Talk:2006 Gdansk school suicide incident

Proposal for deletion

I removed nonsensical proposal for deletion for Not notable. Their death was very referenced in media in Poland and all east Europe, for example in czech media is referenced as one from the first and most known victims of cyber and sexual bullying in East Europe, two czech common reportage about bullying in Czech republic and Europe cited their case as clasical and common known), influence of their case on polish education system and schools politik is out of question. --Cinik 07:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(Pro česky rozumící Poláky, kterým to možná bude vyhovovat lépe, než moje pseudoangličtina, za kterou se omlouvám :-): Odstranil jsem nesmyslný návrh na smazání pro encyklopedickou nevýznamnost. Její smrt byla rozsáhle referencována nejen v polských médiích, ale vlastně ve všech slovanských zemích, respektive celého bývalého východního bloku. Například v českých médiích je bohatě referencována jako klasický a obzvlášť otřesný případ sebevraždy vyvolané kombinací kyberšikany a sexuální šikany, ve dvou velkých českých pořadech (jeden na ČT o šikaně na školách a druhý na Nově o kyberšikaně) byla uvedena jako všeobecně známý a klasický případ. Vliv její sebevraždy na další vývoj polského vzdělávacího systému a školní politiky je IMHO neoddiskutovatelný, nehledě k tomu, že Giertych ho pravidelně používá jako kyj proti svým protivníkům. --Cinik 09:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Of course, that any deletion is not logical. Anna Halman is known in Poland (and it's neighbouring countries of course), maybe not in USA or Great Britain. So the US and other editors may think that we are trying to add there something nonencyclopedic. --Aktron (t|c) 10:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Samozřejmě že jakékoliv smazání je nelogický nesmysl. Anna Halman je známá v Polsku (a také v jeho sousedních zemích), možná ale ne v USA nebo Británii. Takže editoři odtamtud i z jiných zemí to samozřejmě snadno můžou považovat za vkládání neencykloepdických článků, když jí neznají. --Aktron (t|c) 10:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have unspeedied it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Halman. Anthony Appleyard 15:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move

When a person is involved in a notable incident but the person is not notable themselves then the article title should reflect the event rather than be a bio. For example Madeleine McCann was moved recently to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann recently for this reason. I am therefore proposing that this page is moved to Assault on Anna Halman though Suicide of Anna Halman would also be an acceptable title. TerriersFan 16:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The case of Anna Halman, Suicide of Anna Halman, Assault on Anna Halman... See the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Halman. Everything OK, but here and now it is a question of vandalizing and very hard vulgarity, where some persons tries to give here the category of prostitute or porno stars (see there the second change) and so on. By the way, on other language projectcts as well. -jkb- 16:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with vandalism is important but a separate issue. Titles on other projects are for those projects. In many articles titles differ between projects, including Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. TerriersFan 16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. And what do you want to say? Nobody is here against a renaming, neither me nor somebody else, neither here or on the discussion held upon Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Halman. So - ??? -jkb- 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TerriersFan, these issues are separate. However, I'm finding it difficult to think of an elegant renaming. As for the vandalism, well we can keep that down relatively easily by keeping an eye on the article (e.g. put it on your Watchlist). I saw the speedy tag on it today during a WP:CSD backlog blitz and have been following it ever since. The Rambling Man 16:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I do think that we need to proceed with a renaming both for the reasons I have given above and since a pivotal two of the Keep voters also recommended this. If an entirely neutral title is looked for then Gdansk high school assault is am option. TerriersFan 03:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I will not mind very much how the title is; but the last suggestion (Gdansk high school assault) has the small disadvantage that it doesn't contain the name of the girl - which is quite known in some countries, indeed; normally, the accident can be connected more with her name than with the name of the city. -jkb- 10:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Discusssion elsewhere

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive245#User:cinik's edit warring, which is how I first became aware of this article, and some chat at User talk:EdJohnston. I don't believe that merging this article to Suicide makes any sense. If I had voted in the AfD, I might have gone either way, but the report on the BBC and the involvement of the Polish Minister of Education seems to make her notable, or at least makes the incident notable. Renaming is possible. I note that a Speedy tag was placed here, at least momentarily, and it was {{db-nonsense}}. That doesn't seem very logical, but I can imagine someone wanting better sources. The stuff about the Polish government's response to the incident doesn't seem to have an English-language source that describes it. Maybe someone who wants to keep the article could search further. EdJohnston 18:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to some edit-war-like edits and due to attempts to tilt this article here I suggest to take care of some points:

• the user 71.99...., sometimes logged as User:pmp, is a user known on the cs.wikipedia since months or years (see the special admins' page on him here); very often he opposes all articles writen by User:Cinik (just like this one), blocked several times for trolling etc. (see [1])
• the User:Zacheus who has been banned (still in progress) from cs.wikipedia by the arbitration committee (see here, where he uses another name); in last time he attacked the User:Cinik very hard on the Slovak Wikipedia and has been blocked for it twice in a short time (see [2], he uses there another name); for his attempts to import his troubles from cs.wiki to English Wikipedia he has been warned here several times as far as I know (see eg. ([3] by User:Thatcher131)

