Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Raj Apologist

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

The result was delete per consensus. Neologism, WP:NPOV and original research issues. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Raj Apologist

British Raj Apologist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:N. The article is created by a well-known POV pusher who has been accused of various times by several persons for pushing disruptive anti-British POV and compared the British with the Nazis. This article is a soapboxing article. The term has no significant coverage in reliable sources. No hint in google books [1] There are 65 ghits [2] if search for the term "Imperial Apologis", but the sources do not describe the term in detail, and all sources are not in the Indian/British India context. Same is for "British Apologist", [3] 91 ghits, but no significant coverage in reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal attack. My interest is in removing pro-british bias from Indian history related articles that seem to be heavily influenced by "British POV pushers". More specifically I am interested in removal of attempts to glorify British Raj or misrepresentation of facts by "whitewashing" atrocities of British Raj in wikipedia related articles. Anyone should feel free to look at my edit history and tell me if I have touched a single British related article. Thank you. Desione (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I have not made any "personal attack" against you. Telling the fact that someone has been accused of POV-pushing by others is not "personal attack". Also accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. As I have pointed out, this term lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and has not been described in any well-known peer-reviewed academic journal. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please show links or diffs as to where someone has accused me of pov pushing (hopefully from people who haven't been accused of pov pushing themselves)? And irrespective of whether I or you or anyone else is pushing/arguing their point of view on wikipedia using reliable and neutral sources, I have shown that the term is in frequent usage in books and news media. That is sufficient cause to create and keep the article irrespective of your personal interpretation. Desione (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

very specifically in peer-reviewed journals see the following hits on google scholar: [4][5]. Desione (talk)

WP:GOOGLE is not the way to establish notability. You need to provide scholarly sources which describe this term in detail. All the google books hits mention the term, are only passing sound, not significant coverage. Also as I have mentioned before, not all the ghits are in the Indian/British Raj context. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who used search engine results to incorrectly conclude that the term is not significant; while as, following your own procedure, I have shown that it is. Desione (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is what WP:GOOGLE says: A test using a search engine is intended to help with the following research questions: Notability - Confirm whether it is covered by independent sources or just within its own circles."

The diversity and variety of sources returned by the search engine do show that the event is notable. Desione (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And I am still waiting for you to show me where I was accused of being a POV pusher otherwise I would certainly think that your equating me with POV pusher in the same sentence is a personal attack. Thank you. Desione (talk)

The article is original research. The sources given do not support the statements. "British Apologist or Imperial Apologist, refers to individuals or groups who justify, promote, or glorify British Raj or British Empire, frequently denying negative events, crimes, and persecution inflicted by the British Empire:. This statement is not supported by any scholarly source and constitutes original research. And again, see WP:N. You need to provide sources, not only google hits, so that it can be proved that the term has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and well-known academic journals. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the WP:OR part and have made fixes (I don't claim to have infallibly unbiased views as many other editors in wikipedia would claim and this is certainly not the first time I am saying this here on wikipedia). However, the term is definitely notable and I will bring up specific citations regarding this tomorrow since I have to pull out laundry from the washing machine :-) and take care of other stuff. With respect to WP:OR see recent changes in Imperial Apologist. Thanks. Desione (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Imperial Apologist, or in many cases British Apologist, refers to people who speak or write in defense of the former British Raj or British Empire" - this is still original research. And you have not addressed to the actual issue that the term has no significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and notable academic journals. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No it is not original research. It is the definition of word apologist (people who speak or write in defense of something). In this case the something is former British Empire. Desione (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable term.Icewedge (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The page British Raj Apologist is a refinement of pre-existing article Apologetics and explains a commonly used terms British Aplogist/British Raj Apologist/Imperial Aplologist that are frequently used all in reference to justification and glorification of British Empire. With respect to google hits, see British Apologist: [6][7], Imperial Apologist: [8][9]. The term has been previously been used in British publications such as Gardian (see [10]). The term is very notable and in frequent use. Desione (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Since "British Apologist" and "Imperial Apologist" seem to be the most common terms, I have renamed the article to "British Apologist / Imperial Apologist". In either case, the term is in very good use and quite notable. Desione (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• neutral The term 'Imperial Apologist' is fairly well understood. I'm not sure about 'British Apologist' though and definitely don't like British Raj Apologist. While the term Imperial Apologist is generally used to apply to contemporary (with the Raj) supporters of the imperial mission of Britain, it is less used in modern times (perhaps because, Niall Ferguson excepting, apologists are hard to find in the academic world). In the case of this article, it would seem to me that there is an attempt to make a point but I would prefer to give the creator a good faith chance to modify the article appropriately. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am more than open to discuss content and organization of British_Apologist_/_Imperial_Apologist Desione (talk)

