| Revision as of 15:37, 4 April 2012 editThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,547 edits →Fascism and authoritarian democracy discussion← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:04, 23 January 2025 edit undoHellenic Rebel (talk | contribs)421 edits not closed discussionsTag: Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Informal venue for resolving content disputes}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header}} | {{Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{ |
|archiveheader = {{Archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 253 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 1 | |minthreadsleft = 1 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(72h) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{clear|left}} | |||
| <!-- To change the grace period before open threads can be archived, you need to edit ]. --> | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| {{noindex}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!-- When removing this, please put a note at Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Archiving to explain why. --> | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| =Current disputes= | |||
| == List of wars involving Great Britain, List of wars involving Russia == | |||
| == Imran Khan == | |||
| <!-- ] 04:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> | |||
| {{DR case status|resolved}} | |||
| * {{pagelinks|List of wars involving Great Britain}} | |||
| {{drn filing editor|SheriffIsInTown|15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| * {{pagelinks|List of wars involving Russia}} | |||
| {{DRN archive top|This dispute has been resolved by opinions at the ].}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | |||
| Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| * ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?'' | |||
| a discussion has been going on about the convenience of using simple list or tables in this 2 articles. i argue that simple lists are easier to read and edit, while MarcusBritish and Dpaajones favor the use of tables. MarcusBritish and i have been the most involved in the discussion , but we have reached a point where he doesn't want to argue anymore and to just leave the article the way it is, which is the state he favours. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Imran Khan}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | ||
| * {{User|SheriffIsInTown}} | |||
| * ''Who is involved in the dispute?'' | |||
| * {{User|WikiEnthusiast1001}} | |||
| * {{User|Veldsenk}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| The content removed in this had been part of the article for over six years. It was initially removed by an editor citing ] and ]. Although I restored it, another editor subsequently removed it again. For context, ] is a former wife of the subject. After their marriage ended, she authored an autobiography titled ], published by ]. The author, the book, and the publisher are all notable, with HarperCollins being recognised as “one of the ‘Big Five’ English-language publishers,” as noted in its Misplaced Pages article. The removed content was also supported by five other secondary sources. Given the notability of the author, the book, and the publisher, as well as the reliable reporting, the content merits inclusion in the article. The removal occurred without consensus, despite the content being part of the article for years. The material only reported Reham Khan’s allegations, including claims that Imran Khan shared certain details with her. As Misplaced Pages editors, we are not arbiters of truth but rely on reliable sources. Additionally, ]. | |||
| :* {{user|Andres rojas22}} | |||
| :* {{user|MarcusBritish}} | |||
| :* {{user|Dpaajones}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> | |||
| * ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)'' | |||
| ] | |||
| <s>Not yet.</s> Yes, he has. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> | |||
| * <small>'' N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>List of wars involving Great Britain, List of wars involving Russia<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small> | |||
| I am seeking the restoration of the removed content, along with some expansion to include her allegations regarding Imran Khan’s drug use and same-sex tendencies, all of which are supported by her book and other secondary sources. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span> | |||
| * ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?'' | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by WikiEnthusiast1001 ==== | |||
| i explained the benefits of lists over tables in this type of lists and because MarcusBritish insisted on having a table i suggested a middle point: a table with less text than the current table has, in order for it to be more easy to read like lists are but that it also would allow to have some aesthetic value and a bit more info as MarcusBritish wanted. | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> | |||
| Violates several key Misplaced Pages policies especially ], which states '''"Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."''' | |||
| While the book was published by a reputable publisher, ]'s credibility is highly questionable—she has been sued for libel and defamation by one of her former husband's aides. As a result, and publicly apologized. This clearly casts doubt on the reliability of her claims. Also, the book was released just 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=]|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.}}</ref> suggesting a potential motive for bias. | |||
| * ''How do you think we can help?'' | |||
| The allegations have only been repeated by other sources after she brought them up, and no independent or credible evidence has ever corroborated them. This fails Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy, which requires independently verifiable claims, not merely echoes of the original source. It also violates NPOV and undue weight policies by giving excessive prominence to a single, uncorroborated perspective. ] (]) 10:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| mediate to allow us to reopen a discussion based in arguments and to reach a consensus. check the discussion page and you will see how arguments have been substituted by accusations of all kind. we need a third party without relation to this discussion to help us see the blind spots of the debate we were missing, | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by Veldsenk ==== | |||
| ] (]) 04:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> | |||
| === Imran Khan discussion === | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> | |||
| *'''Volunteer Note''' - Is this dispute at least partly about ]? If so, the source reliability issue should be addressed at ] first, before any other content issues are discussed. ] (]) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Volunteer Note''' - Is this dispute about the appropriateness of material in a ]? If so, it might be answered more quickly at ]. ] (]) 03:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:The matter concerns a BLP, but I’ve observed requests on that noticeboard being archived without a response. Since we are already on this noticeboard, with a request filed and another editor having responded, it seems more practical to build on that progress and resolve the issue here, rather than moving to multiple noticeboards. ] | ] | 04:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don’t think anyone is disputing the reliability of the sources. ] | ] | 04:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===List of wars involving Great Britain, List of wars involving Russia discussion=== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div> | |||
| ===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Imran Khan)=== | |||
| ;Comment | |||
| I am ready to act as the moderator if the parties want moderated discussion. Moderated discussion is voluntary. Please read ] and ] ]. Please state whether you agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a ]. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) and to the community. | |||
| This is a waste of editor's time. Andres simply cannot accept that his method of converting populated tables to basic menu-like lists was border-line disruptive, cutting the GB article down from ~46,000 to ~6,000 characters in one swoop with no regard for the stability or previous input by other editors, and war editing over this format. The matter was discussed between himself and Dpaajones based on the false premise that basic lists offer more functionality (see ]). Dpaajones invited uninvolved editors via ] due to the continued reverts. I performed a ] revert and updated the article from bog-standard HTML table to Wikitable and various MOS tweaks. Several MILHIST members support the Wikitable format and not the List. Andres refuses to accept the format, or content. He has ''not'' given a good account of the benefits of lists in this case, and if he believes he has, they do not amount to the reasons why a table is required here, per ]. The content is multi-level and requires several columns. Andres "proposal" to reduce the content to 3 columns is nonsense: 3 column tables might just as well be presented as lists, so it's really a motion to herd the article in the wrong direction, i.e. quality assessment would degrade, to a very basic layout, with loss of valuable data. Andres has yet to explain why he prefers this minimalist approach, only saying that the data is in each linked article. Firstly, articles are not self-referring and do not refer to other articles, only wikilink. Second, the format he chooses looks little more than a disambiguation index page, and is not good quality. Finally, researchers should not be expected to have to go through dozens of articles to learn the specifics when they can be summarised on one page, in a table, as is the point of such articles. The article is short on citations, but that does not make it "wrong", simply requiring further development. Such articles can lead to FL quality, whilst basic lists rarely exceed the "junior encyclopedia" mentality to be rated as anything above List/Start class. If we're supposed to be developing an encyclopedia here, reverting articles from multi-column cross-referenced to tables into bullet-point lists is backwards, and does not help anyone. It not not aid readers, does not advance Misplaced Pages, does not result in high quality lists. The format and arguments presented by Andres are misguided and ill-suited to the articles in question and he simply does not accept that the majority have spoken in favour of the present format. The consensus, or support for tabular format over basic list, by MILHIST members speaks for itself, a DR cannot be used to override the views of several other editors against one editor who simply has an ] agenda against tables and flagicons. His claim that I am opposed to basic Lists is also invalid, I am simply opposed to their use in this instance, and reducing articles to low-level organisation. As I said, the conclusion has already been reached, if Andres feels the need to revert the format again, against current consensus, I will simply raise it with ] as a war editing issue. Thanks, ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 04:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. | |||
| Regarding: | |||
| *''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? | |||
| :i explained the benefits of lists over tables in this type of lists and because MarcusBritish insisted on having a table i suggested a middle point: a table with less text than the current table has, in order for it to be more easy to read like lists are but that it also would allow to have some aesthetic value and a bit more info as MarcusBritish wanted. | |||
| Are there any questions? ] (]) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*This isn't only my opinion, other editors support it. So there is no dispute between me and Andres alone, but me, others and Andres solo. The discussion on the talk page clearly shows that he refuses to "get it" and accept that his edits were not acceptable. | |||
| ===Zeroth statements by editors (Imran Khan)=== | |||
| *How do you think we can help?** | |||
| I agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic. | |||
| :mediate to allow us to reopen a discussion based in arguments and to reach a consensus. check the discussion page and you will see how arguments have been substituted by accusations of all kind. we need a third party without relation to this discussion to help us see the blind spots of the debate we were missing, | |||
| I want to restore the following content which was part of the article for over six years and was recently removed which started this dispute: | |||