Therefore it could nearly seem to me that all those proposals to delete or to merge or what ever are not led by an interest to improve Wikipedia, but - if I may express here my feelings - by a strong tendence to harass and attack somebody personally. -jkb- 14:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

-jkb- is trying to change discussion about real things into another try to harass me. Since he was warned not to import the drama from cs:, I will seek his ban. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV – Presumption of innocence

This page claims that the boys are guilty. This constitutes such a huge breach of presumption of innocence, that's why I have inserted the tag. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 07:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't state that any specific individuals are guilty of any offence. it recounts what the sources say happened, which is how we edit on here. Rather than putting an inappropriate tag on the article, if you consider it requires balance then source an alternative viewpoint. However, I have modified the wording in line with the BBC source. I have removed the tag. TerriersFan 16:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon removed citation to Britské listy

I looked at the Czech-language publication whose link was recently removed by an anonymous contributor. We already have an article on this publication at Britské listy, where it is referred to as an 'Internet daily.' I would welcome any comments on whether this publication can be considered a reliable source. It does have the air of being self-published, which WP:RS frowns on. EdJohnston 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

moving and merging

I cannot beleive what happened with this article:

• (cur) (last) 10:26, 2 June 2007 Thebainer (Talk | contribs) (empty) (blanking talk page)
• (cur) (last) 10:21, 2 June 2007 Thebainer (Talk | contribs) (36 bytes) (MERGE to school violence)
• (cur) (last) 10:20, 2 June 2007 Thebainer (Talk | contribs) m (moved Suicide of Anna Halman to 2006 Gdansk school suicide incident: anonymising title prior to merge)

although the result of the deletion request was keep and although the user decided not to merge it to any article. I guess such handling is a small vandalism. Reverted - -jkb- 10:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved it back. Please.--Jimbo Wales 12:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It actually should be deleted, but at the very minimum the change of title of the article is obviously the right thing to do. The person is not notable, the event is *unlikely* to be notable, the change in school policy *might* be notable. Maybe. The whole thing might merit a sentence in an article about Polish school systems. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I would have just deleted the article, but I wanted to give time for people to merge the salvagable contents from this nonsense into a reasonable place.--Jimbo Wales 12:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

the event is *unlikely* to be notable. --- I am disappointed. I thought english wikipedia is global encyklopedia in english language. I see now english wikipedia is encyklopedia of only Anglo-Saxon world in many cases. Event is very notable in Slavonian world, I think I made clear it here. --Cinik 15:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Get over it! You wrote article in Czech "Britske listy" about this unknown girl. Which no one cares about. And now you promoting your own article. Stop. How many people need to repeat the very same thing?

You are realy not getting the message? Pmp 71.99.137.81

Good joke. Anything else, sir? My article in Britske listy have markedly above-average number of readers :-). The case have over 30 000 hits in google only in polish sites. In czech media is case referenced as one from first classical and enormous tragical case of cyber-bullying and czech media reflect current trial against violent boys. Importance and significance of this case is out of question. --Cinik 03:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Still not getting it? Read again Jimbo's post, or better yet, let somoone to translate it for you. BTW, I was saying the very same thing from begining. Pmp "from first classical and enormous tragical case of cyber-bullying" LOL, you really ARE pathetic.

71.99.102.172

Oh I was behind

I see TheBainer already did the right thing here and merged the usable content elsewhere. I have reverted to his version.--Jimbo Wales 12:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am fully satisfied with the solution Jimbo has proposed. But, other parts of the Wikipedia pay no respect to WP:BLP: cs:Anna Halman, de:Anna Halman, and sk:Anna Halmanová. What to do? Any ideas? —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 11:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC) The result of the AfD on cs: was strong keep. What to do? How to enforce common sense and WP:BLP in postcommunist versions of the Wikipedia which don't respect many basic Wikipedia policies? —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 11:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP cannot be used, she is not living. --80.188.22.254 06:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is no place for litteral application of rules. The most important is the meaning, not words only. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 09:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree.

• 1. Do you think that user Jimbo Wales understands Slavic languages and is able to understand sources in Polish or Czech?
• 2. Anna Halman is not living person. She is well-known dead person.

Result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Halman was keep. If someone wants to change that result, the best way is start new voting, not to write few sentences into School violence and say that article was "merged". --Dezidor 20:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't do voting. The relevant content is in the merge target. --Tony Sidaway 20:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Replies:

1. There's no need to understand Slavic texts, including user:Cynik's hype. There is fully sufficient to have common sense. The article shall be deleted or merged in every language version of the Wikipedia.
2. She is recently dead. That's why WP:BLP applies even to her.
3. The Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. In case of doubt, common sense prevails over voting.

—Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 06:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1. There's need to understand Slavic texts. Common sence tells me keep.
2. She is not living person. That´s all.
3. My experince is that common sence over voting (common sence = their personal opinion) prefer often people who are frighten of voting, where they often fail to prove their claims.
4. See voting at Czech Wikipedia: cs:Wikipedie:Hlasování o smazání/Anna Halman. There is no doubt. (ponechat = keep, smazat = delete, zdržuji se = abstain). --Dezidor 10:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1. There's no need, since these texts add only unimportant details and could not change the substance.
2. Please, don't take rules literally. The substance of WP:BLP is not whether the person is living or he or she has recently died. The substance is protection of privacy. A. H. was underage, that's why there shall be no article with her personal data.
3. Yes, sometimes. But sometimes it is the prevention against a mob rule.
4. Terrible. In my view WMF action shall be taken. Even cs: has to respect common principles.

—Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 11:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Well, reason for WP:BLP is Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Obviously, this is not the case. You want to protect privacy, but whose? Privacy of her relatives? Does it really matter whether she died (when we concern about relatives' privacy) recently or many years ago? I don't think so. --Adam Zivner 13:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: a subject's life. There is no need to take this literally. In fact, it shall be read someone's life. I mean her and her family, obviously. Her death is quite recent, it did not happen many years ago which was not the WP:BLP case then. The Wikipedia is not a list of suicides. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 15:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's your interpretation (or application of commons sense to fit your needs?) of wikipedia's policy, and IMHO false. I claim, that any information will not affect her family more when released now than when released 5 years later. And therefore, logically, there's no difference between recent (let's say months) death and old (10 or more years) death. According to your interpretation, this would mean, that you have to adhere to all the restrictions in WP:BLP for all persons in our history, because all of them (or most of them) have some living descendants (= family).

Futhermore, in WP:BLP is not a single mention of recently died person or protection of family or anything like that. If it was supposed to protect family, it would be mentioned. --Adam Zivner 16:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is Jimbo's interpretation, not mine. Take it or leave it.

I agree that 5 years is not enough. I meant 30 years at least (one generation).

According to your interpretation, this would mean, that you have to adhere to all the restrictions in WP:BLP for all persons in our history No.

because all of them (or most of them) have some living descendants (= family) I meant the children only.

—Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 06:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no way to leave it, it's a rule.

I meant 30 years at least (one generation), I meant the children only. - yes, you mean ... I'd like to know from what in WP:BLP have you deduced these exact restrictions ...

This is Jimbo's interpretation, not mine. - could you give me some link, please? --Adam Zivner 07:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You are obssessed with literal meaning of rules. But rules are for the people, not the people for rules.

I'd like to know from what in WP:BLP have you deduced these exact restrictions It is the standard legal interpretation.

could you give me some link, please Read his expression above. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you claim things that are far behind the scope of any possible interpretation.

I read all his expressions above, but he didn't mention WP:BLP in anyone of them. His only complaints about the article were about notability. So, unless you provide some link supporting your claim, it's just your personal interpretation. --Adam Zivner 10:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

far behind the scope of any possible interpretation It is your opinion and your opinion prevails on cs:. My opinion is contrary to yours and prevails here and Jimbo supports it. It is up to you whether you will behave "Czech" way or "Jimbo" way.

I apologize, actually it was Jimbo's edit when he had to remove -jkb-'s malicious change. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 10:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User Jimbo Wales didn´t write any factual argument and he could discuss about notability and sources here. I have no reason to respect all his edits as holy true. I also asked him to write his arguments to voting at Czech Wikipedia, where edit people who could understand texts in Slavic languages. --Dezidor 13:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

He did. It is not his problem that you don't understand Western standards. I have tried to explain that way of thinking to you, but to no avail. Result is, if one remains silent as Jimbo, or if one tries to explain it to you, you are still unable to catch it. For example: I have explained to you why it has been totally irrelevant that Jimbo doesn't speak Polish or Czech. To no avail. You came again and repeated this argument once more as if I had said nothing.

I find further discussion with users from cs: as useless, since you are here not to discuss, but only to present your standings. It is your option, but no one here will take care of it. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You explained nothing. Fact that somebody doesn´t understand sources is very relevant. On the other hand I accept that in your way of work with sources it could be irrelevant. Users voted to keep the article so it´s better to write that no one takes care of them. --Dezidor 14:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Suicides of adolescents

Suicides (or attempts) of adolescents are quite common.[4] —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 14:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 September 2014

Could the entire of the text in this redirect please be replaced with the following text for proper capitalization and Rcat tagging (including using an Rcat tag rather than an actual category tag)?:

#REDIRECT [[School violence#Poland]] {{R fully protected}} {{R to section}}

...Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Done but I put them on separate lines, because the technical restriction that required them to be all on the first line was lifted some years ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 October 2017

The section named "Poland" on the redirect's target is no longer there. I consider the redirect be re-targeted to Education in Poland#Violence. School violence in Poland also redirects to the same target section. --2601:646:9280:BA70:C498:4836:F50C:D0AF (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC) 2601:646:9280:BA70:C498:4836:F50C:D0AF (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Done also unprotected — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)