Talk:Genocide law (Albania)

The article...

This law is actually called "On Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Albania during the Communist Regime for Political, Ideological and Religious Motives." I'm moving the page; creating the page with this title (not supported by the sources) appears to be an attempt to make a point on a dispute over another article. csloat (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"communist genocide" law

Please do not revert this nonsense again. If you have a specific citation stating that it is regularly called this, please provide the citation rather than the silly claim that it is "easily googlable," whatever that means. And please indicate why you think it is important in an encyclopedia to make the claim that this law has this or that specific nickname, other than to make a point that you are using on the talk page of another article? csloat (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. I asked you in that talk page what exactly "point" you have in mind. I am not waging any political wars in wikipedia for quite long time: it is waste of my time; let them have fun, but without me. Answering the real question: it is important that wikipedia explain all terms used in real life. The term is used in books (and yes, easily googlable), hence it must be explained. Why is it important? Becase nobody in plain speech would refer to the law with its full name (why? simply because it is impossible to rememeber). Hence it is quite customary to use abbreviated names. - Altenmann >t 18:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am being civil. I am not the one with a "point" in mind; you appear to be making a point with all of this. Why include a sentence that the law is sometimes referred to as such-and-such if no book makes that claim? When you are edit warring over this at the same time you are arguing on that talk page that this law constitutes some kind of evidence of a particular concept, this raises questions about WP:POINT. It may be customary to use abbreviated names, but if we can't find a source stating that a particular abbreviation is preferred by any particular person or people, then we shouldn't be making that claim. I also think there are WP:UNDUE concerns raised with showcasing this particular abbreviation over others that exist. Hope this helps explain things. Finally, please, let's not make "googlable" a word too now? ;) csloat (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

YOu are not civil. YOu are calling my good-faith contribution "nonsence". You are expressing accusations against me that I have some "point" to make. The term is used as synonym in books, news reports, and scholarly articles. I fail to see why it must be censored. You still fail to answer my direct question. - Altenmann >t 19:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I no longer want to comunicate with a rude and disrespectful person, and I am reclusing from this page, after asking for a third opinion. - Altenmann >t 19:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not been rude or disrespectful at all. I explained why I found this contribution to be nonsensical; I don't think there's anything rude about that fact. You are the one making the point on the other page so I'm not sure why you are upset about this. Which direct question have I failed to answer? csloat (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't edit opther people's contributions, but for fixing obvious typos: it is a mark of disrespect as well: you are presuming that I don't knot how to format discussion threads. - Altenmann >t 20:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make nonsensical assumptions about respect based on formatting codes. csloat (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I took out the mention of "Law on Communist genocide" because it is not supported by the source. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you didn't read the reference provided: please take a look at p. 72: the term is used twice. For some reason Google Books gave an improperly positioned search result. - Altenmann >t 20:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The book does not say that the law is called the Law on Communist Genocide. It merely uses the term in the text. The book by the way is called Eastern Europe at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century: A Guide to the Economies in Transition. It is not a book about Communist genocide, but about economics. So it is originial research to rely on the use of the term in this book.

Page 72, which is omitted in the Google books version, uses the term twice:

22 September 1995: the Law on Communist Genocide rules out, until 2002, the participation in national or local elections (and employment in the judiciary or state media) of anyone who was, prior to 31 March 1991, a member of the politburo, central committee or parliament. Those affected include Fatos Nano (leader of the Socialist Party) and Skender Gjinushi (leader of the Social Democratic Party and the communist regime's last education minister).

31 January 1996: the constitutional court rules in favour of the Law on Communist Genocide. The court also supports a law calling for the creation of a nine-member committee with access to former secret police files. The committee will be entitled to issue certificates to politicians stating they did not collaborate with the former communist regime, thus allowing them to stand in elections.

