Talk:Andrej Grubačić/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Andrej Grubačić. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Query about notability

As an academic Grubacic doesn't seem to have produced much of great note - and his political stuff seems to me fringe activities only documented in fringe media. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

I have restored the notability and refimprove tags as I don't think they have been addressed.

Why is he notable - the lead stresses academia but I think the our academic criteria is quite steep WP:Prof. As someone in fringe politics I think one might need some more mainstream refs. to support claim for notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

MOVED FROM Bobs talk page for clarity

Dear Bobmarley13, I have restored the notability and refimprove tags as I think they need to be addressed more fully.

Why is Andrej Grubacic notable? The lead stresses academia but I think the our academic criteria is quite steep WP:Prof.

As someone in fringe politics I think one might need some more mainstream refs to prove notability. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

dear friend, i acknowledge your concern. i write as his research (student) assistant. he is one of the leading anarchists at the moment. yes, on the fringe, but one of the leading anarchists in the world today. i guess that would be my argument. and he is one of a few working on history from anarchist perspective (one of...three?). bob Bobmarley13 (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

friend, he is an anarchist scholar, not an academic. i think i should move this notable academic guidelines. i talked to him and he thinks thats a fair solution. my task is to provide references. bear with me. i am just a student assistant, learning wikipedia. Bobmarley13 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bob, I have put the notability tag back - without the 'academic' flag since that is perhaps not the best way to go to keep the article. Also I think it might be best to move his academic posts further from the start of the article. I think we still need some established sources to provide references to justify his notability. Perhaps more importantly I think there may be a problem with you editing it, as you are his research student and comminuicating directly with him. That is there might be seen to be some conflict of interest which, I think, is frowned upon in Wikipedia - being close to self publicity. Perhaps asking on the anarchist project for some help for more supporting evidence might be in order. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC))

Dear Bob - sorry for the trouble - but I we are trying to make Wikipedia a more reliable source and so we need to have things properly done. Sourcing and citing to reliable things and providing evidence that things are notable. Why is the flagging of "notability?" a problem for you? It might just help with others coming to help imporve the article. I do think there might be problems with you editing the article if you are closely connected with the person about who the article is written. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

Dear Bob - I have tried to find some reliable references to him and can't seem to find any - even http://www.rabble.ca/everyones_a_critic.shtml?x=10932 doesn't seemt to work now. Do you have any mainstream sources which refer to him and his work even slightly that we might use? Should I raise the issue here: [WikiProject_Philosophy/Anarchism Talk]?

(Msrasnw (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

Dear Bob - I think we really need some references to authoritative sources to support your claims as to his notability and it really is against our policy for you to be asked by him to do the article. I am sure since he is nice guy and on the right side he will understand that we would like a project like this to be reliable in some way and that he would not expect you to be going against what is perhaps a reasonable policy. The notability is clearly not established as we now only have one source and that is about him not being reappointed despite being a nice guy. (The other ref doesn't seem to work anymore: Rebick, Judy (2002-05-01). "My Interview with Andrej". rabble.ca. Retrieved 2008-07-09).The other things are just his work and blogs and things that don't normally count. I think we should try and get some others to help look at this issue. Skomorokh or those at the anarchist group might be best. Perhaps you could ask Skomorokh too as he might be a bit busy and has not responded to my note yet. Please don't remove the notability tag until we have properly adressed the issue. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

i really dont get this. you are first kind then mean. i am from croatia, and i offered to help him make a good page, and he said yes, and i took his activist cv and i am trying to make this page better. i dont understand why are you so aggressive. someone else posted this page. i am trying to make it better, because, yes, i like him, and no, he did not tell me what to do, and yes, there are reliable references. i will put them in. dot make this such a big issue. i am doing my best. Bobmarley13 (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry - I really haven't meant to be aggressive. I want the article to be improved. (I should be clear I do not want it to be deleted). But I think the article reads - not like an encylclopedia entry but more - publicity for someone like a publisher might use to sell someone or indeed like a CV or resume. I think we need a more neutral tone and to have clear evidence for any susbtantial claims that are made. For example in the lead we say he is "one of the more prominent theorists of "new anarchism", and one of the leading anti-authoritarian voices of the global justice movement" - these are strong claims and I think we are hanging our assertion of his notability on substantiating them. This is now cited to Williams. But I don't know that we could really say that Williams is stating that he is one of the "leading anti-authoritarian voices of the global justice movement". Do we have a reputable source for that? If we are using Williams to claim he is "one of the more prominent theorists of "new anarchism"" then there should be more support for this. I have asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism#Andrej Grubacic for more help - but I think you should not get too upset. It is only a little problem. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

