and very few editors actually use this template. DisturbedNerd999 (Delete!) 19:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect? Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

• Delete after replacing all uses with {{User Alternate Acc}}. The two templates do indeed serve essentially the same function, but {{User Alternate Acc}} provides more information: the name of the account controlling the sockpuppet. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure, we can do that. If the consensus is to delete, then we can easily orphane this template by replacing all uses with {{User Alternate Acc}} and delete afterwards. There are currently only six transclusions, so it won't be too tedious. The only problem is that we do not know the sockmaster of Master Lämpel (who also uses this template), but that probably doesn't matter as the account is almost 1.5 years stale and adding this template to its user page was its only edit. All of the other users have listed their sockmasters.--DisturbedNerd999 (Delete!) 03:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, three of the user pages explicitly identify the master account and the fourth (SockPuppetForTomruen) definitely does not try to hide it. I also could not figure out who was the sockmaster of Master Lämpel: the account has made only one edit (adding the template to the userpage) so one can't judge by editing patterns, no one has claimed the account on another user page (see Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Master Lämpel), and I could not find a sufficiently similar username. But, as you say, the account has not been active in nearly 18 months. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Maybe we can substitute the template on Master Lämpel's user page then? That is if the consensus is to delete. Then we can replace all other transclusions with {{User Alternate Acc}}.--DisturbedNerd999 (Delete!) 23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Good idea! The template's wiki-code is that of a standard messagbox, so substing it will not cause any errors. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hadith authenticity