The term is used again on p. 90.:

9 May 1997: the ten main political parties sign an agreement to hold a general election on 29 June 1997. The national salvation committees are to be dissolved at least forty-six days before the election. The Law on Communist Genocide is to be repealed.[1]

I will therefore delete the reference. If it is reinserted I will enter an enquiry on the RS noticeboard.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, now I see: you are splitting hairs, to remove the reference to the term. Fine with me. Like I said, I don't want to deal with political activists. I thought you were wikipedians. Bye. - Altenmann >t 20:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You are welcome to remove the redirect Law on Communist Genocide as well; I don't mind: this is not my "class struggle". - Altenmann >t 20:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) I am not an activist but see no reason to incorrectly represent sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems fairly obvious too me that this law would be commonly referred to by a shorter name, but I also agree that one book on economics is not enough. Altenmann, if you can find some more sources that clearly show that the term you suggest is the generally used one, I think it will be easier to convince other editors about your case. --Anderssl (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a second book referencing this term in Google Books: "Freedom of religion and belief: a world report" by Kevin Boyle, Juliet Sheen. Both works are apparently referring to the same 1995 Albanian law. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Again you would need a source that this is the commonly used term. A parallel is that US States have "Statutes of Limitations", England and Wales has a "Limitation Act" and Canadian provinces have "Limitations Acts". An American lawyer writing about England and Wales might state "under the British Statute of Limitations" but that would be a bad source for stating that the Limitation Act was called the "Statute of Limitations" or that it was part of "British law". The Four Deuces (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So your concern is that "Law on Communist Genocide" is attributed to being an official term, rather than a term of convenience? AmateurEditor (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is the common short form then it can be mentioned. But if it is just a neologism used in a book then it should not be. The same standards for sourcing should be used for this article as for any other article in Wikipedia. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear to be a genocidal denial law, but rather a law barring former Communists from holding public office. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here?

What is going on here? Is this a continuation (fork) of the debate on whether there can be a valid Wikipedia article entitled "Communist genocide"? Third opinions requested my foot.

What I have just read is unclear evidence of a "Law on communist genocide" in Albania. If confirmed, that would be justification for an article entitled "Law on communist genocide (Albania)" or some such. Or of course with the title of the page I am enlarging if that is felt to be a likely search term.

The original debate is whether an article should exist with a title that is intrinsically POV. The latest contribution leans towards a No to that. Sussexonian (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Law on Communist Genocide" usage

I can find two books using the term "Law on Communist Genocide" to refer to the 1995 Albanian law, besides the one on Eastern European economies mentioned earlier:

• "Freedom of religion and belief: a world report" by Kevin Boyle, Juliet Sheen.
• The Balkans:A Post-Communist History by Robert Bideleux, Ian Jeffries. (fully searchable here) Note that Ian Jeffries is also the author of the previously mentioned Eastern European economies book.

I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising that English language information on the internet about an Albanian law from 15 years ago is sparse. But I think these sources are enough to warrant mention in the article that this law is sometimes referred to as a "Law on Communist Genocide". Of course, as The Four Deuces makes clear, there is no indication that this term is in any way official. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I think the burden of evidence is in the other court now - if there is no evidence of a different short form, then "Law on communist genocide in Albania" or "Albanian law on communist genocide" would be an appropriate title for this article in my mind. The current title is too long, and the discussion tends towards being ridiculous... --Anderssl (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In England and Wales laws have a formal long form and short form. For example the Limitation Act 1980 is the short form for An Act to consolidate the Limitation Acts 1939 to 1980.[2] Of course this was not always the case, e.g., the Hat Act 1732. I am not familiar with Albanian laws and wonder if they have a similar system. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that legal writings refer to the law as the "genocide law".[3] So I propose that the name of this article be changed to Genocide Law (Albania) 1995. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, if you can find more than one source using it this way. --Anderssl (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The link you provided was a transcript of verbal and written testimony, rather than legal writings per se. It does not appear that the person giving the testimony who used the term "Genocide Law", Kathleen Imholz, was doing so in any kind of authoritative way. Here is a quote:

"The first law was passed on September 22, 1995 and promulgated by President Berisha on September 26. It is called "On genocide and crimes against humanity committed in Albania during Communist rule for political, ideological and religious motives." The second, intended to implement it but also changing and expanding it, was passed on November 30 and promulgated on December 4. Its title is "On the verification of the moral character of officials and other persons connected with the defense of the democratic state." In this testimony I call them, for short, the genocide law and the verification law. A constitutional court decision issued January 31, 1996 upheld both laws, but made some changes to the verification law."