| :*I should like to note that I am third party. The issue was originally between David and Andres on his talk page. David invited uninvolved MILHIST members, making me third party. DR is now fourth party. What next Andres.. Arbcom? The matter has simply been elevated because Andres refuses to accept that the opinions of his preferred list format have been out-weighed. DR needs to stop this editor from shopping for support when his argument becomes exhausted. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 22:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Khan's former wife, Reham Khan, alleged in ] that he had told her that he had four other children out of wedlock in addition to Tyrian White. Allegedly, some of his children had Indian mothers and the eldest was aged 34 in 2018.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-imran-khan-has-five-illegitimate-children-some-of-them-indian-reham-khan-2636312|title=Imran Khan has five illegitimate children, some of them Indian: Reham Khan|date=12 July 2018|website=dnaindia.com|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=10 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810012850/http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-imran-khan-has-five-illegitimate-children-some-of-them-indian-reham-khan-2636312|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/sports/cricket/120718/imran-khan-5-indian-children-reham-khan-book-pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf.html|title=Imran Khan has 5 illegitimate children, some Indian: Ex-wife Reham Khan in new book|website=Deccanchronicle.com|date=12 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=14 July 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714021013/https://www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/sports/cricket/120718/imran-khan-5-indian-children-reham-khan-book-pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/some-indians-among-imran-khan-s-five-illegitimate-kids-alleges-ex-wife-reham-khan/story-eNFoZOVhJxBiRj8nNw5leN_amp.html|title=Indians among Imran Khan's five illegitimate kids, claims ex-wife Reham Khan|website=hindustantimes.com|date=13 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=9 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309050635/https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/some-indians-among-imran-khan-s-five-illegitimate-kids-alleges-ex-wife-reham-khan/story-eNFoZOVhJxBiRj8nNw5leN_amp.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Reham subsequently conceded that she did not know the identities of Khan's children or the veracity of his statements and that "you can never make out whether he tells the truth."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-2012-delhi-gang-rape-but-all-he-wanted-was-my-phone-number-and-address-in-london/articleshow/64993010.cms|title=Exclusive Interview: Reham Khan on ex-husband Imran Khan's secret drug use and why she chose to release her explosive autobiography before the elections in Pakistan|work=Mumbai Mirror|date=15 July 2018|access-date=11 August 2018|first=Vijay|last=Tagore|archive-date=11 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180811101603/https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-2012-delhi-gang-rape-but-all-he-wanted-was-my-phone-number-and-address-in-london/articleshow/64993010.cms|url-status=live}}</ref> Reham's book was published on 12 July 2018, 13 days before the ], leading to claims that its publication was intended to damage Imran Khan's electoral prospects.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=]|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.|access-date=25 July 2021|archive-date=25 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225140846/https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
| ;Comment | |||
| ] | ] | 18:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I am not going to waste any more of my time on this matter - I ask that any arbitrator read: ]. Furthermore, there are several more editors who agree with my stance on this matter, and none who agree with User Andres (this can be seen on the talk page of the British article, which I have just wikilinked). Thank you. ] (]) 11:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| I also agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic. | |||
| ;Comment | |||
| History lessens normally gives the start and end (death) date for both wars and people. The previous Great Britain webpage give the dates this allows the reader to see where wars overlap something that the articles on each war rarely say. Who was on each side and the out come are interesting. The information is a summary that permits the effect of the war to be determined. ] (]) 12:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I strongly object to including the unverified allegation by Imran's ex-wife about his alleged children out of wedlock. This claim solely from her and lacking independent confirmation, violates key Misplaced Pages policies, particularly ], ], and ], which discourage sensationalism and unsubstantiated personal claims. Despite the book's reputable publisher, Reham Khan's credibility is questionable as she had been sued for libel and defamation by one Khan's former aides. As a result, Additionally, the timing of the book's release just 13 days before the 2018 election suggests potential bias.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=]|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.}}</ref> These claims have not been independently verified, failing Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy and giving undue weight to an unsubstantiated view. As ] ], without further corroboration or direct involvement from the alleged Indian mother(s), this accusation appears baseless. ] (]) 16:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ;Comment | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| David ], you have avoided discussion since the issue started and tough the original discussion was between me and you, MarcusBritish has been the only editor truly committed to discuss, until recently at least which is the reason i opened this request.--] (]) 21:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :There has been no polling, as has already been made clear. However, a number of editors from MILHIST supported my arguments and reasons for keeping the current format. This constitutes as a form of consensus, and indicates that more editors prefer the tabular format. A consensus does not have to result in a happy-medium, when it is clear that 4 editors disagree with you and you alone. You have suggested that readers/editors prefer lists for functionality, and though asked to invite such people to comment, have failed to do so, which means the claim in unsupported. You refuse to accept a majority opinion and are attempting to push your own preferences (POV pushing) against the majority via this DR. The matter is simple: You changed articles from tables to lists without considering the consequences, you engaged in reverting the opposition to your edits, and as a result the editor, David, was forced to invite outside views. MILHIST members have given their views in support of the original format, not for lists. That is a form of consensus, not a poll. The discussion is pointless because you refuse to accept any views other than your own, and have offered no reasons for your dislike of the tables, apart from suggesting that they don't look good on archaic 800x600 monitors, which, to be frank, is just tough-luck, Wiki can't expect to support old resolutions only used by ~1% of the population. Because the discussion is not making any ground either way, it is required for us to consider the balance of the !votes, as we can hardly expect for an article to be completely changed for one soul editor only. Consensus doesn't have to mean that we use any of your ideas, unless you can prove their benefit. Given that we know that a 3-column table layout with a few words per cell is little more than a bordered list, your only suggestion is neither practical nor efficient use of wikitables. As has been said, the use of dates, flags and outcome helps give readers a broad overview of Great Britain's history of war, whereas a list provides little more than a directory of wikilinks, but nothing material. Such lists lack encyclopaedic value, hence my derision of them as "menu lists", you get the names of the meals, you don't get the ingredients and recipe. That's what leads articles to becoming FLs, rather than lingering in the low-quality List category. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 21:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapsetop|Participation in DRN is voluntary. No back-and-forth discussion between editors. ] (]) 08:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :@] Can you record your zeroth statement here so this dispute can be resolved? ] | ] | 00:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is <u>not</u> my opinion, this is ''fact''. At no point in these comments do we see any evidence of "polling". We see editors supporting my argument without feeling the need to expand on or repeat it. That does not qualify as a poll in any sense of the word, in policy, or anything else for that matter. What it does indicate is opposition to your changes, but no expansion to the discussion, because there isn't a suitable format that can be used between List and Table that would be practical. So we should be sticking with what is popular and considered acceptable. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 22:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapsebottom}} | |||
| ===First statement by moderator (Imran Khan)=== | |||
| {{cue}} Hi everyone, I'm a regular contributor at this noticeboard. This is a tricky situation to deal with, and the guidance given by Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines doesn't seem to be conclusive here. MarcusBritish linked to the guideline ] above, and this is what it has to say on the subject: "''Often a list is best left as a list. Before you format a list in table form, consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.''" So to follow this guideline, we need to consider what data we want to show in the list - but that is the exact thing that this dispute is over. So this guideline doesn't look like it is going to be too much help here. <p>Next, we have Andres's argument that using tables makes the list look cluttered, and the other editors' argument that not using tables leaves out useful information. I think both of these arguments are valid, and I'm not aware of anything in policy that would guide us towards choosing one over the other. The only policy that applies here that I know of is that we must follow ]. MarcusBritish made the insightful point, however, that we should consider how best to get the list to ] status. If we look at the ], we can see that criterion 5a is: "''Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.''" So it seems that using tables would be more likely to get the list to featured list status than not using them. Whether this criterion is fair or not is open to debate, but it seems to be a good reason to use tables in absence of other guidance.</p> <p>Having said this, in the end it will be ] that decides what ends up on the page. Contrary to Andres's comment above, we do not do arbitration on this noticeboard. We cannot make any binding decisions here, I'm afraid. If people's opinions don't change, then to get a clear decision on what to do it would be necessary to take this question to an ]. However, given the number of editors in favour of using tables so far, I'm not sure that an RfC would have a great chance of being successful. Andres, it's up to you if you would like to try or not, but you should be prepared for the fact that things might not go the way you want them to. Because this is a collaborative project, there are times when you will not be able to get your way. It might be that this is just one of those situations where you have to ]. Let me know if you have any questions about this. All the best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 13:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)</p> | |||
| The issue appears to be whether to include in our ] of ] the allegations made by his ex-wife. Is that correct, and are there any other issues? Has Imran Khan (or anyone acting as his spokesman) commented on the veracity of the allegations? If so, where? Have ], such as newspapers, discussed the allegations and commented on their accuracy? | |||
| The ] by ] is a primary source. The ] says that extreme caution should be used in the use of primary sources. It says that we may use the material in the primary sources if secondary sources have referred to the primary sources. So a major concern is whether secondary sources have discussed the allegations. | |||
| :thanks for your commentary im glad to see you understood everyone's thoughts. i don't have a die hard opinion, since i started the discussion i came with an open mind an willing to compromise to reach a common understanding. i dropped my case for the conversion to list for the sake of consensus but the information contained is excessive and must be reduced in some parts to make it easier to read and write, right now it doesn't look like a big issue but the list today only covers a tiny percentage of the conflicts that involved Great Britain in the era (including many small colonial wars) that when they are added to the list will make it a torturous process for a reader/editor to check the list looking for a war. that being said, since i accept the table format and i believe that would make the consensus, we could end the discussion here and just continue normal editing, but i have the feeling MarcusBritish and i would still clash about the table's style and disposition, he has pretty strong ideas of what he wants. would you recommend to continue the discussion over the style of table or is it enough that we agree that tables are good for this 2 articles? and Marcus what do you say? --] (]) 14:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Are there any questions? | |||