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Hadith authenticity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A troubling and unused cleanup tag that says "This Hadith article needs to state the authenticity of the Hadith to conform to a higher standard of quality." The Hadith is a collection is Islamic sayings. I may be misreading it, but the tag encourages religious POV. Blargh29 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It's hard to imagine a neutral, encyclopedic standard that would require such a thing. -FisherQueen (talk · \contribs) 23:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Perusing the edits of the template's creator, I imagine it was meant to be read in the opposite way from mentioned above, but nevertheless it's totally unencyclopedic and gross violation of NPOV. No article should be required to confirm or deny any religious dogma. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm thinking that the template was created to request a verification that the "hadith" in question was real, or that its interpretation as contained in an article is verifiable, as opposed to created from whole cloth in some form by an editor. However, that would seem to contradict WP:AGF, making the use of the template suspect. John Carter (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the Hadith are of various degrees of authority depending upon the traditional chain of transmission, the isnad--this is the traditional meaning of authenticity; I cannot imagine a proper encyclopedic discussion of one without a the presentation of this chain. The template makes a perfectly reasonable request that someone find and add the tradition if it is not in the article. See the article on Hadith for further discussion--I suspect that the comments above do not fully realize the importance of this. It's a traditional religio-historical concept integral to their understanding that has been a principal object of traditional Islamic scholarship. . I do not in the least see this template as biased. Its no more biased than expecting of discussion of a part of the Bible to explain the reasons why it has traditionally been considered part of the canon, and its ascribed authorship. DGG (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete While I agree that it's intent, per John Carter, may have been about clarification, the nominator's interpretation was mine at first too. I disagree with DGG's interpretation that articles must either duplicate a large text on the authority of Hadith, or that including such text over and over wouldn't be a POV push. His comparison also seems flawed - Biblical canon can be explained via the editing of various kings and such, using secondary sources - given the different bibles out there, the different sets of apocrypha by religion, and so on, there's plenty of secondary sources, whereas he's arguing we use Hadith to prove Hadith, thus relying on Primary sources as NOT just a quotation, to then discuss, but as one active part of the presentation of the debate. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - The fact that we're having this debate necessitates its deletion. A regular NPOV tag with a note on the talk page documentation is simpler and better.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not about Wikipedia affirming or rejecting any doctrine; it's only about reporting whether Islamic textual criticism considers each individual hadith to be reliable, suspect, or somewhere in between, and why. This information is important. It can and should be supported from reliable sources. At most, the template should be reworded for clarity. Perhaps something along the lines of "This article needs to include information on the traditional classification of this Hadith according to its chain of transmission and degree of acceptance as reliable." --Amble (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - authenticity has nothing to do with whether or not the Hadith itself is true (and indeed a WP article shouldnt be making a claim that one is true or untrue), only with what scholars believe is the strength of the line of transmission. This should be documented as it is an integral aspect of any discussion about a Hadith. I think the reword above would work fine, just remove "and degree of acceptance as reliable." Nableezy (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. We shouldn't be putting in interpretations of hadith anyway unless they're from reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Really bad idea. Garion96 (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - As users DGG, Amble and Nableezy have collectively indicated, the purpose of the template is to clarify the authenticity level of Hadith (this is a science in itself). One of the major sources of confusion (and propaganda) is the bandying about of Hadith in order to promote one's views. The template is designed to counteract precisely this. It is not meant to confirm or deny any religious dogma; it is meant to clarify how Muslims view certain traditional sayings. I agree with the idea of rewording the template in the new form(s) suggested above. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Comment" - With all due respect, the "Science of hadith" is not a scientific concept, but rather a religious and historical concept. It is a traditional system of classifying religious texts, not a natural explanation of observable phenomenon, which is the definition of science. Use of the word science is idiomatic and not indicative of scientific merit. Historical? Yes. --Blargh29 (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I was just trying to indicate that there is a field of study that analyses Hadiths and their authenticity in a very stringent manner, not that it is actually a science per se. Hope this clears up the confusion. :) MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional keep - I understand what the Keep comments are getting at, however this template over-simplifies what is sometimes a complicated aspect. There is not one single grading system/criteria by which one can declare a certain narrative is necessarily authentic - different authorities had different levels of scrutiny they applied. Many narrations in fact have scholarly differences over whether they are authentic or how strong/weak they are. Authenticity should be given room for discussion in the article body itself, so an alternative to deleting could be to reword the template to something like "This article lacks discussion about the authenticity of the narrative/Hadith" so it doesn't give the idea that WP is rubber-stamping any particular verdict. Additionally, many of these 'Hadith of' articles are themselves unnecessary and unencyclopedic and in most cases need to be merged into articles about the general topic they are significant to. ITAQALLAH 11:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "Comment" - Again, I think Hadith-centric article should have discussions of the traditional evaluations of the historic value of particular portions of the Hadith, however, that should not be the end of it. The "science of Hadith" cannot be removed from its religious context, as the work of religious scholars determining what was said 1400 years ago.--Blargh29 (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how that contradicts the proposed solution of changing the wording to highlight the fact that specific content has been omitted from the article in question. One could argue it's purely unnecessary on the basis of needlessly singling out one particular aspect, but to argue that it is religious POV isn't credible to me. Hadith studies and ascertaining the veracity of such narratives goes well beyond the religious dimension, as is known to anyone familiar with Western academic literature. ITAQALLAH 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Still, the base question is: should such considerations be addressed in a cleanup tag. Cleanup tags should be easily understandable to the vast majority of the readership without further research. Cleanup tags should also and non-controversial. This cleanup tag is not.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I think the base question is, what is the purpose of a cleanup tag ? To help clean up an article in some way. The concept of a Hadith is intricately linked with it's authenticity and chain of transmission. It is well-known to those familiar with Hadiths that the most notorious problem regarding them is their loose use in promoting certain ideas. This inevitably leads to an analysis of their authenticity, even though this may not be a feature of other texts. The cleanup tag is there to bring to the attention of readers the fact that a specific Hadith article should state it's level of authenticity (even though there may be differing views here), as this is an integral part of any Hadith analysis.MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, people are misreading its intention, and perhaps it should be reworded. It's essentially, to put it in a Christian context, saying "It's not clear if this book is considered part of the Bible, or a Gnostic text, please make it clear in the article". That's all. Muslims have "accepted" Hadiths, and "rejected" Hadiths, and therefore any encyclopaedia should say whether Muslims themselves reject the Hadith. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete . I would say 'Keep and clarify' but its a. unused and b. very (too) specific. Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Monrose singles

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Monrose singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Monrose}}. No transclusions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. {{Monrose}} covers everything in {{Monrose singles}}, so there's no need to keep this. Further to that, absolutely no pages in mainspace use this template, so a redirect is unnecessary. Too redundant.--DisturbedNerd999 (Delete!) 03:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as "redundant to a better-designed template". {{Monrose}} is more comprehensive and not so long as to necessitate a split. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hugo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Hugo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Author has a lot of dubious activity under his belt including redirecting functioning articles to nothing. I do not see the usefullness of this particular template. Gsmgm (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Author's previous history not relevant. More to the point there is also Category:Hugo. Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC).
• Delete – A navbox for this topic is not warranted at this time, since all 5 articles are adequately interlinked via prominent in-text links. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 05:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• I frankly don't understand what's the problem. --Mjr Edit (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as mostly useless. KGF0 ( T | C ) 04:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Communist era sources