I think the academic books referred to above are a better source for a short form of the name. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is a better source, since it actually states that the term is being used as a short form, whereas the academic sources do not appear to do that. For us to make our own judgment about whether it is used as a short form by finding our own evidence of it being used that way and drawing a conclusion is original research. I am not trying to be pedantic about it -- if we want to state that a particular academic refers to the law as ____, that's fine, but to state that it is a common short form (or an "official" one) is to draw a conclusion not present in the evidence. I suggest actually looking for references to this law in the popular media as well, since there is more likely to be a statement such as "the law is more commonly referred to as ____" there. csloat (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Here are some sources:

The book Albania as dictatorship and democracy: from isolation to the Kosovo War says "The Albanian parliament passed the "Genocide Law".

A Duke University law site says "The first was the Law on Genocide and Crimes against Humanity Committed during the Communist Regime for Political, Ideological, and Religious Motives ("Genocide Law")."

The article "Post-Communist Transitional Justice in Albania" used the term "(the “Genocide Law”).

It seems that the informal short form is the "genocide law". I do not know if that is the offical short form.

The Four Deuces (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be surprised if there were any official short forms for Albanian laws. But I think these sources are enough to justify a name change to something like Genocide Law (Albania), or at the least a redirect to the current article from that. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to change the name of the article: this is an obscure topic and I doubt it will be linked in many places. On the other hand, a redirect and a mention in the intro is in place. You suggesting Genocide Law (Albania)? This implies that there should be a disambig page, "Genocide Law". What are the other meanings of the term, discussed in wikipedia? Google shows " UK's Genocide Law Amendment Proposal", "Violates Federal Genocide Law", "Rwanda's Genocide Law", "Belgium's genocide law", etc. Do we have the corresponding articles in wikipedia? Timurite (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The article title should definitely be changed - the current title is too long and pedantic (see WP:NAME). But we should also try to follow established conventions. I tried to look around a little, and found Laws against Holocaust denial (where this article perhaps should have some mention, cf. the Czech mention). For those countries which have their own articles there, it seems to be a convention that they use the short form in the national language - e.g. Verbotsgesetz 1947 (Austria), Loi Gayssot (France) etc. So, does anyone here speak Albanian? If not we could go by something like Albanian genocide denial law (cf. Belgian Holocaust denial law). --Anderssl (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME is not a strict policy. In lieu of very common short name any renaming is dubious. As I mentioned, the topic is obscure, and the mentioned English abbrevs ("Genocide Law" and "Law on Communist Genocide") do not necessarily reflect common Albanian usage (no evidence). Therefore until an Albanian speaker appears, there is no pressing reason to rename. Timurite (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Your suggestion, "Albanian genocide denial law", makes me think that you don't clearly understand the subject. Or it was just an arbitrary example of a descriptive title? Timurite (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I'm sorry - I came here from the discussion on Communist genocide and somehow just assumed this was about genocide denial, and not lustration (this whole discussion has been kind of exhausting, so I guess I've become prone to skimming). Should have read the article better. I still think we should strive for a shorter and less pedantic name though. Albanian genocide law seems like a fair option, or we could consider Albanian lustration law or Lustration in Albania, after the example of Lustration in Poland (see also Lustration). --Anderssl (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've stricken out some of my comments above, which were based on the misunderstanding that this was about genocide denial. --Anderssl (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the very fact of the obscurity of the subject and absence of common terminology suggests that this page should list all different namings of the law used in different books, so that the readers of the corresponding books may easily find the subject in wikipedia. IMO the usage of the term in a reputable scholarly work is a sufficient reason to introduce a synonym in wikipedia. Timurite (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, regardless of which title we end up with. --Anderssl (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree; if those works don't say that this is a common shorthand for the law then we shouldn't claim that either. See WP:NOR, which is strict on this point for a good reason. And remember, this law was likely not written in English nor commonly talked about in English, so giving it an English nickname based on one or two English writers is really not encyclopedic. Either state specifically who calls it what (assuming these are really notable commentators) or leave such conclusions out of the article. csloat (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