| :Mr S. has pointed out that WP:WHENTABLE begins with "''Often a list is best left as a list.''" As I have noted before, this article was never a list to begin with, except in name, the original creator created the article as a table. To me this is no different to ENGVAR which says use the variation of English used by the creator, except where there are strong national ties. In this case, the table format was used first, and reverting to a list is bound to bring opposition. I don't have strong views on behalf of myself, or the subject, as I have no previous involvement with this article, afaik. I have strong views in terms of what is presentable, and best relates to policy, MOS, readability, etc. Wikitables are virtually auto-styled once the class is attributed, from there it's a matter of creating rows/columns/data. I do not believe that Andres makes a valid point with regards to "as the table gets bigger, the content is too difficult to edit", because there are many large rand more complex tables on Misplaced Pages, some FL, which are stable and well-managed. Wikitables are simple markup, not complex HTML tags, and so there is no reason for any editor to have major difficulties updating, expanding or editing the content. As for readers, I stand by my belief that a basic list is little more than an index of wikilinks and conveys nothing of value, a 3-col table is just a list with borders and of little value, and a table offers the best way of displaying the data in rows and columns, chronologically, and it's hardly nuclear physics to read down and across a table of only 6 columns. I don't think there's anything else can be discussed, I've given my bit, and other editors agree with the table. I think an RfC would simply allow for more MILHIST editors to support the present table format, as we use them a lot in that project, and Andres would simply be wasting further time and resources to confirm an outcome that has already been determined thrice already, between himself and David, with me, and here with Mr S. noting that an RfC would likely be pointless. I think it's a matter of Andres just letting this one go, as I don't think the table can be reduced anywhere near as much as he hopes, and given that there is more potential for expansion rather than reduction, he could end up digging a hole for himself if he continues to bring attention to the matter. There are plenty of historians out there might find a reason to knock on an extra column or two, because.. because they can, if they have reason enough to believe it is valid, reliably sourced and beneficial. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 15:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 06:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You are correct and this is the only issue. Reham's book was published on 12 July 2018, 13 days before the ], leading to claims that its publication was intended to damage Imran Khan's electoral prospects.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=]|date=12 July 2018|quote=Reham's book, published online today, has triggered debate on social media with many saying that she is doing all this on the behest of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz to tarnish the image of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan just before the July 25 polls.|access-date=25 July 2021|archive-date=25 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225140846/https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|url-status=live}}</ref> Khan's party information secretary alleged that the ] was behind the book and that "photograph of Ms Khan and her son with former US ambassador Hussain Haqqani doing the rounds on social media was sufficient evidence. Discussing yet another photograph of Ms Khan, this time with former PML-N MNA from Rawalpindi Hanif Abbasi, Mr Chaudhry claimed that the PML-N leader had asked “what will Imran do if Reham’s book is published before the election?"<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.dawn.com/news/1412320|title=Contents of Reham’s book are against family values: Fawad Chaudhry|date=6 June 2018}}</ref> Khan commented on the book in 2022, stating that his ex-wife had been paid by the ] to write a book against him.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/reham-khan-was-paid-to-write-book-against-me-in-2018-imran-khan-390701|title=Reham Khan was paid to write book against me in 2018: Imran Khan|date=30 April 2022}}</ref> ] (]) 04:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::you haven't been able to find a common ground or at least try. plus your management of policies and guidelines has been full of flaws: every policies or guideline you have cited supports my arguments.] shatters your argument of the convenience of tables over lists: | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| ::{{quotation|If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.|]}} | |||
| ::{{quotation|If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice.|] }} | |||
| ::you're argument that ''"this article was never a list to begin with, except in name, the original creator created the article as a table"'' is weak, just because the article did not begin as a list it does not mean that it's table material. the main point is to: ''"consider whether the information will be more clearly conveyed by virtue of having rows and columns. If so, then a table is probably a good choice. If there is no obvious benefit to having rows and columns, then a table is probably not the best choice."'' not who was first the table or the list. | |||
| ::then you say: | |||
| ::{{quotation|To me this is no different to ENGVAR which says use the variation of English used by the creator, except where there are strong national tie}} | |||
| ::I'm puzzled by this statement, how does a guideline related to the naming of an article relates to the formatting of lists? you have repeatedly made some odd arguments using the policies and guidelines during the discussion. | |||
| ::and WP:TABLE also says: | |||
| ::{{quotation|Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table: Try not to use tables for putting a caption under a photograph, '''arranging a group of links''', or other strictly visual features. '''It makes the article harder to edit for other Wikipedians'''. '''Also, when compared with tables, wikimarkup is more flexible, easier to use, and less esoteric when used for desktop publishing, page elements, and page orientation and positioning.'''|]}} | |||
| --] (]) 10:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===First statements by editors (Imran Khan)=== | |||
| :::Blah, blah, blah... perhaps the only thing that is "shattered" or "weak" (weasel words of a persistent ] nature) is the fact that your initial, and continued argument fails to convince anyone that lists have any superior, logical, or "obvious" benefit over tables. And per your quote: | |||
| Following secondary sources and many others have covered the allegations:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-imran-khan-has-five-illegitimate-children-some-of-them-indian-reham-khan-2636312|title=Imran Khan has five illegitimate children, some of them Indian: Reham Khan|date=12 July 2018|website=dnaindia.com|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=10 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180810012850/http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-imran-khan-has-five-illegitimate-children-some-of-them-indian-reham-khan-2636312|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/sports/cricket/120718/imran-khan-5-indian-children-reham-khan-book-pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf.html|title=Imran Khan has 5 illegitimate children, some Indian: Ex-wife Reham Khan in new book|website=Deccanchronicle.com|date=12 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=14 July 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714021013/https://www.deccanchronicle.com/amp/sports/cricket/120718/imran-khan-5-indian-children-reham-khan-book-pakistan-tehreek-e-insaf.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/some-indians-among-imran-khan-s-five-illegitimate-kids-alleges-ex-wife-reham-khan/story-eNFoZOVhJxBiRj8nNw5leN_amp.html|title=Indians among Imran Khan's five illegitimate kids, claims ex-wife Reham Khan|website=hindustantimes.com|date=13 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=9 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309050635/https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/some-indians-among-imran-khan-s-five-illegitimate-kids-alleges-ex-wife-reham-khan/story-eNFoZOVhJxBiRj8nNw5leN_amp.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-2012-delhi-gang-rape-but-all-he-wanted-was-my-phone-number-and-address-in-london/articleshow/64993010.cms|title=Exclusive Interview: Reham Khan on ex-husband Imran Khan's secret drug use and why she chose to release her explosive autobiography before the elections in Pakistan|work=Mumbai Mirror|date=15 July 2018|access-date=11 August 2018|first=Vijay|last=Tagore|archive-date=11 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180811101603/https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/cover-story/i-wanted-to-talk-about-the-2012-delhi-gang-rape-but-all-he-wanted-was-my-phone-number-and-address-in-london/articleshow/64993010.cms|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|title=Reham Khan's book 'available in paperback in UK'|publisher=]|date=12 July 2018|access-date=25 July 2021|archive-date=25 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225140846/https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/340843|url-status=live}}</ref> ] | ] | 21:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{quotation|Tables should not be used simply for layout, either. If the information you are editing is not tabular in nature, it probably does not belong in a table}} | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} | |||
| :::The data is tabular, and no it isn't a bloody "group of links", it's a 6-column chronological table with dates (not wikilinks), wars (wikilinked), the aggressors (auto-wikilinked), and outcome (not all wikilinked). So in essence, your point here is ill-conceived, and you don't seem to recognise the differences between "simple" and tabular. As for indicating that is may be harder for Wikipedians to edit, the quote is out of context, because that only applies to where tables have been misapplied to minimal lists. There is nothing "simple" about 6-cols worth of data, over a useless dates/wars menu. | |||
| ===Second statement by moderator (Imran Khan)=== | |||
| :::I suggest you rethink your first four sentences because they were ]! As is your repeated non-sensical ] of tables. Nothing you said here is anything but subjective personal opinions, and a further waste of time. Your ] is questioned here. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 17:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| The memoir is a primary source, but secondary sources have reported on the allegations in the memoir, and the content dispute is about whether to report on the allegations. I agreed to consider this dispute at ] because the filing editor expressed a concern that some cases at the ] are not answered and are archived unanswered. However, I will take my chances on whether there is an answer at ]. I will be putting this dispute here on hold while I see if I get an answer. I have posted the dispute at ], and you may discuss the issues there. Be civil and concise, because that is always good advice about disputes. | |||
| Please be patient. Are there any questions? ] (]) 04:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::if you're not capable of argumenting you're thoughts with policies and guidelines then just let go of the discussion, don't reply to my arguments that i have supported with 2 guidelines, of which the main points of the extracts are even highlighted in bold text with a disrespectful mock calling them ''""Blah, blah, blah...''. i take this as what it is, if you're not serious about discussing then let it go, don't make me waste my time writing arguments well based in policies for you to mock.--] (]) 01:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh quit blowing your own bloody trumpet and spouting crap. The fact of the matter is that you're repeating the same arguments over and over, like a stuck record even with several editors against your views. I think you need to take you own advice and drop the matter yourself, before someone dies.. of sheer boredom. Of course I'm mocking you.. this vain attempt of yours to discredit tables by responding with subjective nonsense.. the same subjective nonsense you were saying a week ago.. is now laughable and cannot be taken seriously. The guidelines/policies/MOS say nothing that supports any good reason to change from tables to a list. And you've no presented a convincing reasons to reduce the table considerably, because they are fairly lightweight as is. So the matter really is closed, because the article is stable and looks fine, as agreed by other editors. You're the only one who thinks otherwise. There's no reason to change the article, because no one supports your pro-list claims. And consensus doesn't mean we have to do anything to suit your demands, only that we're listened and dismissed them. DR concluded. Go find something else to do, this ] is now rotten. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 04:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Second statements by editors (Imran Khan)=== | |||