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete as already covered with the standard {{POV}} tag. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Communist era sources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template itself is POV. It assumes that all sources that were created under a Communist regime are flawed, and calls into question any and all Communist era sources without distinction. While many communist era sources can have issues and problems, it is not a universal that applies to all. Such sources need to be viewed on a case by case basis. It has been suggested that the template be broadened to "Totalitarian regime", but the same objection applies. It is also duplicative of the existing POV template. Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete-no practical use that can't be covered by POV template. No productive use shown. So far used in disruptive manner and to claim that 1987 Poland was "totalitarian regime"--Molobo (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Poland in 1987 actually was ruled by a totalitarian Communist regime - by a pretty upset clique headed by general Jaruzelski eager to surpress everything in their way. Though not ruling by martial law anymore (this was "only" until the mid-80s), the Communist party was in charge of military and police, had their secret service etc and knew very well how to surpress any opposition. It was not before 1989 that Solidarnosc and the other oppositional groups were acknowledged, and it took some additonal time before the Communist party withdrew from the strong reglementations they had issued on these groups and the Polish people in general. At least until early 1989, when the "round tables" took place, Jaruzelski's Communist party was the totalitarian ruler of Poland. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Original Research, and wrong at that. None of the points you wrote support your claim of "totalitarian" regime. Fighting opposition or control over military and police is not limited to totalitarian regimes. Total control of every aspect of life by single party is what describes a totalitarian regime, and in PRL both anti-communist thinkers, religious organisations and private life was quite possible without party control, even during martial law.

It was not before 1989 that Solidarnosc and the other oppositional groups were acknowledged Oh how wrong you are. Several talks throughout the whole period were made with numerous opposition parties and PRL even tolerated anti-marxist party in Parliament(Stronnictwo Demokratyczne). Other parties, while overseen if they do not gain too much ppower, had right to exist such as Zjednoczone Stronnictwo Ludowe, PAX, or Polski Związek Katolicko-Społeczny. I guess it might be a surprise to you but those parties actively opposed PZPR in PRL Parliament on several issues such as abortion laws, access to religious service, human rights. True the extent of their opposition had its limits, but existance of several parties with oppositng views and even own drafts of laws(PZKS proposed ban on abortion) debated in parliament shows that Poland was not totalitarian, as it would require a single party. Additional traits that contradict this is existance of channels of free media expression(Jarocin Punk-Rock festival and others, Catholic press publications) or non-governmental organisations. So sorry Skapperod, but your claim is completely contradicted by historic facts and the definition of totalitarian state in itself.