ok, i did a lot. i included documentation in croatian language. you can find book reviews, and citations by other people. i went to acion global popular/world social forum web sites and put appropriate links as well. i pursued more academic/scholarly links so i got that covered. i have a page with noam chomsky saying how important his work is. he is much better documented then many other wikipedia pages. practical question: i am not sure if i should include videos about grubacic. there are many. should they be a separate category?Bobmarley13 (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bob - I can see you have added lots of references to blogs and the like but many do not seem reliable sources and do not support the statements they are supposed to support (have you checked them? Many seem simply wrong and not relevant to the text they are next to). My understanding is that Dr Gurbacic is notable in the anarchism blog world - but not cited much in the mainstream media or academia (and is not notable according to our normal criteria). I have asked the creator of the article who is an administrator if he could have a look at it and see what he thinks of the article and its sourcing and to let us know how notability is demonstrated in this case. Or failing that if he could you suggest somewhere I might go for assistance in this matter. My view would be the article needs substantial rewriting and ridding of lots of - what I think are called - peacock phrases. And still it is short of any proper sources establishing notability. Sorry - I will back off in a bit. I still am not sure about the appropriatness of one of his students editing an article in this way. Anyway Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

yes. they are not blogs. these are on line editions of journals and newspapers. they are six books listed now and notes from official mainstream papers. all the croatian information is not for blogs but from actual mainstream papers. all of it is double checked. he should be listed as anarchist, notable to the anarchist world. not an academic. i looked up contemporary anarchists. i went to other anarchist web sites. this is one of the better wiki places in terms of citation and stuff. it has a relevant quote after each sentence. reviews are from mainstream journals in croatia. i also included critical reflection of his work. i can work on peacock phrases but i dont know if the original author would mind. perhaps you should email him. proper sources establishing notability are all there, in croatian. and in english, i think. there many books, many video presentation and many articles. equal to, if not more then for most other living anarchists. Bobmarley13 (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

again, i approached him and asked him if i can make his page look better. he said yes. i dont know who the original author is. i dont know why is this so difficult for you to understand. i appreciate your dilligence, but i find it curios, if not offensive, that you would bring this up all the time. i also find it curios, and somewhat offfensive, that you would question my posts in croatian. in an unlikely case you do speak the language, i apologize. but otherwise you seem to be a very authoritarian figure. you are the only one who can decide what is mainstream and what is not, and for another country? that sounds a bit weird and authoritarian. who are you to question my judgment? and why are you so obsessed with this page? is this personal? are you an angry student or a political opponent? it seems to be an unhealthy obsession. why do i need to justify myself to you while doing this? why is that i am not believed that i am quoting actual mainstream journals in different language, at least four of them, perhaps even more? is this some form of cultural racism where you dont believe that the content is good because it is some exotic language that you dont speak? but, first and foremost, why are you so obssesed with this article? i imagine there are plenty of other articles on wikipedia. why would you decide to pick on that one and with this kind of obsession. i find this to be very suspicious. i have my excuse. i like the guy and i admire his work. i am really not sure why are you so obsessive and authoritarian--this is supposed to be an anti-authoritarian project. not a place where one anal individual--you--just because you have more experience, prevents me from doing things to make a web page look better. and, even worse, to chose to insult me by saying that i am lying, that what i posted in a different language is not mainstream media even if i say it is. its a hell lots of a mainstream press for an anarchist figure. i think you should cool off, back off and stop behaving like an authoritarian dictator borderline cultural racist. i dont like bullies. i cited mainstream press to prove notability beyond any reasonable doubt. now back off and behave like a decent person, not as an authoritarian bully. i had enough of being insulted and my intellihgence and honesty questioned. if you have a problem with the author of the article or with grubacixc take it elsewhere. Bobmarley13 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

An Apology for Upsetting an Editor

Oh dear. Sorry Bobmarley13 to have upset you. I am not querying all sources as being non mainstream. It is just there seem to me many blogs and the like that are used to make the claim for his notability. I have no problem with using mainstream non-English sources in Croatian and Serbian but just with how they are being used.

