Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/April 2007/Neil zusman

Case Filed On: 13:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your problem:
Libricide was deleted after a discussion which I felt was unfair.

This article had plenty of credible sources and some of the delete comments seemed as if they had missed reading the article. For example, one writer (admin?)questioned if they accidentally burned a library would this be libricide? Hello...

"I'm still no clearer. So if I accidentally start a fire in a library and it burns down I'm guilty of libricide? Because that was one of the most frequent causes of unique books being lost forever in the era of candlelight. And police informers burning evidence of their past activities in Iraq is not "cultural genocide", it's self-preservation. "Cultural genocide" is an immensely loaded term anyway and I'm really not sure this article has addressed the POV issues or distinguished itself fully from book burning. --Folantin 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment itself seems heavily loaded in POV. I wanted to make the point that a legitimate international organization, Human Rights Watch as well as members of the press could see the damage that destroying records and national artifacts might create and has created, in the chaos and symbolism of cultural attacks. Total War is with us, it is not just the bomb. It has its subtleties and it requires a knowledge of history to properly contextualize. The resignation of Martin E. Sullivan, then the Chairman of the President's Advisory on Cultural Property who quit in disgust over the libricides of the Iraq invasion may not be regarded by wikipedia yet, but he will be. There will be hell to pay for what my fellow countrymen have done to iraqui culture. Perhaps wikipedia only wants to win its popularity contests vetted by its near-sighted opportunistic admins.

It is a great irony for me that Wikipedia burned this article and keeps other articles that popular opinion alone seem to justify. It's no laughing matter but it is somewhat amusing to think that if wikipedia was around when the term genocide was coined, it would probably find: "No evidence the term genocide is widely used." Trash Libricide, hide it from view, and keep the Homer Simpson piece for example. No one can argue that Homer is a notable person and will be forever. Perhaps I'm mixing my metaphors. I am guilty of POV. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Kafakaesque would more aptly describe the deletion process in regard to Libricide as I have observed it. The process was even more of a disorganized mess than my article and is one more reason your repuation as serious scholarship still has far to go.

Is this mutatis-mutandis ?

http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/madrid1933-english.htm

Neil zusman 13:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reinstatement
I do want the page reinstated. I did not even make a copy for myself in Wikiform. I started out with more of a POV essay and edited the article as suggested as the comments came in- quite in good faith. I felt that a small number of editors had supported Libricide with caveats about organization. I was influenced by Rebecca Knuth's work on the subject and her work makes quite a distinction from libricide being book-burning. I have absolutely no connection to promoting the book. There were issues discussed about the word not being in use or used only in a few instances.

Bias in debate
The article was considered to have no value to the Wikipedia community, save for a few responders who commented on strongly keeping it. I don't think I was "parroting" Knuth's work, though she is a trail-blazer here, and I am not acting in bad faith when I criticized the deletion debate. I presented facts and analysis- perhaps I wasn't inclusive of those who commit acts of cultural destruction to let them have their point of view. Maybe there are too many systems profesionals who commented on this AFD who don't see the alarming scope. A case is made in Knith's work for this scope. There are too many non-digital cultures' on the brink of extinction and/or chaos because of the destruction of cultural artifacts and records that are not possible to duplicate. One admin's comment called the burning of Iraqui police records "self-defense". I cited a source that warned of the chaos that would be exacerbated by not being able to piece together the data in rebuilding the country. It seems like an accurate historical error is referenced here and this connection benefits the community of Wikipedia readers and researchers.

The fact that there are no electronic versions of my two main references (you have to read the book!) or many Google hits on the word Libricide seems irrelevant and biased to me. That is what I meant by biased- too many European-American "computer professional" opinions.

Expected outcome of advocacy
I stand by my critique of Wikipedia processes however and think that scholarship here needs help. I agree that my own ability to write good non-fiction needs help. Perhaps I get too stream-of-conscious in my eagerness to make connections. When I was told that the article needed help, I tried to fix it. One of the great things about Wikipedia is its attention to the non-popular. However, there are many popularity-driven and pop-culture articles in your encyclopedia. Libricide as a topic may not ever be popular, but searchers of genocide and book-burning would benefit by the links this article has tried to make. Why so many admins are shocked at my sensitivity to libricide or biblioclasm may be because I am a child of a Holocaust survivor. Genocide is far larger in scope, but libricide is not about some kid setting a little fire in the library and being tried for crimes against humanity. It is also not about needing to be reminded about candles and the fragility of paper and accidental fires. It is about the acts of intentional cultural destruction carried out in warfare that are crimes against humanity, it is not about book-burning. It is not about the fire, it is about what is ruined forever. That is where I am coming from.