csloat, the edit you reverted didn't say that it is a common shorthand for the law, it just stated that the law is sometimes referred to in that way. That is not OR, it is just a simple and straightforward observation - see WP:NOTOR. If you stretch the OR concept too far, anything that is not a direct quote from somewhere could be considered OR, which is obviously not the intention of the policy. Anyway, I reworded the sentence a little in case anyone objects to the word "sometimes". It also needs a ref for the second concept, of course. --Anderssl (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Then say exactly who refers to it in which way. The problem is it probably is referred to a number of other ways as well, why are we highlighting this usage, other than to make a point on another discussion? I know it seems nitpicky, but there is a matter of undue weight here -- we are showcasing a particular abbreviation that, as far as we can tell, is only used by two people and only in a foreign language. If you want to say "Two scholars, writing in English, apparently referred to the law as the "Law on Communist genocide," this would be acceptable, but then it would not be notable, so there is an undue weight problem instead of an OR problem - what makes these two sources notable? I don't see how this sentence helps the article. csloat (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a couple sources for usage of "Genocide Law" as well. Interested readers can now easily find people who refer to the law either way. If it is referred to in other ways, we can include those other ways as well, as sources emerge. Undue weight is not given to these alternate terms as it is one sentence for both of them. The sentence helps the article as Anderssl stated above, "so that the readers of the corresponding books may easily find the subject in wikipedia." AmateurEditor (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence makes no difference in people finding this on wikipedia, and, in fact, that is not an appropriate use of an encyclopedia. Anything added to the article should be informative about the subject and should not be WP:OR. I fear this sentence fails both tests. csloat (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"I know it seems nitpicky": Dead on. --Anderssl (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"...but there is the matter of undue weight." Please don't quote me out of context as if you are making some sort of clever point. If you have a problem with Wikipedia's policies regarding undue weight and original research perhaps there is another encyclopedia you should edit instead of this one. csloat (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I apologize if you thought that was out of line, but it was too tempting when you said it yourself. Anyway, to the substance of your argument: I do not think the sentence that is in the article right now gives undue weight to any particular point of view - see Timurite's comment below. Of course you could always try to collect a large amount of sources which only refer to the law by it's full name to show that the short forms currently mentioned in the article are fringe examples. --Anderssl (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would ask both colleagues to cease fire and discuss the article. People do have and will have different opinions about the scope and applicability of wikipedia policies. Commodore, "that is not an appropriate use" is your opinion. "WP:UNDUE" related to the amount of coverage of various non-common views. Expanding its scope to single words is dangerous. Not to say that views of individual scholars always matter. It is not uncommon to see in articles about things with little information phrases like "in opinion of dr. Educatedson, this happened because..." Too broad application of WP:UNDUE would disallow opinions of single persons however reputable they are. Now back to disputed terms. When a book or an article refers to this law several times, it would be ridiculous that the author would use the whole 20-word title each time. So naturally short term is used. Now, the article says "Accdording to the genocide law, Ramiz alias was shaved of his beard. <next page...> The genocide law was criticized for..." And this stupid writer didn't bother neither to indicate the date of the law, not its content. Naturally, the educated reader grabs his letter G volume of another encyclopedia, and finds nothing. He finally reluctantly and with great distrust searches wikipedia, and to his surprize finds that Genocide Law is not written yet there either. So user:timurite intends creates a disambiguation page, which probably will soon be deleted because it is full of red links, and wikipedia is full of vigilant policy watchdogs, but he hopes that a redirect will stay.<found good targets> So while "that is not an appropriate use" for another encyclopedia, that is one of great strengths of wikipedia. P.S. another encyclopedia does not have this wealth articles about pokemon and pornstars either :-) Timurite (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not my opinion; it's Wikipedia policy. Can someone show me where in Wikipedia policy it says that encyclopedia articles should be edited to garner maximum google hits rather than to be accurate? I'm not opposed to including the opinion of individual authors; I've been stating all along I just think those authors should be named. The problem with having Wikipedia redirects to "Genocide Law" or "Law on Communist Genocide" is that those titles do not single out Albania. While that shorthand may be used in books that are already understood to be about Albania, it will be very confusing for someone who comes here looking for the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, also referred to often as the "Genocide Law," or perhaps the laws of any number of different countries that also have criminalized genocide. It may make sense to a particular scholar to use this abbreviation when they are writing about the Albanian context already, but it would be inappropriate to showcase that abbreviated form here, in an encyclopedia that is not just about Albanian law. csloat (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