• Delete When considered in context of the on-going edit wars on various British Raj pages, this article seems like a thinly veiled personal attack against a number of editors. Ronnotel (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually searching for description of "British/Imperial (Raj) Apologist" and their views on contribution/misrule of British Empire/Raj when I realized and was quite surprised to find out that there is no article in wikipedia that describes British/Imperial Apologist. There is hardly anyone with even a decent understanding of British Empire/Raj history who hasn't come across this term in one form or other. Hence, I created a new article to describe the term. What is surprising is not that this article is being created. The surprising thing is that this term has remained undescribed in wikipedia despite extensive coverage of British Raj related issues. And certainly in this regard, I can see that there might be a conscious effort not to fully describe this term in wikipedia. I can discuss notability with you and I can discuss WP:GOOGLE search results with you, but if you are starting out assuming an abstract thing like bad faith on my behalf that is something that not just me, but no one else can discuss. Desione (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, obviously. User:Desione is close to crossing various POINTy lines. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Which pointy lines am I crossing and how? Creating an article on wikipedia is crossing pointy lines? Desione (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, anti-British propaganda once more, definatly should be deleted.--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes everything that you perceive as negative should be deleted from wikipedia Desione (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Partial List of Coverage of the term "Imperial Apologist" for Notability

• British Newspapers: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
• Scholarly articles: [16] [17] [18]

[19] [20] [21] I will add more soon.

You have 4 sources from the Guardian Newspaper, which is not/never a NPOV perspective, and other unreliable sources--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable term. --Kleinzach (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Even if it is a non-notable term, there is no guideline/rule which states that Wikipedia can't be used to set a precedent rather than merely following one. DemolitionMan (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Actually there is. WP:NOT#OR makes it pretty clear that we do not put ourselves in the position of being the first observers of any particular trend. Once reliable sources have discussed it, then we are free to write an article that conveys what those sources state. I haven't read through enough of the background issue to discuss the underlying issue, so neutral for now. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - poor article created by POV-pushers. Possibly there's a good way to write a vaguely similar article, but this is certainly not it. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• remove redirect - The article is now redirected to Imperial Apologist and well on it's way to a pretty good looking stub. The term Imperial Apologist is notable and has reliable sources. The only thing I don't agree with is the redirect from British Raj Apologist... --Pmedema (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the redirect. Desione (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some other international news sources including British newspapers (TheTimes and Telegraph): [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Desione (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Books: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Desione (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have anything worth to mention in the article from the sources, then do that. None of the source describe the term in detail. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That would probably take time (at least on my side) since one would need to come up with and collate the views that "imperial apologists" have held in past or currently hold regarding the empire. Desione (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, for various reasons. The article contains virtually no info at all, and the definition of the term is not really explained. The definition that an 'imperial apologist' is an apologist for the Empire is not basis for having an encyclopediatic article. We don't need articles for each possible political position. Also, to say that Kipling was an 'apologist' is a bit misleading, Kipling was an active advocate of the imperialist policies. --Soman (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is really no difference in describing Kipling as Imperial Apologist or Kipling as active advocate of the imperialist policies. Both mean the same. Kipling is specifically pointed out as an "Imperial Apologist" by multiple reliable sources. And as far as I know wikipedia does have articles describing political positions. Also, I am not looking to make this a "big" article, just a short article describing significant aspects in a well cited manner. Desione (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Otolemur crassicaudatus, Relata refero, Ronnotel, Moreschi, and Soman. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Given that the term is (just as the thing it attacks) POV it would be very difficult to prove a given stance is an Imperial Appolgist stance (why by the way does there need to be raj, or British, they were not the only empire in the world?). This seems to be the be pure POV (singling out one nation) pushing, and an attempt to estalbish a precident (actualy addmited to). [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)]]