Cause of problem
I think this deletion was caused by a strict adherence to "consensus". It is good to have standards, but there must also be a way to tolerate minorities. I wrote to Rebecca Knuth and have not heard back from her. She either has chosen to not make a comment, she said what she had to say in her book, or thinks this is junk, as do many of the admins., but not all of them. I could not have avoided asking for help in this case because I recognized from the start that mine was a romantic piece that hinged on a rarely used term and wished to amplify your book-burning article that is heavy on lists and short on historical context and contemporary relevance. I am guilty of the soapbox here, but tried not to be in the article- the comments in some cases seemed misread or not based on the text itself. One must wonder about the soapbox of free speech, I am with you on this, even though the big articles on "fuck" and "shit" are apt to cause giggles, arent you folks also on a soapbox of sorts with that? Are you afraid of losing funding by politics? Maybe I just wrote a bad article, not all respondents said so, but I think Libricide's deletion could not be avoided in this climate of too many cooks.

Request
May I get a copy of my first and last versions? I would also like a copy of its history.


 * I will make a full reply later tonight when I return home. CASCADIA Howl/Trail 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Neil zusman 20:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

 * 1) Reinstatement, from what I have read the article you initially created was quite POV, and even you admit it was a POV essay. I would say at this moment, it probably isn't a good idea to get that copy of the article resurrected. I would recommend recreating an article in a private sandbox of your user page (a subpage), and asking editors for input. Once it is determined it is NPOV, it can be copied and pasted into an actual article.

I had attempted to make it NPOV. Did you look at the latest version? You are not an administrator, how can you help me if you haven't read my first and last? On what do you base your opinion?


 * Neil, I base my opinion on the fact that many editors objected to the POV expressed in the article, and even you admitted above that it began as a POV essay.


 * 1) Bias in Debate, the thing we have to remember is that articles about such things as Libricide need to have a world view, and multiple sources. It will be extremely beneficial to hunt down some electronic sources in addition to the text you are speaking of. Claiming bias is not assuming good faith on the other editors, as sources should be broad and readily available.

Libricide lists intentional and targeted destruction of libraries and cultural records (sculpture, painting, architecture, etc.) from around the world and throughout history, not just Iraq, but does emphasize Iraq and Bosnia.

The sources listed:
 * Bosmajian, H. (2006). Burning Books. London: McFarland.1.


 * Knuth, R. (2006). Burning Books and Leveling Libraries: Extremist Violence and Cultural Destruction. Westpot, CT: Praeger. p. 2432.

Nov.-Dec. 2003. Accessed 4/20/07 from, [[1] (http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110388.html) ].3.
 * Rose, J. (2003). “Conflict in the stacks: Review of Matthew Battles, Library: An unquiet history.” [electronic resource]. Harvard Magazine,


 * Bosmajian, H. (2006). Burning Books. London: McFarland.4.

(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1687552) ]5.
 * Nunberg, G. "The Time of the Assassins". NPR "Fresh Air" Commentary, Air date February 20,2004. [[2]


 * Knuth, R. (2006). Burning Books and Leveling Libraries: Extremist Violence and Cultural Destruction. Westpot, CT: Praeger. p. 26.


 * Knuth, R.(2006),Ibid, p. 207.

[[3] (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/04/10/iraq5929.htm) ]"8.
 * Human Rights Watch: Human Rights News. (April 10, 2003). Iraq: Protect Government Archives from Looting. Retrieved 4/20/07 from, from


 * Knuth, R. (2003). Libricide. Westport, CT: Praeger.9.


 * Wikipedia, General Sherman, "Total War".General Sherman#Total warfare10.


 * The Oxford English dictionary [electronic resource]. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press,1989 -.11.


 * Other resources

were rescued by his friend, Max Brod.
 * Art works may self-destruct, in a form of art called "auto-destructive art". Franz Kafka wished to see his books burned after his death but they

(http://www.sauer-thompson.com/essays/Kafka.doc) ]
 * Bataille, G. "Kafka:Should kafka be burnt?". [electronic resource]. Retrieved 4/20/07 from, [[5]

Rights. (Jul., 1955), pp. 87-93. [[6] (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162%28195507%29300%3C87%3ASTBB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4) ]
 * Bolte, C.G. "Security through book burning." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 300, Internal Security and Civil


 * Chancellor. A. (April 26, 2003). "Barbarians at the gates". London: The Guardian.Guardian Weekend Pages, Pg. 7.

Ethnocide. [[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocide) ]
 * Cultural Genocide. [[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_genocide) ]


 * Fatih, N. (April 19, 2007). Iran exonerates six who killed in Islam’s name. New York Times, p. A113.

114-125. [[9] (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9711%281936%2967%3C114%3ABFTB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q) ]
 * Forbes, C. "Books for the burning." Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 67. (1936), pp.