Looking at the refs there are I think problems. What do you think of these problems. For example:

The first line is sourced to what my undersanding is a perfeclty respectable and mainstream journal Vreme. But does the source indicated say anything like "Andrej Grubačić is an anarchist historian, sociologist and activist who has written on anarchism and the history of the Balkans."? I don't think it does.

I think the bit of the text is: Andrej Grubačić – Globalizacija nepristajanja (Svetovi, Novi Sad)

Krajnje redak slučaj našeg predstavnika na svim značajnijim alterglobalističkim skupovima poslednjih godina, i autora koji se često pojavljuje u značajnoj inostranoj periodici – ovo je zanimljiv dokument i jedina naša alterglobalistička knjiga koju možete naći. Sakupljeni Grubačićevi eseji i govori daju nam aktivistički vreo, najpuniji uvid na srpskom jeziku o onome o čemu se zapravo priča i šta se dešava na Svetskom socijalnom forumu u Porto Alegreu, gde se svake godine okupljaju alterglobalisti, postavljajući protivtežu politici Svetske trgovinske organizacije i sličnih globalnih parainstitucija nejasnog suvereniteta. Tu su i rasprave o odnosu evropske levice i alterglobalističkog pokreta, pedagogije i globalizacije, komentari vezani za recepciju koncerta Manu Čaoa kod nas, te toliko potrebna jasna objašnjenja za čitav pregršt ključnih pojmova i teoretskih koncepata alterglobalizma – dajući nam u zbiru dobru "početnicu" za ovladavanje celim jednim pogledom na svet.

It is true my knowledge of slavic languages is not too good - but I think it is about his views on globalisation not him being "an anarchist historian, sociologist and activist who has written on anarchism and the history of the Balkans".

The second line claims he is "one of the more prominent theorists of "new anarchism", and one of the leading anti-authoritarian voices of the global justice movement" - these are strong claims and I think we are hanging our assertion of his notability on substantiating them. This is cited to Williams. But I don't know that we could really say that Williams is stating that he is one of the "leading anti-authoritarian voices of the global justice movement". I don't read Williams as lending support to the claim he is "one of the more prominent theorists of "new anarchism".

The 3rd line is "A fellow traveler and co-conspirator of Peoples' Global Action and other Zapatista influenced direct action movements, Grubacic' primary political investment is in Balkan struggles" and this is referenced to the perfectly respectable B92 site. But it is an article by himself and doesn't seem really to support the thing it is attached too.

The fourth note refrence New Serbian Political Thought is fine as a source but I couldn't find on there that he is a co-founder of Global Balkans network of Balkan anti-capitalistsin diaspora.

http://www.nspm.rs/kulturna-politika/stari-i-novi-kriticari-neoliberalizma.html

Is this the bit? Да не би дошло до неке забуне или конфузије какве се код нас често дешавају, у смислу да комунисти преко ноћи постају антикомунисти/дисиденти, антизападњаци прозападњаци/Европљани, глобалисти антиглобалисти, антиглобалисти глобалисти, слобисти антислобисти, националисти антинационалисти, било би добро поменути имена оних који су указивали на деструктивност неолибералне идеологије и на њен тоталитарни потенцијал. То су: покојни професор Мирослав Печујлић, проф. др Зоран Видојевић, академик Михајло Марковић, проф. др Слободан Антонић, мр Ђорђе Вукадиновић, скоро сви који своје текстове поставњају на сајт НСПМ, Андреј Грубачић, Мила Алечковић Николић, итд. Вероватно сам нека имена изоставила, али опет број ових људи је мали. Поменути интелектуалци имају различиту политичку позадину, различита политичка опредељења, али и различит однос према неким питањима из наше политичке прошлости, но...

This is the only bit I found about him and it does not seem to support our claim.