--Molobo (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Poland was not totalitarian, as it would require a single party." - No. A totalitarian regime requires a single party (or comparable body) to be in total charge of executive, legislative and judicative power. And that was only true for the Communist party, all the other organizations that you say existed did no more than that, exist, and none of these organizations asserted any legislative or executive power. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Again Original Research. "A totalitarian regime requires a single party (or comparable body) to be in total charge of executive, legislative and judicative power" according to who ? Your personal theories aren't really any argument, not to mention it is flawed in concept and doesn't define totalitarian system. Also do read statements to which you respond-PZPR had no total control of legislative power as shown by examples above so your theory is not valid. Additionally PZPR had no total control of executive power but something else as well. Really Skapperod-Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on statements by Wikipedians. We can't base it on what you invent(btw that was a amusing attempt-since it would a system in which total freedom is enforced as totalitarian :) ).--Molobo (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep or move - the idea of the Template has merit re Totalitarian regimes. I.e. secondary sources produced under regimes that control information -- say, Kim Il-Sung's North Korea, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, etc. -- would generally not be considered reliable for obvious reasons. The TEXT of the template actually makes it clear that it is aimed at Totalitarian regimes, so I could see alternatively moving it to that name given the text of the Template.Mosedschurte (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment... actually, if you follow the recent discussions at WT:RS and WP:RSN, you are making an incorrect assumption in saying that they would "generally not be considered reliable". It really depends on the exact source, what exactly is being cited from it, what the wikipeida article is and what the source is being cited for (ie the statement in the wikipedia article). There are too many variables involved for such a template to be reasonable. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Keeping it to totalitarian regimes would be interesting, but would need specific and direct definition of what is one. Controlling information is done by all countries in one way or the other, so it's not a good definition. And while Eastern Block controlled information, it doesn't mean it didn't have for example better research on Wehrmacht atrocities then UK or USA. Again we are back to the issue that the sources need to be examined case by case.--Molobo (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly... as another example Soviet scholarship in the sciences was generally fairly reliable and not all that censored. Blueboar (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can only rely on AGF of the editor. There were "scientists" like Olga Lepeshinskaya (the abiogenesis diva, not the ballerina), the Lysenko bunch, the MGU physics school that denied quantum physics even after RDS-1 went off - as much crap in "hard" sciences as in soft ones. NVO (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "we can only rely on the AGF of the editor". I don't think anyone is arguing that all scholarship eminating from communist (or totalitarian) sources is good... the objection to the template is that it takes the opposite extreme, implying that all such sources are bad. The reality is that both extremes are wrong. Each source needs to be assessed on its own. A specific source (even a specific fact within a source) can be judged reliable or unreliable... but not an entire genre of sources. 13:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep the "totalitarian version". This template may be helpful to mark a specific type of POV in many WP articles. All totalitarian sources where heavily censored by the state organizations like Glavlit and therefore should be considered unreliable by default, especially when they tell about the enemies of such regimes, like White movement, enemy of the people, etc. The problem with such sources is not their bias. The problem are totally invented events or data, which have been produced specifically for disinformation. One common example are totally invented statistical numbers about the "successes" of socialist economy. One could also propose an "Attention! Potential disinformation" template.Biophys (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: And there, in a nutshell is the problem with the template... No... NOT all sources written under totalitarian regimes where heavily censored... yes, we need to be extra careful and look for second opinions, but the flaw with this template is that it lumps everything into one pot. You make the incorrect assuption that there was no reliable scholarship happening in these states, and that simply is not true. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Not at all do I assume this, Blueboar. It is rather that you just can't tell. A book about - let's say, pine trees published in East Germany at the first glance does not seem likely to contain propaganda or be subject to heavy censoring. If however one knows that pollution in East Germany was so high that trees died en masse, and that the regime indeed censored all information that could reveal this (tabooized) fact, one can not even take any data in a book about pine trees for granted. There was no independent publishing house, there was censorship even in areas where one would not expect it, and the authors ignoring the official and inofficial directives of the regime on what should be written and how were few, were censored, and subject to various repressions. And the other authors knew that - one should not forget that there was a considerable self-censorship to avoid the harm that was definetely to come if one flunked the official review.

I agree that if we were "extra careful and look for second opinions", we don't need a template. The second oppinions would make this one obsolete, as it reads "rely heavily or entirely" on such sources. It is thus developed specifically for cases like the ones you pointed out. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No. see above. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Skäpperöd. Almost everything served to propaganda purposes and was heavily affected by the censorship. That is why such regimes are called "totalitarian". Not absolutely everything, but as much that such template is warranted.Biophys (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep (there are general disputed sources templates) but rename appropriately to the contents: "era" is just a period in time, not an indicator of ideological bias. Even authors coming from bona fide socialist countries may turn out anti-communists in disguise: damn the fifth columnists. Papa Beria, where art thou... <morning rant>. NVO (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Of the two versions, my vote goes for the latter (as being wider in scope and not dependent on the communism-vs.-socialism border line), although I recommend replacing Hitler with Putin or Mao. Right now the template produces the impression that the little Österreicher was anywhere near Stalin (neither are two other guys, but what the heck). But otherwise definitely keep, commendable well-referenced texts should be marked in advance. <another morning rant> NVO (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PP.SS. <no rant here> Needless to say, "please help improve this section" is both redundant (anything can be improved to absolute perfection or sterility, or both) and perhaps misleading (it conveys the sense that facts cited in the sources are incorrect while the real situation may be quite the opposite). As an example, I am positively sure that a 1950 reference book on vacuum tubes is far better written than a 1970s book, and a 1970s book is better than any modern online text: the 1970s text was still written by old-school professionals, the online text by amateurs and fans like yours truly. And it will take a while to persuade me that a Soviet book on tubes is inferior to English editions (both are inferior to German stuff, which is perfect and un-improvable, but that's purportedly another totalitarian...). NVO (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete – We have a POV tag for those who are uncomfortable with particular sources, which they can discuss in the talk page as indicated by the tag. Not every Communist-era source is unreliable. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep "Not every Communist-era source is unreliable" - but the impartial reader has to know the background of a source, especially if the whole section is based exclusively on such a source. Sometimes it's impossible to confute every single theorie by a modern source, but using the POV tag without a contradicting source won't last for long. Letting the reader know about the background enables him to judge on his own. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, we should have templates for US government sources (they don't tend to release things as objectively as one would hope), conservative think-tanks, 19th-century sources, Saudi sources, etc. – what harm could there be for the impartial among us. There is a POV tag for all of this, so there is no need to have a "Communist-era sources" tag. Pushing anti-communism through tags is not exactly what Wikipedia was first intended for. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We would then have to use tag every regime where works are known to contain bias, instead of general POV template. "This article is heavily based on sources by West Germany", "This article is heavily based on sources by Tsarist Russia" and so on. Is it needed ?--Molobo (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