csloat, 'Genocide Law' currently redirects to Genocide under municipal laws, which seems to be a list of genocide-related laws around the world. Law on Communist Genocide redirects here. Where should it go instead? --Anderssl (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It should probably be a redlink if it isn't used very often. All we know is that there are two scholars writing in a foreign language who use it for this law -- not enough for a redirect here, at least not without a disambig page that links this page to something like Genocide law (Albania). There are other laws that were cited on that WP:SYN nightmare talk page, Communist genocide; perhaps you can ask there. The problem is you guys are reasoning backwards -- you are starting with the premise that "Communist genocide" or "Law on Communist Genocide" is notable and meaningful in itself and then reasoning backwards to its use on this page. You still need to show this abbreviation is notable and meaningful in itself. csloat (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. From WP:NAME, about controversial names: "The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more." About redirects: "Redirects should be created to articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names)." From WP:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects: "Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This covers only article titles, which are required to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming). Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term" (and following section). See also point five about usefulness directly above that section: avoid deleting redirects if "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." Now show me where it says that we must "show this abbreviation is notable and meaningful in itself". --Anderssl (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope yourself; nobody in their right mind would type in "Law on Communist genocide" when looking for an Albanian law. Probably not even the two people who appear to have actually used this phrase in print. Finally my point about showing that this abbreviation is meaningful itself is about putting this sentence in the article, not about redirects, so please see this page and stop engaging in that fallacy. Thanks. csloat (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Csloat, you were answering a question that I asked about the redirects. I think it is a natural assumption that your answer would be about the redirects as well. Referring to this as "straw man argumentation" is honestly not to assume good faith. I also don't find it particularly civil to imply that I am out of my right mind. Once again, have a look at the quote above: "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." So I have to repeat my question: Where exactly should "Law on Communist genocide" redirect, in your mind? --Anderssl (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I already answered this question above. You need to calm down and be civil if we are to discuss this, thanks. To reply again to the question, it should be a redlink since nobody would use that phrase to look for an albanian law. If you find it "useful" then I also proposed something like a disambig page with a link to this one, differentiating the Albanian genocide law from the many other countries that have such laws. And if your argument isn't a strawman, do you then agree that we can delete the offending sentence from this article? csloat (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You are asking me to be civil - can you explain to me how my preceding comment was not civil? As for the disambig page, that sounds quite sensible. I don't think I know enough about lustration laws around the world to make one though. If you do, it would be great if you can make it. As for your final question: No. Regarding the sentence in the article, I think me and Timurite have explained well why it should remain, and I don't think you've engaged with the substance of those arguments yet. --Anderssl (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did engage with the substance of the arguments, and neither of you responded to my arguments (other than to say you were talking about redirects). So all you're telling me now is I'm outvoted; that's true but it's not a rationale. csloat (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

csloat, I didn't say you were outvoted. This doesn't work by voting, it works by consensus. Please try to adhere by the same standards in representing my views, as you expect me to do when representing yours. Now I'm sorry if I haven't understood you correctly, but I really don't see where you have answered mine and Timurite's arguments. Timurite (in my interpretation) says that your argument about undue weight does not apply, because that policy refers to points of view, not single terms. My point in addition to that was that the sentence, as it stands in the article right now, is factually correct and as short as it can be. I really haven't understood your counter-argument to that, so can you please try to explain it again. But first, please respond to my question before: Why did you tell me to be civil? Was I uncivil in any way, or did you accidentally misinterpret something? --Anderssl (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I found it uncivil to claim that I was using bad faith and saying you were out of your mind. I'm not interested in debating it. As for undue weight, I fail to see the difference between "points of view" and "single terms" when those terms are used to express points of view. I also don't see that in Wikipedia policies on undue weight. The claim that the sentence is "factually correct" and "short" really doesn't address these arguments. And I realize we didn't take a vote; it's just frustrating to see my arguments replied to with basically, "there are two of us and we disagree." I apologize for misinterpreting your statement there. csloat (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I think this is the core of the disagreement: "I fail to see the difference between "points of view" and "single terms" when those terms are used to express points of view." I don't think the terms are used to express points of view here, they are included to help people find the article and connect the law with the different ways it is being referred to. --Anderssl (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So why are you against being honest about who refers to it a certain way? It seems odd, especially if you believe there is no "point of view" expressed in words. (I'm also not sure how such things are expressed without them). csloat (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