You're right about the broader usage. A quick search of jstor produces articles that refer to people as apologists for imperialism in China, Japan, the Roman Empire, etc. etc. I think it is going to be hard to justify an article on this topic, it seems a tad vague and no formal definition appears to exist. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Regents, I am sure you know that non-existence of a set of articles is hardly a reason not to create a new article on wikipedia. In fact, I believe we have had this discussion on the almost unique article Religious violence in India as if there is no religious violence outside of India. An article describing the views held by a group is definitely ok for wikipedia as illustrated by Neoconservatism and many many other similar articles. I am simply creating one in a long series of such articles. One could argue that Neoconservatism is also difficult to define. I think the main problem here is that the article is being perceived negatively hence the attempts to delete it (rather than POV). The article as it stands is written in an extremely neutral manner in the form of views that are held by Imperial Apologist and what their critiques think and you are more than welcome to improve it if needed. Desione (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already agreed before that the term "British Raj Apologist" is unjustified, but the term Imperial Apologist and the somewhat inaccurate term British Apologist which often means the same thing as Imperial Apologist is well justified. Desione (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on searches, as far as I can see the term "Imperial Apologist" is not notable with reference to Roman Empire, Japan, China, etc. Desione (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect to POV pushing, it doesn't come as a surprise to me that some of the same editors here who were pushing for the article Religious violence in India are pushing against the article Imperial Apologist Desione (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Desione, I think it would help if you could demonstrate at least one of two things. If you can find a formal definition, you're home and dry on this one. I did do a cursory search but couldn't find anything. If no formal definition can be found then, perhaps, you could look for similar wikipedia articles as evidence that informal terms have a place in wikipedia. The discussion here is focusing on POV issues, but that should not be the focus. Even if the intent be POV, and even if the text appear to be POV, the question of article-worthiness of 'imperial apologist' should be addressed independently of those issues. Bias in an article can always be taken care of after the question of deletion is decided, as also can scope (should Rome, Japan, etc. be included, for example). I think the term is pretty well understood so, prima facie, it appears article worthy, IMHO. You need to push it beyond the prima facie stage (especially considering the opposition on this page!). --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If the article is about imperial or colonial apoologism in general then I have no objectiion to the idea of the article. My objectin is the bias that the article currently shows. [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)]]

Comment

There is quite a few google book hits on "apologist for Colonialism", and for colonial apologist indicating that the term is in wider use, as are other terms as pointed out above. I believe the article is actually attempting to describe a school of thought that biasedly interprets the history of colonialism by ignoring or suppressing the more negative aspects of it's history. It is by no means limited to British, and as such using "British apologist" is wrong and pointedly PoV. I do think however that it is a neccessary part of the article on colonialism, same as, using an extreme example, Holocaust denial is very real (Please dont jump up!notice I say extreme example).Having said that, WP:OR and WP:NPOV needs to be strictly adhered to, not only by the pro, but also by the anti parties. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: I believe Yasmin Alibhai-Brown uses the term "Imperial revisionism", which maybe a more appropriate title and description. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I would be ok with the following: 1) creating an article "Imperial revisionism" 2) significantly describing the ideas and views of "colonial/imperial apologists" and their critics in the "Imperial revisionism" article (perhaps in a separate section), and 3) redirecting the terms "colonial apologist", "imperial apologist" to the the "Imperial revisionism" article. The term "British Apologist" is an inaccurate term (I agree with that); however, given the historical baggage, the term "British Apologist" is very well associated with "colonial/imperial apologist" and I really don't see whats the problem in adding a sentence regarding this in the article just as the term "Hindu nationalist" has been used 249 times in wikipedia (see [39]). But if this is what people here are most concerned about, I am willing to keep this term out of the article (which is against NPOV) provided that we drop this AfD and move on with the article. Thanks. Desione (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just in case any one is concerned about redirections note that the term Hindu nationalist redirects to Hindu nationalism just like the term neo-conservative redirects to Neoconservatism and since this seems to be a new article, I am more than open to discussing what the scope should be. Desione (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, Desione, with imperial apologist you're already flirting a bit with WP:OR. With imperial revisionism, you're moving into the dating phase. :-). (A purely facetious remark with no intent to be rude or uncivil!)--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 23:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was adopting a "compromising position" with "Imperial Revisionism" :-) As for WP:OR, the term "colonial/imperial apologist" is best understood (both in real world and in wikipedia article) when described in terms of well cited views held by these apologist and well cited critiques of these views. Hardly WP:OR. I am assuming that notability is no longer an issue? Desione (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

An article already exists on Historical revisionism. I believe this article can be merged into that as a sub-section. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just added a subsection to the Historical Negationism article. I dont know if this helps. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this complements the Imperial Apologist article well. Desione (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete: Neologism and POV.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 03:24, 25 May 2008 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.