West Germany did not expect her authors to adhere the official state policy and publish nothing else. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Woops. They did. Start with Laws against Holocaust denial, then go further to Denazification topics. Check also Berufsverbot. All for good's sake, but it was there (and, apart from berufsverbot, still is). NVO (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. As the creator, and for the rationales pointed out in my comments above. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep the original or the Piotrus version? The difference is not subtle. NVO (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet made up my mind since I reviewed the Piotrus proposal only a minute ago. The background to my creation of the template was, that I personally think that Communist era sources should be handled with utmost care when sourcing "facts" especially in areas the respective regime is known to have a strong interest in. I started WP:RS/N#Reliability of sources published in Communist Poland. The responses indicated that such sources are reliable/to be used primarily for outlining the historiographic perception of the topic during this era. This is not the case in the above mentioned article, there such sources are used as the sole basis for entire sections. It is undisputed that the Communist regime in Poland in part legitimated itself by - simplified - painting all German as Nazi and presenting itself as the sole protector. This of course does not mean that the regime made up the Nazi era, and that everything published during the Communist era was just lies. But it means that the regime, who controlled all that was published, had a strong interest in this field, and that all that was published in this era regarding Germany is potentially, even likely to be biased or even false. I am aware that the falsifying propaganda was not as wide-spread, most was done by telling only half of the truth and thus manipulating the recipients in their conclusions. I am also aware of the fact that different scholars in different positions were given different amounts of "freedom". But we need a template (or alternatively an in-text attribution) to indicate that the source used to back up the section is not - as one would expect when just seeing a citenote behind a sentence - the work of an independent researcher, that it was not independently peer-reviewed/fact-checked, that it was not published in an independent publishing house, and that it was probably censored. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And how do we know this is not a work of independent researcher ? Any proof ? Just because it was publishe in PRL doesn't mean the researcher wasn't independent during the writing.In fact Madajczak remains one of the most important researcher on Nazi atrocities;

As the scholar and historian Andrzej Friszke noted in IPN Bulletin fom 4th May of 2004 Czesław Madajczyk remains the best author and scholar in regards to studies on Nazi Germany's policies in Poland[34]. Also Friszke did write that most of Polish research on Nazi Germany is based on publications before 1989 as post-1989 researches focused on Soviet era and territories, amd there is no doubt that this sources are considered reliable. In fact even modern historians from Germany use Madajczyk's works and praise him which can be sourced.

It is undisputed that the Communist regime in Poland in part legitimated itself by - simplified - painting all German as Nazi.

How interesting then that Madajczak's book contains a complete section mentioning anti-Nazi resistance in Germany, Germans cooperating with Poles and Germans who opposed Nazi atrocities they witnessed. Does contradict your claim doesn't it ? Oh and btw-linking to an article that was completely re-written by you as proof of your own claims isn't exactly a strong argument IMHO.

Out of interest;I don't recall your objections to using Nazi-era claims from propaganda book published by Nazi Germany about Poles : [1]

In fact I do remember you arguing strongly that Nazi publication should stay as source of information about Poland. No template or attempts to attribute the claims to Nazis were made by you back then. Only when a book describing Nazi atrocities(and regarded as one of the best scholary works) was added in Wiki did you engage in this kind of activity. Correct me if I am wrong but does mean you believe the Nazi publication was more reliable then Madajczak-who is used up till today by modern researchers ?