With the best of my intentions, I don't understand what you are asking me. I really don't see myself as arguing for dishonesty. But I also don't think we are getting any further with discussing this between the two of us. The best way forward, if you want to have something removed from the article, is probably to post a RFC to get more editors into the debate. --Anderssl (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say dishonesty, I said honesty - let us be honest that author X and author Y used a specific term when writing in English rather than being vague about it -- that is less honest, not necessarily dishonest. It seems odd to me. Very odd. csloat (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't argued against your proposal to include more details about the authors - you have done so yourself: "If you want to say "Two scholars, writing in English, apparently referred to the law as the "Law on Communist genocide," this would be acceptable, but then it would not be notable, so there is an undue weight problem instead of an OR problem" [4]. I do think that we shouldn't state the number of people that have used the term in a specific way unless we do know the number, and I don't think the word "apparently" is appropriate when the sources have been given. And I really don't appreciate being told that I'm "against being honest" due to what is essentially a grammatical question. Post the RFC if you want to continue the debate. --Anderssl (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I have made the change, though I still think we now have the undue weight issue, but this works better for me than pretending this is some kind of universal abbreviation in scholarship. I also removed the bold facing which may go some way toward helping with the undue weight issue. Hopefully these are acceptable changes. csloat (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, I took out the numbers as per the above. --Anderssl (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So for some reason you are against accurate numbers now, so I've instead put in the names of the authors who use this particular term. You agreed this was a good idea above, I think, but another editor reverted me. Can someone explain what is wrong with being accurate about either the names or the number of sources that can be found using this particular term? Thanks. csloat (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The names and numbers are in the references. That is the point of the references. Stop cluttering the article with useless doubling up of information. Post an RFC if you want this changed. --Anderssl (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just forget it, ok? If you can't be bothered to be civil in the discussion - and I believe this is the second time I've mentioned this - I'd prefer not to discuss it at all. Cheers. csloat (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) I have posted an enquiry at the Albania project page.[5] The Four Deuces (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Genocide Law of Albania

Moved to Genocide Law of Albania because that article title other than surreal, makes the law unsearcheable. Mind you, I'd probably seen all 3000 articles of Albania, but this one. It was just a too long title. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 18:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not move this article without discussion and please read the discussion about naming of the article. TFD (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Having browsed through the (unreadable) discussion above, I support a move to a shorter title. However, it should be made clear that such a shorter title wouldn't claim to be an actual name of the law in question, but merely a descriptive phrase chosen for convenience, so it should be "Genocide law" or something of that sort, not "Genocide Law". There is no WP:OR problem inherent in chosing a simple, descriptive title rather than a proper name, if that proper name is too unwieldy. Of course, the full title should be given in the lead sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The essence of the discussion was that there were no reliable sources that there was a short form for the act, or what it was and creating one would be original research. The article was originally created by the now banned editor and desysopped administrator User:Altenmann under the title "Law on Communist Genocide" but was moved with the objection, "creating the page with this title (not supported by the sources) appears to be an attempt to make a point on a dispute over another article". If you want to re-open the discussion I suggest you follow WP:MOVE: "if you believe the move might be controversial (consider using the {{movenotice}} template to draw attention to the proposed move and new title, and start discussion on the talk page)". TFD (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not going to push a move against consensus. But my point is that the whole argument of the previous debate was misguided, because the OR argument would only apply if we pretended the chosen title was a proper name. As soon as we use it merely as a descriptive phrase, it's no longer a matter of OR but merely a matter of editorial style. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the sources show that the law is descriptively called Genocide Law. Alternatively the law is called Law on Communist Genocide. I verified those references and fixed them through these edits. Please verify Pearson, Austin, Albania's Criminal Code, Boyle, and Bideleux. You have five sources, all reliable to support the move that I made. Per Wikipedia:NC#Deciding_an_article_title the title should first be Recognizable and Easy to find, then Precise. I understand your concerns for precision problems, but the name as it is, is not easy to find. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 15:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please indicate which specific link calls it the "Genocide Law". Do you not think that there is a possibility that readers could confuse this law with the criminal code "SPECIAL PART, CHAPTER I, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY Article 73 Genocide"?[6] Do you have any sources that this law was part of the Albanian Criminal Code or was it a separate law? TFD (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources currently cited in footnotes 1, 3 and 4 call it that. As for the confusion with the other law you mentioned, an explanatory note like the one we currently have in footnote 5 can easily handle that. As for your last question, I don't understand why you're asking. Why would you expect it was part of the criminal code? Obviously it wasn't. Why would it matter? – On the whole, I really really don't understand why such a big fuss is being made over this very trivial matter of editorial conveniency. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I don't understand either. This article should be linked to the failure of the Decommunization, since it pertains to a law that was in effect for only two years 1995-1997. Four Deuces I believe FPS answered in my place to your questions. Anything else? Oh, and I will enter below the moveto template so that more editors can see it. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 18:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Move Request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: There is consensus that the current title is unsatisfactory. Out of the various alternative suggested by the nominator #3 gained the most support however it was argued that the year should also be included to distinguish the article from any other articles on Albanian genocide law. A number of different formats were suggested which included Albania and/or 1995 in brackets. My conclusion is that putting them both in brackets is probably the most logical, although this can be tweaked if there is agreement here on a better format. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