"His affinity towards anarchism arose as a result of his experiences as a member of the Belgrade Libertarian Group that derives from the Yugoslav Praxis experiment." is sourced as being from # ^ On Grubacic's work as a historian of democracy and anti-globalist http://www.seecult.org/node/16639

It does not seem to be there but it is a direct copy of a sentance from here: http://www.pmpress.org/content/article.php?story=andrejgrubacic

Anyway sorry for annoying you and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

PS: I do not feel very experienced on Wikipedia - and am only expressing my view about my doubts about notability and referencing. I don't think Serbian or Croatian are exotic languages and I don't think I have been authoritarian - all I have done is ask for more information and evidence. My rasing worries about the appropriateness of your editing it given he is a friend and your teacher/supervisor is just an issue which you should be aware of. I think the logic of wikipedia's problem with friends editing pages is that when editing on people you know so well one might be inclined to be less than objective. Best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

i am really getting tired of this. do i need to explain what vreme is or what nspm is? why do i need to explain myself to you? what do you know about b92 web site? i am really sick of being cyber-bullied and i dont intend to back off. please, take your obsesions elsewhere. thank you for you apology but i dont need an apology. i need you to step back and stop bullying me and talk about things you dont understand. it is very offensive. if, however, you are serious about your apology, then please, stop doing what you are doing and dont push it. you obviously dont know much about anarchism. leave it to people who do. i am one of them.

as i see it was pointed out to you already, theorists do not need to meet notability guidelines.

find another article to work one or to 'supervise.' its time to stop. you are crossing the line here. big time. of decency and good taste. enough.

i intend to work on this, update this, and to finish my work in a productive yet civilized way. with a good page to prove that i can do it. Bobmarley13 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Bobmarley13, I'll ask for impartial advice from RfC and leave it there. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

RfC: Problem between editors stemming from my notability query

I have doubts about the subject of the article's notability and whether the cited references really support this and I have failed to raise these in the right way having upset an editor. Can someone help? Msrasnw (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

An assistant coming in and making a vanity page is a clear conflict of interest and is strongly discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. Looking at the subject of the article, he is not published academically, has not done anything that got any coverage by reliable sources, and has published a few books at small publishing houses. This looks to me like a possible candidate for deletion. Editors of this article should read and understand the notability guidelines before proceeding to make sure efforts are directed in a fashion suitable to Wikipedia's guidelines, and not wasted on a topic that might get deleted. MarkNau (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

friend, again, after a tons of pages of explanation, this is not a a vanity page and i am not doing vanity work. IT IS NOT ME WHO MADE THIS PAGE! check with the original author. this is a prominent anarchist theorist--go and take a look at other anarchist theorists, activists and publishers, like iain boal, or cindy milstein or ramsey kanaan, or oh so many others. i believe that i established a plausible case of notability--theorists and activists do not need to meet standards that academics do, i checked--so deletion is out of the question, as is your notability tag. we are talking about six books here. of course they are alternative publishing houses--the author is an anarchist. Please to to anarchist task force and ask them. I am sure you will hear the same thing. And again, as someone who hasn't created this page, but wanted to contribute something of quality and precise information, i believe i should be congratulated, not reprimanded. yes, it is true that i know the subject, and i consider him to be a friend. does this disqualify me as an editor? well, only if stuff i write is untrue and false. i advise you to check with people working on anarchism and i am sure they will explain to you how the world of anarchism works on wikipedia and elsewhere. Bobmarley13 (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleting talk page content

Please don't delete the talk page content without explanation (Msrasnw (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

My explanation is that it is a long conversation between two people not being decent with each other. I would rather delete all that, if it is okay with you. I do not think it informs people of any useful content, and I myself feel bad about things I wrote in anger and hurt. Bobmarley13 (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think I have not been "decent". I feel all I have done was raise genuine concerns with the article and point our what I thought/ think were justifiable concerns about the article and evidence of his notability. All was done with politeness. I think the discussion is relevant to the debate at Afd and might help encourage others to come and improve the article. I still do not think it is right for you to be editing the article and taking the tone you have done - given your relationship with the subject and for you to be deleting talk page information which might help others improve the article is not good practice. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

we are going at it again. i still believe that you behave(d) in a very unpleasant way and i felt personally attacked, as my integrity, honesty and other apsects were questioned in a very disrespectful way. this, however, does not justify my outbreaks for which i do apologize. i do hope that you will be able to recognize, in a similar way, and with some introspection, mistakes you made in this communication. decency is, among other things, ability to recognize ones mistakes and try to correct themm. best wishes, Bobmarley13 (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)