Talk:Kristo Ivanov
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 May 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Title
editCan anyone change the spelling error in the title! Ivanov it should be.
Tags
editOnce again I did examine the article in detail and I strongly recommend that the notability and clean-up TAGS BE REMOVED since I find that the article is fully satisfactory in these respects according to wikipedia standards. If any detailed justification should appear for these notability tags I support as a second best alternative the opinions and suggestions which were presented earlier, on 14 January 2009, by the signature Sam Lewin. Giuseppe Trautteur 192.84.134.230 (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is no spelling error in the title. Furthermore, through long standing personal acquaintance with Kristo, I value the article as a very thoughtful and accurate description of the biography and, above all, of the intellectual endeavors and achievements of Kristo Ivanov. Giuseppe Trautteur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.84.134.230 (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- I do not think that a revision as advocated by the first reviewer is needed since the text seems to be crafted with care. I understand that this page was not intended to be only "biographical" but, rather, to explain the i d e a s contributed by the person in question on the basis of published papers a n d some biographical data which explain how, on what basis these ideas were formed, interrelated, and are supported by earlier and later literature.
- The initial author of this page did already clarify all this in its original first version when it stated that "In order to clarify these ideas they will be illustrated with references to Ivanov's own work and to literature upon which it relies." The references to papers published in reviewed journals and in books satisfy the requirements of notability while other references only increase the availability of the texts, or point to other authors who support the further development of the ideas. I think that the first critique of the page was caused by misunderstanding its mix of notable references with references for further reading.
- Nevertheless, if more readers should happen to agree with, and to support the objections of the first reviewer in view of assumed Wikipedia standards, I suggest to keep in the original places of the text all references which validated the immediately PERSONAL claims attributed to Ivanov, and move all "secondary" text and references which clarify the ideas to a newly created final section named "further reading". Sam Lewin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.21.36.154 (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The addition of the "Too Few Opinions" (3 April 2013) tag is not supported by explanation on the Talk page or any specification of which opinions may need to be included or cited (as required by Wikipedia policy). Now that 10 days have passed, I recommend either providing the requisite justification / recommendations or deleting the tag. Insofar as this is a descriptive summary of the biographical subject's work (as opposed to exposition on those topics his work addressed), it's not clear why inclusion of others' opinions is appropriate, much less required. Could it be the intention behind the 3 April action was to flag potential bias rather than a need to cite others' opinions? EnolaGaia (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Unjustified template "Too Few Opinions" and deletions April 3rd, 2013
editThe instructions for the template "Too few opinions" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Too_few_opinions) clearly state for its purpose: "Please explain your concerns promptly on the article's talk page. If you do not identify the opinions that are missing, then any editor may remove this tag." I noticed this when browsing this page and missing the most important (for me) references to quality control of information in other pages of Wikipedia that are subject-relevant published stuff included even in the Swedish National Library. I checked that they, and more, appear to have been summarily deleted on 3 April 2013 with neither a clear edit-summary nor a follow-up on the Talk Page.The deletions were also object of ignored comments on the talk page 14 April 2013. Therefore I remove the template and recommend that all the deletions of 3 April 2013 be reverted. 62.98.141.50 (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Importance of section on "Quality-Control of Information"
editI agree with 62.98.141.50 (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2014 about the importance of this section and that it is a misunderstanding to consider its main reference (a publicly refereed and defended doctoral dissertation, available since more than 40 years in references and libraries) as OR that would be supposedly "clearly written as an essay". It is a misunderstanding based upon unfamiliarity with Scandinavian-Swedish doctoral academic routines and their implications with regard to meaning of publication. I re-instate the section whose deletion I consider has been a serious loss of content for the whole page, even granted that improvements may be done of details in the text. 154.44.138.30 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)