---

{{movereq|Genocide Law of Albania}}

On Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Albania during the Communist Regime for Political, Ideological and Religious Motives → Genocide Law of Albania — Let's think about the options for a new title before we decide anything:

1. Genocide Law of Albania
2. Genocide law of Albania
3. Genocide law (Albania)
4. Law on Communist Genocide (Albania)

Preferences? Mine would be (3) or (4), but it doesn't matter much to me.|Relisted billinghurst sDrewth| Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support #3 but with the year variant (Genocide law (Albania) 1995) as per FPS's suggestion here and TFD's suggestion of two months ago [7]. It's more NPOV than 4 and more neutral than 1 (which I initially moved to and subsequently proposed) and 2. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 20:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support #3 I too support the third option (Genocide law (Albania)). Cheers. kedadial 22:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is an Albanian law under the Criminal Law, Special Part, Chapter 1, Article 73 called "Genocide"[8] that has a better claim to being called the "Albanian Genocide Law" than the law in this article, which has been repealed. Also, there are no reliable sources that this law was called the genocide law. TFD (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  Of course there are reliable sources that call the law like this, as you have been shown repeatedly. The only thing we don't have is sources that state this is its official short name. But I've now made the point twice, and you have shown no sign of even noticing the argument, let alone refuted it: we don't need such sources, because we will be using the expression as a mere descriptive phrase, not pretend it's a proper name. I'm questioning your unspoken premise that only an official proper name can be a legitimate article title. It would be nice if you gave at least some indication you are taking other people's arguments seriously. As for the other genocide law, it's very unlikely it should ever get its own article, and it has far less public notability than this one, so it causes no problem for the title. Confusions can be explained in the article text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You have not provided any reliable sources that the law has a short form name. Making up our own names in WP:SYN. Please read this discussion page to see the arguments that were presented against renaming this article. P. S. - How do you know that the law does not have a short form name? TFD (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Now this is literally WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I just said three times that I'm not talking about "names" at all. Do you understand the difference between a name and a description? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I am sorry that you choose not to hear what I am saying and also that you find the previous discussion "unreadable". But I see not reason to rename this article when the new name is not the name of this law and in fact may be used to describe another law, which actually happens to be in force. By the way, it appears that you have not read the article, because then you would know that your description is misleading. The purpose of the law was to exclude former Communists from public office and it mentions "crimes against humanity" as well as genocide. It was similar to the German The Law for Liberation from National Socialism and Militarism. Since this subject interests you, you may wish to create an article for that law, which probably was more important than this one. TFD (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please answer my question as to whether you like or not the new naming with the 1995 year? In addition can you please answer my question as to whether you agree that one single article of a criminal code or a civil code cannot be called a law, because it's just part of a law: The law is the code in its entirety and every first year student of Jurisprudence knows that. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 15:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually since criminal codes in common law countries typically combined many different English laws into a single code it is not unusual to continue to use the term law for what was formerly a statute but is now combined into a single act. For example, vagrancy laws. A law may also refer to a group of statutes, common law and equity, e.g., the law of limitations, when often there are different limitation periods prescribed under different acts. Again, I do not think we should invent names for laws. However, I question whether this would even be the best name. People who committed genocide would be prosecuted under the criminal code, while this law was designed to block former Communists from public office. In fact, genocide was not the only or even the major reason why these people could be blocked. Crimes against humanity, which is much broader, would more likely be used. It has far more in common with denazification laws that genocide laws. TFD (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not have to imagine what would be a convenient short form to use: several reliable sources which do that have already been identified and mentioned in the article. Of the two cited, "Genocide law" seems to be the consensus here (and also has more references than "Law on communist genocide"). Your concern about there being more than one genocide law can be addressed by including the date. Months ago, you proposed changing the name to Genocide Law (Albania) 1995. I think that's a reasonable compromise. AmateurEditor (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have written to all the editors who have discussed this article with the exception of the creator of the article, User:Altenmann, who has been banned, and User:Timurite, who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Altenmann. TFD (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment TFD, as you may know a Criminal Code IS a law: the entirety of the articles of a code constitutes ONE law. So you may not call a Law parts of it, particularly one article. If that's the reason why you are opposing the move, then would you consider renaming the article to Genocide law 1995 (Albania)? This solution would satisfy your concern, because it would just refer to the year in which the law was enacted. The article would then sufficiently explain, both in the body and the lede that the law was repealed in 1997. What do you think?