| ::::::you are no judge to declare the discussion has ceased just because you cant come with a decent argument to support the use of tables, every policy and guideline you have misused as supporting you're arguments i have clearly shown shown they support mine's and contradict what you say, the most blatant example being ]. of course you don't want to discuss, you cant prove your points! try at least to comprehend a guideline before just randomly throwing a link as "proof" of your opinions. mocking a user who is trying to have a debate is a clear breach of ], as is offensive and provocative remarks as ''"Oh quit blowing your own bloody trumpet and spouting crap"''. arguments are sustained by policies and guidelines not by attacking the other party--] (]) 06:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{DRN archive bottom}} | |||
| :::::::Waffle.. I see lots of words, but nothing of value. I don't need to provide anything further, other than to indicate that the current format is wider supported and stable. You can change it, but if you do I'll refer it to the war editing board as contrary to consensus. This discussion is over, because you clearly have nothing to say but the same empty words. So I have no reply other than: consensus wins in the form of three or four editors rejecting you wanting a list. I've cited plenty of policy in the past, which Mr S. noted and agreed was relevant, so how you come the conclusion that I haven't either makes you stupid, or a liar. Now I have nothing more to say on the matter. Tables have been supported, lists haven't. I have no interest in your "civility" rants, or anything else. End of story. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 13:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) == | |||
| ====Section break==== | |||
| i have agreed on the use of table, not b the table's virtues but onl as a compromise, but with a couple of changes: | |||
| *the 2 columns that list separately the ear of beginning and ear of ending of the war to become a single column, and | |||
| *reduce the outcome descriptions by removing excessive information of the concessions obtained:territorial exchanges and war reparations. | |||
| do you agree?--] (]) 20:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{DR case status|open}} | |||
| :No. | |||
| <!-- ] 19:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738093151}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! --> | |||
| :Per FL criteria (the ultimate goal of any lists, and so best criteria we have): "'''''Structure.''' It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.''" | |||
| {{drn filing editor|Abo Yemen|19:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Combining start and end of wars removes sorting ability. If someone wanted to know what wars began in X-year they could, but they would lose ability to sort by and find wars that ended in X-year. | |||
| :Provide examples of what you consider "excessive". The matter is subjective, but the outcome of any war is generally identifiable, as long as it is not controversial and challenged by people who think the outcome was something else. Reliable sources should be provided in those cases, and to attain FL each outcome should be sourced. A fairly big task, but not impossible. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 20:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | |||
| ::a table with a large number of lines between ever war is not easily navigable, and combining the dates of start and ending in one column would complicate sorting and finding conflicts by the year they ended because visually the only change would be 1900-1901 instead of 1900|1901. if you look a First Opium War you'll see how small is the space occupied by the main information which is the name of the conflict and date compared to the one occupied by the details of what concessions the chinese made, it should say british victory and/or treaty of nanjing. an article should include information that is needed b the user the reader to understand what he is reading, but not too much to the point where it becomes a visual distraction and hinders reading. an example if i listed "First Opium War" without anmore detail i would be forcing the reader to go to the page's article to see the date it was fought but b putting the dates of the war in this list the reader would have a better understanding of the conflict and if he wanted more details he could direct himself to the article's page. self containment and reliance on other articles for further information are both important, but a list even if in table form is just a list and not an article.--] (]) 01:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. | |||
| :::What "large number of lines between every war"? Combining dates is not appropriate, as in some cases wars coincide with each other, so sorting: | |||
| :::*1066-1070 | |||
| :::*1150-1250 | |||
| :::*1200-1201 | |||
| :::*1380-1400 | |||
| :::would produce them in that same order for Start, but not work in order to produce: | |||
| :::*1066-1070 | |||
| :::*1200-1201 | |||
| :::*1150-1250 | |||
| :::*1380-1400 | |||
| :::for sorting by end, as proved here: | |||
| {| class="wikitable sortable" | |||
| ! Years | |||
| |- | |||
| | 1066-1070 | |||
| |- | |||
| | 1150-1250 | |||
| |- | |||
| | 1200-1201 | |||
| |- | |||
| | 1380-1400 | |||
| |} | |||
| {| class="wikitable sortable" | |||
| ! Start !! End | |||
| |- | |||
| | 1066 || 1070 | |||
| |- | |||
| | 1150 || 1250 | |||
| |- | |||
| | 1200 || 1201 | |||
| |- | |||
| | 1380 || 1400 | |||
| |} | |||
| :::As is clear in this example, sorting both start/end is the better option, and what is required for ordering the data, not just for visual layout, which seems to be your concern. People want to be able to find things chronologically, in such tables. Basic lists offer none of these options, hence why they are easy to rule out for this purpose, where the article forms a chronology of events. Am speaking from experience, as I work with a lot of articles that use lists, tables and such, so I know how they function very clearly, and what is suitable format for them. | |||
| :::For all intents and purposes, you're using the word "article" wrong. Everything is an "article" ''per se'', it's it's format that determines if the article is a list, prose based, table, etc. "Article" is an umbrella term, for everything, generally speaking. | |||
| :::''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 02:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::i see, i agree on the separate columns for dates. but what about the description of the results, i pointed out the descriptions are too detailed and its information that the reader probably doesn't read at all, people get into this lists of wars to search for a conflict and then go to that conflict's article to get more information, they don't read the whole list so they don't make use of the detailed descriptions which obviously cannot compete with the coverage of a full article; and the editor will find hard to fill up what are a huge lists: covering 300 years of conflicts all over the world for the british and more than 700 years for russia! of which only a tiny fraction are listed now. what i propose if to give the results of wars as victor/defeat and/or naming the treat that ended the war, but to put more details to the description is to overcrowd the readers view with exclusive details and set a standard that other editors may not follow or achieve.--] (]) 12:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<s>I think in those cases where a war ended in a treaty it is not always necessary to detail each and every clause of the treaty, even in summary form, a wikilink to the treaty should suffice, and possibly one or two main points per outcome, nothing trivial, may be required in some but not all cases where the result, as part of the outcome, is of great importance to British or even world history, e.g. Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII, etc.</s> This, however, would require further discussion between other editors involved in the article, as I'm not willing to make the decision to refactor the Outcome column based on a one-on-one discussion. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 20:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::i agree on putting the treaty instead of the details it involved except in major wars like napoleonic, etc. but ''"further discussion between other editors involved in the article, as I'm not willing to make the decision to refactor the Outcome column based on a one-on-one discussion."'' is not only impractical but it's a utopia that is never done in the[REDACTED] because if we asked for the opinions of editors who have previously edited the article we would never have the enciclopedia we have now, it would take forever. that's why the accepted form of acting is ], we make changes and if someone disagrees we discuss but we don't have an obligation to previous editors no matter how much hours the invested because articles aren't property of editors. that's why everytime you're making an edit below the ''Save page'' button says ''"If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."''--] (]) 15:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::*WP:BRD is not relevant in this case, as that applies when there has been considerable debate regarding an article, but also many edits that are not agreed to by various editors. I already performed BRD by boldly reverting your disputed list format back to the original table, and then discussing the unsuitability with you, for far longer than should be appropriate. If you were to revert back to the list that would be ''war editing'' not BRD, because multiple editors support the table structure against and are opposed to your changes, and removing text from the Outcome column is technically not "reverting" anything, anyway. However, you will find that because those multiple editors have made a consensus decision, and that the table is now determined to remain, any refactoring should be presented as a proposal prior to performing them, otherwise you would be seen as bending the rules of the consensus. So, yes it is practical, and no it wouldn't take forever (a hyperbolical expectation). It's the simple matter of fact that you opposed the use of a table in this article, and were highly involved in editing it, previously. As was I. Therefore, in order for bias to be avoided, either way, it is necessary to have your proposed changes presented and discussed amongst uninvolved editors, transparently. We do not make edits and then expect them to be discussed ''reactively'' in every case, we often discuss edits ''proactively'', to avoid controversy, war edits, etc, in order to maintain article stability ''until'' the idea can be considered, and approved, a bit like a ''sandbox''. That is consensus, also, and what is required here, regardless of how long it takes. Wiki does not work by deadlines, nor are editors supposed to enforce deadlines and personal timescales in order to push through their edits and not give people ample time to consider the effects. So I recommend you back down from being pushy, as it will not be taken lightly, no one likes to be rushed unnecessarily. | |||
| :::::::*The wording below the Submit button is just general advice, per the Creative Commons licence Wiki operates under, and bears no relevance either. It simple means, ] behaviour is not allowed here. We may not have an obligation to discuss each and every change with previous editors, but we have an obligation to respect consensus, and you have an obligation to recognise that the table format has been widely approved, 6:1 against you, and that you would be "safe" and sensible to discuss any ideas openly with the community, rather than acting of your own accord and disrespecting their majority, no matter how slight the edits may seem to you. | |||
| :::::::*I recommend you open up a new discussion on the article's talk page, and await enough responses for about two weeks, minimum, before making any changes, as that may be considered war editing, by myself or others, and reverted or reported. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 17:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| t | |||