"But it means that the regime, who controlled all that was published"

Again wrong, not all publications were controlled. It's best to say they were overseen, but even anti-Marxist ideologies were widely available for those wanted them.

--Molobo (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the allegation of defending Nazi sources, just read the thread linked. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, split and keep both, ideally with a concise statement what it means. Otherwise a "communist" banner over a section based on an anti-communist source will look confusing. NVO (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• CommentReaders should perhaps see a wider scope of the issue at hand. Actions of Skapperod happened after I informed that most available research on Nazi atrocities in Poland comes from before 1989[2] (to a user Skapperod engaged in dispute and quickly reported to ANI), and expanded articles on Nazi atrocities using a 1987 book being one of the most praised analysis of Nazi policies in Poland[3], Skapperod started a topic on RS demanding Wikipedia-wide ban of all publications published...before 1989 claiming it is "Communist propaganda"[4]

When that attempted failed, he first tried to insert text about "communists" before every section about Nazi atrocities using Madajczak's book[5] The template was created only when the second attempt failed , and used right away to tag every information about Nazi atrocites:[6] So in fact this seems to be about very specific case and issue, not in general about communist or totalitarian sources. In the past Skapperod used source from Nazi Germany and no templates or objections were raised by him, in fact he defended the source [7] So just a word of advice-do study what are the issues connected to this and background.--Molobo (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I never "claimed it is Communist propaganda". I never attributed Madajczak as a "communist". For the attribution I inserted following the feedback at RS/N and before the template was created, follow the diff. To see me "defending Nazi sources", just follow the link to this dead old horse thread and read for yourself.

For "background information" it is probably best to review the edit history of Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany, the only article that had the template so far, and see how I turned a pity article into a well-sourced well formatted article where data of modern scholars was introduced, compared and attributed, until the attributions were repeatedly removed and the article was expanded with several sections >90% based on two books from the Communist era (1970 and 1987). Skäpperöd (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete on Skapperod's original version, somewhere between Weak Delete/Weak Keep on Piotrus' (sorry, still making up my mind). What happens in cases where an article uses a lot of a Communist era source, like say Madajczyk, but which is then corroborated by non Communist sources or evaluated in a positive manner by the same? Can the tag still be put in an article? If the guideline is made clear here (and a note made somewhere so that disputes in such cases can be easily resolved) then that'll tip my opinion - if it can still be inserted then Delete, if in those circumstances it is not appropriate, then Keep (Piotrus' version).radek (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this covered by using the existing POV tag, and leaving a message on the talk page explaining your concern? Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's why I'm wavering here. This template would be more specific - in essence a combination pov/sources tag. It has some merits I think but there's definitely some serious concerns.radek (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Biophys and change the template, if necessary. It is definitely a useful template, if used cautiously. --Miacek (t) 14:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. As Digwuren pointed out elsewhere, reliability is the quality of being consistently accurate. Communist sources are unreliable because they are not consistently accurate. Some areas like science they are okay, in other areas like contemporary history, they are not. Such a tag is needed to alert the reader to the particular nature of such sources. --Martintg (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Not yet voting but if this template is to be kept, I think I favour Piotrus' more generic version. Issues with Communist and Nazi propaganda are rather similar from the reliability perspective, and demarcating different propagaganda sources as merely different POVs has ample potential for nonproductive confusion. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - bad idea for a template. We should assess sources themselves, not the conditions under which they were published. If the sources for a particular article are reliable - as some Soviet-era sources are - then this template isn't needed. If they aren't, then other templates like {{reliable sources}} should be used. If the only sources available are so hopelessly unreliable to call the POV and accuracy of the article into question, then it should probably be deleted. In any case, I don't think there's a need for this template, and adding it to articles is only likely to provoke political edit wars. Robofish (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Absolute strongest delete as per all arguments to delete, and as per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_7#Template:Notpropaganda, which has been deleted, and is in essence exactly the same template. It is about time that editors realise that WP:NPOV dictates that all points of view are covered equally, making this template absolutely divisive. Can't wait to see what is created after this one is deleted. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Piotrus' version. I'm surprised of having to agree with Russavia, but he's right this time. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The template (either original or modified) adds no value whatsoever beyond what a combination of a regular POV template and a talk page discussion would achieve, and it is not without controversy/abuse potential. We don't need to supply political trolls with tools; they are doing just fine on their own as it is.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:03, May 20, 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep, probably move. While I agree with Ezhiki that we can get the same result as a combination of {{POV}} and the talk page discussions the tag might be useful. Indeed often potentially ideologically loaded articles are sourced only to the communist-era sourced. I saw e.g. articles about the events of the Russian Civil War solely sourced to Vladimir Lenin works. The info might be correct but the sources must be checked. I would also support movement the template to Template:Potentially biased sources as the problem is wider than only Communist or even totalitarian sources. E.g. neither Pakistan nor India are communist or totalitarian states. Still I think that an article about an event of an Indo-Pakistani War solely based on the sources from one side of the conflict should be checked with the sources of an opposite side and neutral sources. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per: (1) assess the sources, not the conditions under which they were published (from Robofish); and (2) templated messages are not a substitute for discussion. Complex, politically-charged content issues and disputes should be addressed on talk pages, and not via templates in the mainspace. Reliance on information from a single biased source is always a problem, regardless of under which regime type that source was published. Every government censors information about certain topics, and an article on Nazi ideology written based solely on Soviet sources from 1944 is just as problematic as one written based solely on American sources from the same year.
  That being said, in some cases the location of publication is absolutely irrelevant; consider, for example, an article about a type of algae written based on Soviet sources from 1925 would probably be OK, as long as there's nothing wrong with the sources themselves. Every political dispute on Wikipedia does not merit its own set of templates; use {{POV}} and discuss issues on talk pages. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps a tag that indicates that sources may have been censored or influenced by political power would be better. The GW Bush regime in the US was well-known for censoring or suppressing scientific findings. Drawn Some (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete. I wouldn't normally get involved in this particular fever swamp, but Drawn Some's generally supportive comment above more or less crystallizes this for me (sorry, Drawn Some). This is a recipe for POV-pushers and disputants to impugn sources they disagree with merely by stating that it's loosely associated in time with a political regime they find objectionable. Allow it for this one case - for the record, few people could find any political regime more objectionable than I find communism to be - and the door's open to suggesting templates like the one Drawn Some proposes above, impugning any source while also impugning the declared reason for objecting to the source. We should stick with the general-purpose {{POV}} tag; anything else risks POV contamination in and of itself. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and use a more generic template than either (but not POV - this is about sources, not the text) - unless there is a low probability of finding independent or balancing sources, in which case the article should make the source limitations clear. Rich Farmbrough, 01:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