 * Goswami, R. (April 25, 2003). "Culture: global effort on to rebuild shattered iraqui heritage." Mumbai: IPS-Inter Press Service/Global Information Network.

Knox, R. (March 21, 2006). "The horror of cultural destruction". London: The Independent. News, p.5.
 * Kinzer, S. (2007, March 29, 2007). "Big Gamble In Rwanda." New York Review of Books, 54, 23-26.11.


 * Libricide. [[10] (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libricide) ]


 * Maas, P. Love Thy Neighbor. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1996.

(http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/30/books-publishing-internet-tech-media_cx_mm_mn_books06_1201book_land.html) ]
 * Maiello, M., Noer, M. ed. "Special Report: Are books in danger?" New York: Forbes [electronic resource]. 12.01.06 [[11]

(http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-7937%28198807%2983%3A3%3C627%3ATNB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R) ]
 * Ritchie, J.M. "The Nazi Book-Burning". The Modern Language Review, Vol. 83, No. 3. (Jul., 1988), pp. 627-643. [[12]

(http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=6&debateId=27&articleId=3154) ]
 * Zizek, S. : The new politics of truth. Open Democracy Website. [[13]


 * External links

(http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=EN)
 * Website of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Homepage

(http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=2225&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html)
 * Intangible Heritage: UNESCO Culture Center


 * ALA | Intellectual Freedom | Book Burning (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bookburning/bookburning.htm)

(http://www.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_query/photos?page_len=25&noframes=x&max_docs=1000&query1=book+burning&query=kw110928)
 * Photos of nazi Book Burning

"The cultural losses that resulted from the Allies’ strategic bombing of almost every city center in Germany and Japan during World War II were one of the biggest conceptual hurdles I faced in my first book as I sought clarity on the issue of responsibility. Having chosen not to label the case libricide, mainly on the premise that the bombers did not intentionally target libraries, I wrestled nevertheless with a sense of the culpability of the nations who attained victory as a result of these egregious attacks."

http://hnn.us/articles/29272.html

"It is no coincidence that the terms genocide and libricide were coined in the twentieth century. A number of writers, including Rebecca Knuth (2003) and Andras Riedlmaye (1995), have chronicled instances in which libricide facilitated genocide: to exterminate races or tribes, so as to leave no trace, you must obliterate all material expressions of their cultures. While libricide has probably accompanied genocide for centuries, Knuth points out that "modern communication systems now convey images and texts that give unflinching testimony to violence that might otherwise be hidden from the world" (Knuth, 2003, p. 6).^ In the nineteenth century "the concept of cultural, historic and architectural heritage, viewed as the common heritage of a group or community came into existence" (Lopez, 2002, p. 6),'" though as far back as the Crusades jurists were already considering the obligation to protect cultural monuments in times of war (Boylan, 2001). Yet the rise of nationalism (Sieyes, 1789) —the belief that nations benefit from acting independently rather than collectively"—over the past two centuries has simultaneously helped and hindered preservation."

The Moral Imperative to Preserve Library Trends - Volume 55, Number 3, Winter 2007, pp. 746-755
 * Cloonan, Michèle Valerie 1955-


 * Section: OPINION

"Your September article "Monumental Preservation" (p. 34-38) mentions my work documenting the destruction of libraries and other cultural heritage in the Balkan wars of the 1990s. It makes reference to my July 8, 2003, testimony as an expert witness in the war crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic at the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. This was a historic moment; the first time that the deliberate destruction of libraries was prosecuted as a war crime in a court of international law.

Unfortunately, the passage as published seriously distorts the meaning of my Hague testimony. As a result, a vicious untruth concerning the real responsibility for the burning of the National Library of Bosnia-Herzegovina has been inadvertently enshrined as the statement of record on this infamous incident for AL's many thousands of readers.

According to documentation I presented in court, the National and University Library of Bosnia-Herzegovina was shelled and burned with incendiary munitions by Bosnian Serb forces August 25-26. 1992, with the loss of 90% of its collections. The library was deliberately targeted; surrounding buildings were not hit by the shelling. For my full testimony and expert report, see hague.hard.edu/past_video/07-2003.html.

The false claim that the Sarajevo library had been destroyed from within has been used as the standard alibi line by the Serb nationalist leaders who were responsible for ordering the shelling of the library with incendiary munitions from Bosnian Serb artillery positions on the surrounding hills."