| ::::::::you are making a strange blend between two very different things (consensus and ownership), we have already agreed on keeping the format as a table which was the point of the discussion but now you and i are discussing details that are not part or the consensus. i have well proven the point in my last comment that polling to ask whether i'm allowed to make changes in the article is not supported by any policy and contrary to the interest of making an encyclopedia which is accomplished by editing and not by throwing fences and claiming ownership of certain articles. i'm not going to reach out and ask for the opinions of uninvolved editors because articles are not private property in which one need permission to trespass.--] (]) 19:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Blend? I think you'll find that I made a ''distinction'', and that once consensus favours a particular choice, any soul editor going against the consensus would be claiming ownership, possibly. What we are discussing now is neither unique nor new, as it was raised in your initial discussions with other editors, that you wanted to minimise the content, reducing it to something more functional, apparently, therefore the views of other editors that the table is appropriate also includes its current content. The matter of what you want to change incorporates your initial views that the table contains more information than ''you'' would prefer. Therefore I am requesting that you discuss the matter with a wider array of editors, and not just myself. This is nothing to do with private property or trespassing, this is to do with you claiming that you are making "unique" changes, when in fact you are wanting to make the same ''content reducing'' edits as before, only within the table layout. Trying to ] yourself around the matter does not change the fact that your proposals should be discussed, before resorting to these subjective edits. Please follow simple community procedure, and stop trying to act of your own accord, aka ]ing as I have no interest in this repeated circular debate about what ''you'' want. The matter is unbecoming, and frankly, you are selfish to disregard the comments being left by editors on the talk page, and below. The constant ] attitude is now ]. So I'll put it like this: The community ''rejected'' your list format, and may potentially reject your minimal Outcome format. So in order to avoid having the article reverted, to avoid war editing, escalation to lengthy RFC, and other further time consuming efforts, it is in ''your'' and ''wiki's'' best interests to discuss the proposal with interested editors. If you don't feel you should have to that's your choice, just don't be surprised if the removal of a lot of text gets reverted because you failed to seek consensus and give suitable reasons to remove so much content that may be relevant to others. ] is exactly the policy that applies here, despite your belief that Wiki is free for anyone to edit, that does not mean an editor can force their revised opinions when other editors have rejected their earlier attempts, and expect them to be welcome. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 21:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :after we conclude the discussion i will edit the article (taking into account the consensus, that is that the format remains a table) and if an editor expresses his objections to my changes then i will cordially accept a reversion and discuss the differences with him, as has always been the way to do things in wikipedia. that's the process of editing an article.--] (]) 00:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Then I have to formally warn you that the revert and objection will be made by me, reported to ] and I shall insist there that the matter be discussed as a community consented change, first, if necessary a ]. As I have already stated, you do not represent a ], and your stake in the matter is based on a disposition than precedes this discussion. "I will cordially accept a reversion" is ownership being expressed, and prelude to another length round of exhaustive discussions, and unnecessary discussion. A discussion that precedes the matter would be more intelligent. I invite you to begin that discussion, now, on the talk page, and have some courtesy for once, and change your attitude towards not provoking a dispute, or I shall open the discussion.. and then you will have no choice but to wait. I refer you to ] which states: "''. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. '''Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.'''''" Take note of the bold, and that I have asked you, repeated, to seek an open consensus, and that you have refused, and dismissed the strength of such an action. See also, ], and ] which states: | |||
| :::# Freely exchange your interests and concerns. Also try to understand policies and guidelines that represent the interests of the Misplaced Pages community at large. | |||
| :::# Offer a proposal that best meets everyone's interests and concerns, to the extent that they are reasonable. | |||
| :::# Modify the proposal based on further feedback from the group. | |||
| :::# If necessary, begin a new discussion and repeat the consensus building process with a wider range of editors. | |||
| ::As is evident in this tiresome DR, there has been no proposal that has attracted group interest, and you attitude has been condemned below. Your post on ] was a wasted effort, as I won't back down from my views, as scare tactics don't work on me. And as this discussion is not on the article talk page, and is mostly a 1:1 basis, is not targeting the right audience, from which to gain feedback. Consensus overrules your interpretation of "the process of editing an article", which lacks transparency and is ]. Your own words: "''i will edit the article (taking into account the consensus, that is that the format remains a table) and if an editor expresses his objections to my changes then i will cordially accept a reversion and discuss the differences with him''" is the quintessential example of pointy behaviour, i.e. "I expect trouble, but I'm still doing it my way instead of working with others to avoid it", as summarised in ]: "'''''Filibustering the consensus-building process by''' reverting another editor for minor errors, or '''sticking to a viewpoint that the community has clearly rejected.'''''" In your case, you are sticking with the ''minimalist'' viewpoint offered in your original edit. It should be discussed first, applied only with approval, which may require revisions to the proposal. As you can see, there are ''many'' policy and guideline quotes referenced herein, so I suggest now you stop playing this ] game, and open the discussion. The sooner you do, the sooner progress may actually be made, as you won't gain any here, as each time you jam your foot in the door to force your edits down our necks, I'm going to kick it and request that you do things openly, and neutrally. There's no policy in your favour against me requesting that you seek consensus, you'll find, in fact policy is highly in favour of such action. I've quoted it, so now you should by a ], and ] so as not to attract negative attention from frustrated editors/admins. As I stated earlier, I may support some form of ''trimming'' the Outcome column, but I expect it to be proposed, discussed and refined before applied; so I am not opposing your idea, only insisting that it be discussed. If no other editors discuss the matter to oppose it, you can assume there are no objections and proceed accordingly, having gained ]. The process is hardly complex or one-sided, with this being the case. And you would be illogical and tendentious, having just read this long reply, to once again claim that policy is in your favour. Time to ], and move on, before you start looking foolish. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 02:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::this discussion would be so productive if you defended you're point with policies and not trying to make some kind of equation on what you think my behavior is. you still have to prove why i should have to consult with uninvolved editors about a discussion that only involves us. you already expressed you're agreement to reduce the content on the outcome column so we reached a consensus there, therefore i (or you) can edit the page to implement those changes. you think this is some kind of collegiate procedure when one has to call a board meeting for every edit to the article, well you're so wrong. as is normal practice i would edit the article as per the consensus we reached on the outcome column and that's the end of the story unless someone else has a different opinion and reverts me or simply the article just keep getting edited b x editor, and that's the cycle of article building.--] (]) 10:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::and apparently in you're opinion you can just change what we agreed to the article, the sortable date columns without consulting anyone more , but i need to consult to ever editor who has collaborated in this article if its ok to change the content of the outcome table. ]s.--] (]) 10:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Is this just another further repeat of ], or are you always this arrogant? | |||
| ::::*"this discussion would be so productive if you defended you're point with policies" {{done}} - multiple policies quoted above, to your none. | |||
| ::::*"you still have to prove why i should have to consult with uninvolved editors about a discussion that only involves us" {{done}} - Wiki involves everyone, I refuse to discuss the matter wit you, because you are biased, and I am on the opposing side, thus neutral editors are needed. | |||
| ::::*"you already expressed you're agreement to reduce the content on the outcome column so we reached a consensus there" - '''false''' - I stated an opinion "I think in those cases where a war ended in a treaty it is not always necessary to detail each and every clause of the treaty..." followed by "This, however, would require further discussion between other editors involved in the article, as I'm not willing to make the decision to refactor the Outcome column based on a one-on-one discussion." - '''Do not''' draw false conclusions from my words. I requested a discussion. A consensus is a mutual agreement, and I cam to no agreement with you. Because: | |||
| ::::*I do not consider you a neutral enough editor to determine who wars are major, which text needs trimming, and which only require treaty names. I request a discussion, so that other editors, possibly with greater NPOV skills than yourself, can pitch in and help with the refactoring. I suspect you will butcher the Outcome column to suit your feelings about superfluous info,and that this entire discussion is a pretence, and I will not be baited into allowing myself to allow you to do so without appropriate consensus. | |||
| ::::*Once again, you and I have reached no consensus. I have not agreed anything specific, only a broad statement that the Outcome column ''might'' benefit from from trimming, but that you are not the best editor to do it, based on your prejudices expressed earlier. | |||
| ::::*You agreed with separate columns for dates, and they are sortable as part of the ] and ] standard. Your edits are subjective, and affect content, not layout so don't be petty, it's pointless and you're not being smart challenging minor edits, just tendentious. | |||
| ::::*Once again, another 2 hours wasted on this discussion. You could have opened a discussion on the talk page by now and gotten feedback by now instead of whining further. I'm starting to suspect that you're afraid the community will reject your proposals, in which case I redact any support for any refactoring of the Outcome column, even though it barely exists anyway, until feedback has been requested and given by the uninvolved editors. Now you have no choice, and I have nothing more to say until you do. I've been candid; step back and offer the floor to other editors, and stop trying to force your opinions. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 11:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ;Comment | |||
| Andres, there are six editors disagreeing with you in the discussion at ] and none agreeing with you. I think it's time you admit consensus is not on your side and ]. ] (]) 02:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :you can see in the article discussion page that what was being discussed was if the list should be in table or in a stand alone list. i have agreed on this wp:drn to keep it as a table so that discussion is over, now there's a new discussion on how the table should look. so the stick you're talking about was dropped a long time ago this is another discussion.--] (]) 12:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{cue}} Andres, not taking sides here, but saying "the stick was dropped a long time ago" doesn't mean that the issue isn't relevant. Remember, ], and it appears to have done so in this case. ] (]) 14:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ;Request closure | |||
| Could a clerk please review this DR from the "Section break", comment, advise, conclude and close the matter. I believe it is becoming too circular, and that Andres' ] stance is becoming excessive and leading to blatant ] and/or proposed ] behaviour. Some formal intervention is required here, possibly Admin warning, as he clearly won't listen to reason, no matter how many policies/guidelines I refer to, and he remains a proverbial "bull in a china shop" intent on making edits without even seeking a minimal form of consensus. Thanks, ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 03:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{not done|Not done yet.}} I think we can still prevent this from escalating. See below. ] (]) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ====Section break: Reassessment==== | |||
| '''Comment by Sleddog116:''' I regularly assist here on DRN, and I would like to comment based on my assessment of the situation. Okay, it seems that, unfortunately, discussion has broken down here a bit. I will admit that I am not entirely "up" on the issue at hand (I couldn't really get through ''all'' of the text above; it was very long and involved, and I don't have the time at the moment to fully review it), but I get the ''basic'' gist of it. I don't think we need administrative action yet, so I'd like for us to hang on here for a little while. Even if this doesn't work, I still think that the ] would be a much better avenue at this point than going to ANI - ANI discussions are rarely very pleasant for anyone involved, so it's better to avoid that if at all possible. | |||