• Keep. Template very needed. Totalitarian sources are not competent and has to mark this sources. LUCPOL (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  This is to misunderstand. Totalitatarian sources should be clearly marked where applicable in the source "Tinky Winky's assertion of meeting the 5 year plan is supported by "Tubby Toast Production Quotas 1998" produced by his subcommittee, WHO however regards these figures as 'unlikely'." or "... no independent analysis is available." or whatever. On the other hand if an article is deemed incomplete something between {{One source}} and {{Unbalanced}} would be wanted. Rich Farmbrough, 14:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

• Delete Both versions of the template confuse the issue, which is the need to note the use of (possibly) propaganda-tainted materials. The templates note the use of anything published under a totaltarian regieme, which is different. Those materials may or may not be propaganda-tainted. For example, a Soviet-era document with agriculture production data should be seriously examined for propaganda taint, but a Soviet-era report by an academic on vaccuum tubes might be OK. Counter-counter proposal: Can we get an NPOV-source tag? That would note that the source (rather than the language) might fail NPOV.--Blargh29 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation itself of NPOV, even in the much improved modified form. Not all work produced in the Soviet or Nazi era was of poor quality, or contaminated by politics. It even applies to some parts of the social sciences--soviet historical and archeological writing on many (but obviously not all) subjects remains valuable, and any blatant ideological bias is usually confined to the obligatory first chapter. Even in the field of soviet-era politics, where this template is most applicable, there is just as much reason to think nationalist anti-communist sources of bias as Communist ones. Not everything that might be taken to support Communist views is necessarily fabricated. There are some topics where there may be no NPOV sources at all. In particular, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia remains an invaluable source of reference for much of what it covers, as do the Fascist-era volumes of Enciclopedia italiana. Like any older encyclopedias, they have the bias of their nation and period. DGG (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete both We have better tools to handle POV situations. We have {{NPOV}}, {{unbalanced}}, {{worldwide}} and many more. This one violates NPOV. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.