Database: Academic Search Premier By András Riedlmayer, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Aga Khan Program Bibliographer at Harvard's Fine Art Library, conducted the Kosovo Cultural Heritage Survey in October 1999 with colleague Andrew Herscher, an architect and architectural historian.
 * Title: Sarajevo Library's Destruction., By: Riedlmayer, Andras, American Libraries, 00029769, Nov2004, Vol. 35, Issue 10

"While international accords prohibit the targeting of cultural artifacts during warfare, this legal protection implies that war is not waged over questions of culture and thus, that cultural artifacts can unproblematically be distinguished from legitimate military targets.1 The 1998-1999 conflict in Kosovo, however, was sanctioned by recourse to little else than culture; competing versions of Kosovo’s cultural identity were staged as the bases for competing claims for sovereignty over the province, and cultural artifacts were presented as precise evidence of those claims. The entanglement of the cultural and the political that led to the widescale destruction of historic architecture in Kosovo, then, has constituent elements. As such, the war in Kosovo is characteristic of a new form of conflict that is produced not out of geopolitical or ideological disputes, but out of the politics of particularist identities."


 * Monument and Crime: The Destruction of Historic Architecture in Kosovo. By: Herscher, Andrew; Riedlmayer, András. Grey Room, Fall2000 Issue 1, p108-122, 15p, 13bw; DOI: 10.1162/152638100750173083; (AN 5672782)

Database: Academic Search Premier
 * Other work by Riedlmayer
 * Title: KOSOVO: BURNED BOOKS AND BLASTED SHRINES., By: Guttman, Cynthia, Riedlmayer, Andras, UNESCO Courier, 00415278, Sep2000, Vol. 53, Issue 9


 * You have a very wide range of sources. That is good. Review Me CASCADIA Howl/Trail 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Expected outcome of Advocacy, I completely understand where you are coming from, and I do firmly believe there is a distinct difference between burning books because they contain the "The N word" or a detailed sex scene and systematically erasing a culture or ethnic group's recorded history.

It seems a pressing matter for publishers like wikipedia to aggregate what is known about breaking history. That is my opinion. I'd like to see wikipedia serve both the exisiting user-base and the non-users who may become users. This issue needs to be made open to people who speak different languages and have non-digital cultures at present.


 * Wikipedia is not a publisher per se, they are more of a host of content. With that said, articles included in Wikipedia are not included based on pressing need... but desire by someone to create that article.


 * 1) Cause of the Problem, I believe the primary cause of the problem was the POV. Articles must be neutral. However, I think your article has the ability to be neutral and become a WP:DYK prospect.

Is the POV questioning these events as interpretive? It is important and not included in the existing article- where does it go- cultural genocide, total warfare, ethnocide?? I felt it stands on its own and links to a network of other terms and facets of the phenomenon.


 * Yes, but if others had an issue with the POV, then that is what needs to be concerned.


 * 1) Request, I am not an admin, so I am not able to view deleted pages. However, you may see if an admin would be willing to view the deleted copy and email it to you, but I somewhat doubt it.

Why do you doubt it, what is your assessment? Do you want me to guess. Please specify.


 * I'm not sure what admin would be willing to go into the deleted copy of an article and give you a copy of what was there before, that's what I was going by. In my experience with admins, this does not appear to be something many would be willing to do. I could ask a few if you'd like, but per the Deletion Review process, the best course of action at this point is to just recreate the article taking into account the objections of other editors and remaining NPOV.

Best course of action, Neil, would be to simply rewrite the article in a subpage of your userspace, ask those that supported you in the article to help as well, using a myriad of sources. When it is determined to be NPOV, copy and paste it into an actual article, add some touches to it, and submit it for Did you know....

Wikipedia's "Do you know" is wonderful, if you like a disorganized mess of facts. I do, I like it very much but it is hard to use- not everyone has the time to browse randomly- seems like a wasted effort for busy readers, and not a good way to convert non-users.


 * The reason why I brought up DYK is that it may put the article on the main page.

I hope this helps, if not, please respond below. Review CASCADIA Howl/Trail 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved to Current Cases. Review CASCADIA Howl/Trail 21:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this help? No.  I sense you are finished.  Are you?

Neil zusman 13:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Neil, I am very interested on helping you get this article up. If you're willing to work with me, I'm willing to work with you on accomplishing this. Review Me CASCADIA Howl/Trail 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-write
I can reconstruct it, I have a word file which can be redone. At first, it will look exactly like the last version I had up. Is that okay with you? Then, I'm going to weigh you and other editors changes- let them be bold. I'd also like a critique to help me see this POV more clearly. Where would it be best to post it?

Neil zusman 14:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Private Sandbox
Neil, the best place to begin working on a rework- at the moment anyway, is by adding /sandbox to your userpage, this will make a sub-page for the article. This will keep it out of the way and allow you and other editors to tweak it a bit before making it public. 14:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer:

AMA Information
Case Status: open

Advocate Status:
 * CASCADIA Howl/Trail 03:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC) I will go ahead and look into this one, I need to get my feet wet in this process.

I have accepted this case for advocacy. Review CASCADIA Howl/Trail 21:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)