| ''To Andres rojas22:'' As I mentioned above (before the section break), please remember that ]. Just because something was "settled" a long time ago does not mean that it is not open for debate. On Misplaced Pages, ]. If the broader community is by and large rejecting your viewpoint, ]. If you repeat the same argument, you get the same answers. In other words, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten." If you want to make your case more effectively, ''bring new arguments'', not the same ones. | |||
| ''To MarcusBritish:'' Please ]. Just because Andres does not seem to be accepting consensus does not mean that he intends harm to the project. In the above discussion, you have turned the discussion on the ''editor'' rather than addressing the merits of the ''edits''. | |||
| ''To everyone involved:'' Please, please, ''please'' keep your comments ''brief''. ''All'' of the involved parties have given very long, detailed, complex responses that could be stated in much simpler terms. Remember to thread your comments appropriately. Doing otherwise (from ''anyone'' - I'm not accusing any particular editor of ]) is counterproductive. No one is going to be able to navigate the ] that are being posted in this discussion, and it gets stalled when that happens. If it is a large issue, take it point by point - don't try to hit every single thing at once. Nothing will get done that way. | |||
| Now, let's back up, ], and try to resolve this without having to go to unpleasant means. ] (]) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I will ] when Andres actually shows some per ]; WP:AGF is a guideline, not policy. Until then, the persistent ] attitude is simply a tactic being employed by Andres in the hopes he will wind me up enough to drive me out of opposing him, through prolonged ] repetition, so that he can get his own way. Won't work. I'll simply escalate this matter to an Admin board, long before then, and will even request a ''topic ban'' if he edits the article contrary to ''current consensus''. Simple as that. I know how harsh ANI can be, yes. But I welcome it, as when an editor is clearly being stubborn and time consuming for their own ends they are not exhibiting ]. Per ], the more Andres prattles on, the more disruptive he is, and my time is more valuable than "listening" to his stuck record, or ] as you call it. I addressed his ''edits'' long ago, and have no further interest in them unless he refers them to uninvolved editors for consideration, per policy. Now I am addressing his ''behaviour'' which is disturbingly obsessive and tendentious. At this stage, until Andres ceases his forceful demands, an RFC is required. There is nothing to mediate between us, because he has a strong POV, and further editor involvement is required to develop the article, not mediation. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 20:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Marcus, I realize how frustrating it can be, but accusations of bad faith serve no practical purpose. I have already addressed Andres's conduct on this noticeboard, and assuming good faith means giving him a chance to respond in kind. ''Every editor, yourself included, has a POV of some kind.'' That is human nature. The point is, ''regardless'' of his point of view, I have seen by his edits that he does not intend harm towards the encyclopedia - ]. Also, AGF ''is'' a policy. Quoting directly from ], "the assumption of good faith is dictated by Misplaced Pages policy". I am trying to ''prevent'' this from escalating - if you are truly trying to improve the encyclopedia, give this discussion a chance to restart without taking drastic measures. Give the other editors a chance to respond. ] (]) 20:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::This DR has been going on since 25 March, and Andres has shown no interest in giving ground to allow other editors to play an important role in discussing his proposals, because he is afraid of them being rejected. My POV is that consensus be obtained. His is that he does not need to and that he can do what ever he wants. I have no intention of restarting this Punch and Judy farce, whatsoever. I have detailed guidelines and policy in great detail, and still Andres retorts with claims that I have not supported by argument. It's like talking to a child. ] can stick itself, because it actually reads "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages behavioral guideline." The part you quoted applies only when accusing an editor of ''bad faith'', which I have not done. I simply don't assume good faith, nor will I be dictated to. Note: "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively, because just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed." A consensus has been reached. Consensus ''may'' change, but it cannot be forced, as Andres is attempting to do. I have attempted to request Andres seek clear unambiguous consensus, the fact that he refuses to to do so, and persists in denying ] is akin to bad faith, in the form of ]. I stand on firm ground with regards to the policy that requires editors work collaboratively in order to develop articles. Andres rejects those principles, which is disruptive. All I see now is "blah blah blah" each time he response, the same stick, the same retorts, ''demanding'' the same unapproved edits. I'm bored of this guy and his nonsense, and the only "resolution" I will accept is that the previously rejected edits he proposes be presented on the article's talk page for other editors to consider, discuss, and refine. That can either be done by his own hand, or an RFC started by any editor, allowing close scrutiny of the proposals and potentially better feedback pre-edit. A DR requires there to be "a dispute". There is no dispute here that can be resolved between ourselves, due to polarised POVs. Therefore it is necessary to request further opinions from interested editors looking to develop the article without it being subject to POV or edit warring. Simple as that, and well within policy. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 22:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Hello Sleddog, i'm gonna try to sum my answer, we started a discussion on April 25 as to whether to change the article's formatting from tabular to ] and we agreed on keeping it a table but reducing excessive content. now instead of finishing up to discuss and implement the changes he agrees on the changes but come with the marvelous idea that they don't be implemented. that i must go to the talk page of the article and seek to discuss it with editors who have nothing to do with this discussion because he claims previous editors have some kind of rights to be consulted before i change their edits. putting an obstacle on the implementation of changes to which we had agreed ''"where a war ended in a treaty it is not always necessary to detail each and every clause of the treaty, even in summary form, a wikilink to the treaty should suffice, and possibly one or two main points per outcome, nothing trivial, may be required in some but not all cases where the result, as part of the outcome, is of great importance to British or even world history, e.g. Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII, etc."'' (. -] (]) 07:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Redacted due to being taken ''out of context'' – I agreed to nothing, only gave a broad opinion. Awaiting talk page discussion or RFC. ] continues. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Mantas Šiaučiūnas == | |||
| {{DRN archive top|'''Closing as: Outside of ]'s pervue'''] (]) 01:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| <!-- ] 14:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Mantas Šiaučiūnas}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| * ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?'' | |||
| A user named "Creative" has deleted a biography of a living person, which is an abuse of administrator rights, since there are many biographies of various people on Misplaced Pages. Please, comment or send a feedback to mantas.siauciunas@smpf.lt. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | ||
| * {{User|Abo Yemen}} | |||
| * ''Who is involved in the dispute?'' | |||
| * {{User|Javext}} | |||
| :* {{user|Creative}} | |||
| :* {{user|Escogido}} | |||
| : | |||
| The delete notice is the following (in Lithuanian): 21:16, 27 kovo 2012 Creative (Aptarimas | |||
| * ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)'' | |||
| Not yet. | |||
| * <small>'' N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>Mantas Šiaučiūnas<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small> | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span> | |||
| * ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?'' | |||
| Yes | |||
| * ''How do you think we can help?'' | |||
| To restore the article or restrict user's Creative rights. | |||
| ] (]) 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Mantas Šiaučiūnas discussion=== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div> | |||
| {{cue}} Hello there, and thank you for posting here. This appears to be a complaint about ]. As such the engligh language Misplaced Pages does not have any impact on the Lithuanian wikipedia's policies/editing. Hearing no reasonable objections, this post will be closed down in 24 hours as it's not even something that we could resolve. ] (]) 15:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{DRN archive bottom}} | |||
| == List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate) == | |||
| <!-- ] 20:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> | |||
| * {{pagelinks|List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate)}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | ||
| * ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?'' | |||
| Ever since I've translated that page from both the Arabic and Portuguese wiki, Javext (a member of the ]) has been trying to impose the Portuguese POV of the battle and only the Portuguese POV. They have removed sources that represent the other POV of the battle and dismissed them as "unreliable" (Which is simply not true per ]). He keeps on claiming that because the Portuguese's goal was to sack the city (Which is just a claim, none of the sources cited say that sacking the city was their goal. The sources just say that all they did was sack the city and got forced to leave), which doesn't even make sense; The Portuguese failed their invasion and were forced out of the city. They lost the war even if they claimed to have accomplished their goal. | |||
| ] is/was a very large article with a very large and cumbersome notes column. ] (unrelated to this conflict) suggested on the talk page that the notes section be removed all otgether because all the information there is in each general's respective article. I (]) did just that, and went through removing the notes section among other changes. ] undid my revision and posted a message on my wall. ] conversation followed. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">''' |
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> | ||
| * ''Who is involved in the dispute?'' | |||
| ] | |||
| :* {{user|Brightgalrs}} | |||
| :* {{user|IcarusPhoenix}} | |||
| : | |||
| I feel as though IcarusPhoenix is nonchalantly undoing my edit without the intention of making the article better at all. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> | |||
| * ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)'' | |||
| The article should include both POVs. Simply removing the other POV is against the infamous ] | |||
| Yes.] (<font color="#0645AD">/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/</font>)<sup><font color="#0645AD">]]</font></sup> 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by Javext ==== | |||
| * <small>'' N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate)<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small> | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> | |||
| Greetings, the debate that the other user "Abo Yemen" and I had was mainly about the result of the Battle, but also about a lot of the content of the article so at that time I decided to bring the topic to the talk page. All the sources that "Abo Yemen" used to cite the content that I removed (the ones I didn't remove, I found them reliable) from the article were clearly unreliable, this has nothing to do with my personal bias or that I don't want to show the Yemeni "POV", if you look at the sources he used you can notice that the authors are completely unknown, their academic backgrounds are also not known. In contrast, when you take a look at MY sources (whether I used them in the main article or in the talk page) they are all clearly reliable, all the authors and their academic backgrounds are known, plus their nationalities vary, so I find it very hard how they would be biased and how I am trying to push just the "Portuguese POV". | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span> | |||
| * ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?'' | |||
| Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim. The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory, see: | |||
| I've initiated the third opinion step ] and posted on the ] talk page ] | |||