--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 02:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone asked whether there was a law against genocide, the answer would be that it is part of the Criminal Code. Would it not be peculiar if the answer was that there used to be a law against genocide but it was repealed? TFD (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Again: what does that have to do with the article title? All of these extremely minor issues can easily be treated in the article text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The name that should be used is the name of the law, not another law. TFD (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support #3 per FP@S' persuasive comments above.radek (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support #3 per FP`s reasoning, and this is the most stupid name for an article ever, who came up with it :) mark nutley (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Genocide Law of Albania because according WP:AT title names should be concise, which the current title is not. It is totally unsearchable, and overly specific, and this overrides the need to use any "official" title. --WikiDonn (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support moving the article. Any of the proposed descriptive titles is an improvement over the current one, minor issues of capitalization aside. But TFD has a point that a new title should accomodate there being more than one Albanian genocide law. Using #4 would address that (I don't really buy the NPOV objection to this) and so would including the date in the title, as TFD proposed a few months ago with Genocide Law (Albania) 1995. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per TFD. If it's going to be renamed it should be a name that is actually specific to this law, as well as used in reliable sources. The current title is the actual name of the law. Anything like "Albanian genocide law" must include all such laws, not just this one. csloat (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Including the year would make the title specific to this law. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per TDF. --TIAYN (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I did place a request at the Albanian project page asking if anyone could find a source for the short form name of the law, if any existed. Could any editor who wishes to change the name please provide a source for the official short name. Does anyone know how we handle this in other WP about Albanian laws? TFD (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in favor of a name change is suggesting that these short forms are official. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well if there is an official short form, do you not agree that it would be better to use that than make one up? As someone with a great deal of interest in the Albanian legal system, it should not be difficult to find it. BTW, do you intend on creating articles about other Albanian laws? TFD (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an official short form would be the best solution, but there has been no indication so far that one exists, or that the Albanian legal system even uses such things. As for my interest here, it is minimal. I would have never even known about this article if I hadn't been involved in the Mass killings under Communist regimes page. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no short name for it, i have checked the EU archives from when Albania was applying for membership and this law (unsurprisingly) had to be repealed. I believe we shall have to go with one of the suggestions from above mark nutley (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are laws which don't have an official short form, especially short-lived laws, such as this one (1995-1997). As to unofficial names, there are sufficient sources, (three (3) for Genocide Law and two (2) for Communist Genocide Law). This title is a typical example of how to hide an article from the eyes of the public through a completely inappropriate title, such as this, which is long, not precise, not consistent, and not easy to find. Per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_an_article_title a descriptive title should be

• Recognizable that's Ok in this article
• Easy to find Not Ok
• Precise that's Ok in the article
• Concise Not Ok
• Consistent Not Ok

We would OK all of the above with Genocide Law (1995-1997) Albania. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 18:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No laws are provided short form names when they are passed. It does not matter how long they are in force. The proper source is to look at the law itself. Could someone please get ahold of the consolidated laws of Albania and have a look. Certainly among all the experts here on Albanian law, someone must have a copy. TFD (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. [9].--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 19:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m good with Sulmues choice, how about everyone else? mark nutley (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.