| -"However, the town was found partly deserted, and with very limited pickings for the Portuguese raiding party; nevertheless, it was sacked, 'by which some of them still became rich'" | |||
| * ''How do you think we can help?'' | |||
| -"For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage" | |||
| Mediate this argument and end the edit war. | |||
| -"The Portuguese fleet proceeded towards al-Shihr, a sea-port in Hadramawt, which they sacked." In this source they also include the report of the author of Tarikh al-Shihri, who describes the event, I quote: "On Thursday 9 th of Rabi’ II (929/25 February 1523), the abandoned Frank, may God abandon him, came to the port of al-Shihr with about nine sailing- ships, galliots, and grabs, and, landing in the town on Friday, set to fighting a little after dawn. Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, the | |||
| ] (<font color="#0645AD">/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/</font>)<sup><font color="#0645AD">]]</font></sup> 20:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| 11 Franks looting it first, then after them the musketeers (rumah) and, the soldiers and the hooligans of the town (Shaytin al-balad), in conquence of which people (khala ik) were reduced to poverty." | |||
| I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy, see: | |||
| ===List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate) discussion=== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div> | |||
| -"Anthony Disney has argued that Portuguese actions in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the first decades of the sixteenth century, can hardly be characterized as anything other than piracy, or at least state-sponsored corsairing.' Most conquest enterprises were privately funded, and the crown got portions of seized booty, whether taken on land or at sea. Plus there were many occasions in which local Portuguese governors sponsored expeditions with no other aim than to plunder rich ports and kingdoms, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. This sort of licensing of pillage carried on into the early seventeenth century, although the Portuguese never matched the great inland conquests of the Spanish in the Americas. Booty taken at sea was subject to a twenty percent royal duty." | |||
| "Imagine if you will that you had done the same amount of work that you just did on these articles, but came back and did that same work several dozen times... and then someone came out of nowhere and, without discussing it with anyone else, eliminated massive swaths of it." (]) | |||
| Icarus, do you feel that my revisions are wrong simply because you put effort into what I deleted? ] (<font color="#0645AD">/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/</font>)<sup><font color="#0645AD">]]</font></sup> 20:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :{{cue}} I think the consensus is clear that the "Notes" section should be removed with 3 editors in favor of it as opposed to 1 editor who does not want it removed. I've requested for page protection so this dispute can be resolved. Don't ], if the edit warring gets really bad, report it to the ] and it may lead to temporary blocks. IcarusPhoenix, is there a reason why you would like to have the "Notes" section maintained? Regards, ] <small>(])</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::First things first, I did not write the above comment on this page; it was my response to User:Brightgalrs|Brightgalrs]] on the user's ] page, and it was Brightgalrs who chose to move it here without the relevant context, not I; it was a direct reply to Brightgalrs, and not part of the dispute process. That being said, here is my position on the matter: | |||
| ::I think that Brightgalrs decision to apply for dispute resolution is premature, as the user has thus far failed to understand the nature of the dispute, nor bothered to discuss his/her edits with a single one of the more than half-a-dozen editors who have been working for years to craft this article and (among other things and with consensus) address the ''exact'' issue that Brightgalrs ''thought'' they were addressing. The dispute is not entirely over the nature of the edits, but in part over Brightgalrs' decision to make those edits without bothering to once discuss it with any other editors involved in the page, most notably ], who was ''already'' condensing (not callously deleting) the notes section to bring it in line with its sister article ] (which Brightgalrs also made some undiscussed massive - though less-invasive - changes to) and in accordance with a long consensus-building discussion between several editors; if Brightgalrs had so much as bothered to look ] (which would have involved no more effort than scrolling slightly up the talk page) or looked at the recent edit history, he/she(?) could have avoided this entire process, to say nothing of creating a situation that would lead to a copy-protection that will delay Donner60's work. While Brightgalrs may feel that my reversion of his/her edits were "nonchalant" and lacking regard for the work done, my position is that even making those edits without bothering to look at the article history or the work that others had already agreed to was an act that actually damaged the integrity and accuracy of the article. This is a discussion that has been held civilly by several editors from the articles very inception, and not one of us had the lack of common courtesy displayed by Brightgalrs to simply go and make massive wholesale changes to an article with no regard for work ''already in progress''. I strongly recommend that people read Donner60's explanation on the talk page I linked above and look at the article history to see why we object to Brightgalrs' unilateral decision to change the very nature of the article. | |||
| ::Also, at the risk of sounding nitpicky here, Brightgalrs didn't quite follow procedure in informing of this dispute, and has yet to say anything to any of the other editors of either page; the only reason this dispute is being had between Brightgalrs and myself rather than Brightgalrs and myself, ], ], ], and several others is simply that I was the first one to notice the situation; I have had to take it on myself to draw their attention to this matter. Despite the rapidity of Brightgalrs' actions, ] has already been kind enough to respond to my request for an opinion (just as he or I or several others would have done for Brightgalrs had he/she bothered to ask), and his reply can be read ]. ] (]) 21:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| -"Their maritime supremacy had piracy as an essential element, to reinforce it." | |||
| '''Note:''' Please note than , , , and constitutes as ''campaigning'' per ], due to the unneutral accusational tone of the messages, i.e. "As another editor of the page, I'm turning to you and a few others to ask assistance in trying to reign in actions that frankly border on vandalism." Icarus is advised to read ] as removal of content, with ] intents does not constitute as vandalism, by any standards. Would advise Brightgalrs that if he feels Icarus has sought to cast unfair claims against him to raise the matter with ], as wide-spread accusations of vandalism are not tolerated, generally. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 22:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have to disagree with Marcus' assertion of canvassing; asking the opinions of other involved and interested editors (which Brightgalrs failed to do) - notes I had begun to write ''before'' the dispute resolution process began - does not constitute canvassing. These are interested parties in the dispute, and I very clearly asked their opinion; that I cut-and-pasted the same question to all of them for the sake of expediency in the face of an issue that is moving surprisingly quickly is hardly surprising; that the out-of-context portion of my statement that Marcus quoted above was border-line inflammatory, however, I do not really dispute; this was, as I said before this process had started, and after Brightgalrs' out-of-hand rejection of any opinion other than his/her own, I was unsurprisingly irritable. While in retrospect I am not terribly fond of the tone I adopted in those messages, being dismissed by someone who refused to participate in preexisting discussions before making wholesale changes was, I think you'll agree, understandably irksome. | |||
| ] (]) 22:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ec}}Inviting other editors to comment is permitted. Adding an unneutral tone to the invitation is campaigning, period. So feel free to disagree, you are incorrect however, per Wiki policy, which is linked and clear. You choice if editors also seems fairly selective, given how you state that there are "more than half a dozen". Might want to think about that. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 22:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| So, with this in mind, we can conclude that just because the Portuguese didn't occupy the city, it doesn't mean it was an inconclusive outcome or a defeat, so unless "Abo Yemen" is able to provide a reliable source where it states the Portuguese had the objective to conquer this city and that they weren't just there to plunder it, the result of the battle should remain as "Portuguese victory". The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off. (as already stated in the sources above) | |||
| :::'''Clerk's Comment'''/{{cue}} Icarus, thank you for your reply. MarcusBritish, I don't think those edits constitute ] as they are merely notes to possibly interested parties to participate in discussion. However, I do agree that ] is not acceptable and there should be openness to other editors wanting to improve the page. Icarus and Brightgalrs, I think there has been a lack of communication (or miscommunication) about the "Notes" section. I do agree that you should reach a consensus on what to do with the "Notes" section before merely just completing an edit. If necessary, you can ] on what sort of measure should be done (i.e., complete removal of the "Notes" section or refactoring of the "Notes" section). As I said earlier, if the edit warring continues after the full page protection expires, please report it to ]. Regards, ] <small>(])</small> <sup>]</sup> 22:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whenaxis, thank you for your statement. Marcus, I went to three editors whose activity level on this group of articles showed the sort of dedication that Brightgalrs has demonstrated and whose hard work was most at-risk by edits made without consensus. Your assumption of bad faith from me is no different than my assumption of the same in Brightgalrs' edits, and is unbecoming to someone who theoretically should be a neutral party. | |||
| ::My suggestion is as follows: That Brightgalrs and myself do our best to leave this discussion aside entirely for a day or so, until other interested parties (notably ], whose work constituted the overwhelming majority of what Brightgalrs eliminated) have had time to look at the matter. ] (]) 22:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''MarcusBritish:''' The canvassing ''guideline'' clearly states under the ] heading at the last point, "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them." which is precisely what IcarusPhoenix did. It was inappropriate of you to assume bad faith on IcarusPhoenix's part, the first step when you suspect canvassing, is to politely talk with the user to stop posting notices. | |||
| :::'''IcarusPhoenix:''' That would be a good idea. Step away from the dispute for a little while and once you've calmed down, return to discussing. If there are any further issues, feel free to bring this dispute back to the ] or refer it to ] in the event of disruptive edit warring. Regards, ] <small>(])</small> <sup>]</sup> 22:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Icarus' wording, accusing someone of vandalism, when evidently there has been no such behaviour, was inappropriate, and so not only do I assume bad faith on his part, but the polemic attacks of that/those editors which his dispute is against are proof of his bad faith. I stand by my notions, and care not if you wrongly see my concerns as bad faith. His wording was aggressive, and designed to provoke selected editors. The WP:CANVASS guideline you mention also states, "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages." ''This'' is precisely what he did also. I consider Icarus' accusation tone as a motive to impress a POV, contrary to the guideline. That's all I have to say on this clear-as-mud matter, thank you. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 01:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This dispute is ridiculous. IcarusPhoenix should have quickly seen that consensus was against the unwieldy 300 kb notes section, and that its presence was detrimental to article access in terms of focus and with respect to those with poor internet connections. (Even without the 300 kb the article is a mass of server calls with all of those images.) IcarusPhoenix dug his heels in and tried a number of tactics to retain the mass of peripheral text. He should acknowledge that none of the tactics worked and that consensus has shifted firmly for removal. | |||
| :::::The text in question is available in article history; it does not need to be kept in the 'live' article for any sort of slow, careful removal piece by piece. It should be removed post-haste. ] (]) 14:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Binksternet: The thing is, I ''agree'' that the notes section is unwieldy. In fact, I was the '''first one to say so''', right ], which is why ] was in the process of paring it down when this dispute cropped up. What I do ''not'' agree with is its complete absence; indeed, my opinion - stated many times before and generally lost in the quagmire of Marcus' personal attacks - is that the notes column should be brought in line with the much-more limited and relevant style set in ] (which is exactly what was being done, though still not to the extent that I for one felt it should), and that the "Date, Place of Birth", "Date, Place of Death", and especially-irrelevant "College" columns should all be eliminated. The dispute exists primarily because a user decided to do a mass edit without seeing if they were stepping on the toes of another user (namely Donner60) who was already solving the size problem in a manner that Brightgalrs' edit ruins the progress of. Edits of such scope are usually kept in the sandbox for this very reason, and one only needs to look at the articles recent history to see that, never mind multiple discussions that were had prior to this incident. ] (]) 17:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Binksternet – I agree with your thoughts, and disapprove of Icarus' attitude towards the objections stated, and his attempts to stand between consensus and his way of doing things, but it also seems to me that this DR is now evolving into an attempt to stall further action as well as ] the objections. Donner60 has indicated they are on wikibreak into ~17 April. Evidently this DR cannot be allowed to drag on for that long while no progress is made to the ] based Notes column. Recommend you open an ] and have other editors comment on the matter. I suspect, given than many editors dislike ] articles, and that 472,000kb is utterly ridiculous and resource-greedy, that they will motion for instant removal of the Notes, or begin an instant cut-down of the crap detailed therein, before Donner60 gets back. Despite Icarus' beliefs, no one has the right to "reserve" an entire article for themselves to refactor, for more than a few hours, that would be ]ish. Your choice, however, but it would lead to stronger consensus building, and hopefully knock Icarus off his high-horse, as the community doesn't fare well with overbearing editors leading issues. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 18:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::My recommendation (unsurprisingly) is somewhat different - though, unlike Marcus, that may be because I'm more interested in an equitable solution to paring down the article than I am in the personal virtues of others (a tendency Marcus is displaying not only here, but in a companion discussion ] in which he has spent the entire discussion cursing more creatively and has made nationally-bigoted comments, and above in his equally vitriolic and unconstructive personal attacks against ]). My recommendation is that we immediately eliminated the unnecessary birth/death/college columns (which, especially in the case of the latter, we can all agree are superfluous to the topic of the article) and continue to pare down the notes section just as ] has done for sections A-F - though, as I stated earlier, I am now and always have been strongly in favor of being far more aggressive about these eliminations that Donner60 has been. Again, I suggest looking to the sister article for a demonstration of concise and strictly-structured notations. ] (]) 18:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024. | |||
| ====Section break==== | |||
| IcarusPhoenix, unfortunately, the consensus is against your recommendation of refactoring the "Notes" section. Majority of the editors want it completely absent from the article. And MarcusBritish has brought some good points about how the note that you left on the editors' talk pages were not neutral, in the future, I ask you to avoid such circumstances as it may appear as canvassing even if you don't mean it to be. In addition, just pushing the blame on other people as to the failure of the resolution of the dispute is not the way to resolve the dispute. Perhaps, Donner60 and IcarusPhoenix can propose their refactored version of the notes later on the talk page, while we maintain the article without the notes because it is quite heavy on the article and ] for the time being. Regards, ] <small>(])</small> <sup>]</sup> 20:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :That seems fair for now, though I would point out that the consensus here doesn't fully seem to match consensus elsewhere, nor do I feel that enough input has been made overall, particularly to my most recent suggestion, which no one has yet had time to reply to; I would request leaving this resolution thread open for a few more days, since at present it's mostly filled with Marcus' ever-more vulgar attacks and my ill-advised desire to defend myself from those attacks, rather than discussions of the dispute in question or the relative merits of specific proposals (indeed, yourself and ] seem to be the only ones thus far able to remain faithful to the discussion's core topic). ] (]) 20:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Addendum''': I have rapidly sandboxed the "A" section of the list to demonstrate my proposal ] (note: it's not perfect, but just a rapid demonstration... there are a couple of factual tidbits I'm uncertain about). The first version is it's current appearance after ] eliminated the full-bio notes still visible in letters after "F"; the second is my proposal for revision, maintaining the notes column with only relevant information and eliminating three intervening columns. Also, I'm not really satisfied with the ranks column; I am of the opinion that nomination dates are unnecessary and that only confirmation dates (in parentheses) are necessary to indicate seniority. ] (]) 21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for whoever reads this. ] (]) 23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can the reader not find the information in the "Notes" column from the article page on the person? ] <small>(])</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the ] and ] sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed.{{pb}}{{tqb|1=Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim.}}<br>{{pb}}First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see ]). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the ''"Standford" University Press'' (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just ].{{pb}}{{tqb|1=The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory}}<br>{{pb}}Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in ] and in ]? Something doesn't make any sense here.{{pb}}Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did; <br>{{tq|1=For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, '''claiming''' that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.}}<br> Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won.{{pb}}Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders.{{pb}}{{tqb|1=I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy}}<br>Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See ] and ], both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded.<br>{{tqb|1=The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off.}}<br>Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "{{tq|1=(as already stated in the sources above)}}" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out...{{pb}}{{tqb|1=It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.}}<br>I told you on the talkpage that I was busy because I was traveling and couldn't bring out a sensible discussion. I do believe that the last message I sent during that month wasn't constructive and I have struck it out. I am sorry about it. Happy New Year to both you, Jav, and the volunteer reading this ''']]''' 08:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Much of it, yes - or, at least, they certainly should be able to, though many of those articles - particularly for Confederate generals - are not themselves quite up to standards yet. That actually was my exact argument against having so much extraneous information in the notes to begin with, and I think it is also the argument in favor of removing the birth/death/college columns. Things like units, non-notable elected offices, non-military colleges, and deaths unrelated to the war just aren't relevant to the article's topic and belong confined to the individual articles; however, I do think there is an argument to be made for specific and relevant information. I for one feel that readers should be able to find from this single location things like who died during the war, who had a military education, which CSA officers resigned from the US Army, which US officers earned the Thanks of Congress and Medal of Honor, and which officers held major civil or military offices (Governors, federal office, ambassadorships, etc.). The other information is, I agree, extraneous, which is why I put up a comparison version. I'm also still of the opinion that nomination dates are superfluous and confusing. ] (]) 21:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::''"The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed."'' | |||
| ::::I think if we deduct the "Notes" section further so it looks like other related articles (i.e., ]), it'll be easier on the reader. Regards, ] <small>(])</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::. | |||
| :::::Actually, the article you're referencing ''has'' a notes section, which is the one I'm emulating with my test edit; what it does not have the birth/death/college columns, and the elimination of those is what would make it look similar. If the goal is to make the articles look similar, those are the columns that we should contemplate elimination of, I believe. | |||
| ::'''Did you even read what I said? All the content I removed was cited by clearly unreliable sources, their authors and their academic backgrounds are unknown. I could assume that some random person got into that website and wrote whatever, without any prior research. Unless you can prove me otherwise and show us who the authors are, their academic backgrounds and all the information that proves they are in fact reliable scholarship sources, they shouldn't be used to cite content for Misplaced Pages. According to ], the creator and the publisher of the sources affect their reliability. | |||
| :::::Also, just as a further point, I've just done a character count test; ''only'' eliminating the notes column takes the "A" section from 12,368 bytes to 6,194; however, eliminating the columns not present in the sister article and eliminating information from the notes not in the sister article brings it down to 5,138 bytes; removing nomination dates would probably remove another 200-300 bytes more. In sections after "F", where no paring down or notes has yet been done at all, the effect would be even greater. My estimation is that rather than lowering the character count by about 307,000 bytes (which is what elimination of the note's column did), we could maintain the relevant information and bring the character count by 350,000 bytes or more. ] (]) 22:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::-''' | |||
| ::::::That's what I meant by "deduct" :) - as in decrease the size of the notes. I agree that if we cut down the size of the "Notes" section, the other sections that don't appear in the other articles should be removed as well. What does everyone else think? Are we just trying to make everything shorter or being biased towards the "Notes" section (because that's a little unfair if that's so)? Regards, ] <small>(])</small> <sup>]</sup> 22:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::''"First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research."'' | |||
| :::::::My feeling is that, at the very least, ] (who I'm hoping will drop by soon and look at this particular proposal) and I share the goal of decreasing article size... and drastically. As for bias, I think my bias is not so much towards keeping the column's existence as it is towards making the articles look the same... which, admittedly, means the same thing under the circumstances. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 22:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::. | |||
| {{od}}@Whenaxis: By what means is bias against the Notes unfair? Let's take the very first A entry in the table and his notes as an example. They read: | |||
| ::'''You are right, you wanted the result to be "Kathiri victory" which is even worse. But in fact, due to pressure, you ended up accepting that the "Inconclusive" result was better. The source from Standford University doesn't state the Portuguese won? Are you serious? It literally states the Portuguese successfully attacked and pillaged the city. This wasn't an ordinary battle, the title of the article can be misleading, it was more of a raid/sack then a proper battle and that's why no scholarship will say in exact words "the Portuguese have won the battle". There was only 2 sources cited in the infobox but I belive that's enough, you can't accuse me of only having 2 sources, since I provided more in the talk page.''' | |||
| *Brother of Brig. Gen. William Wirt Adams. | |||
| ::- | |||
| *Mississippi state senator, 1852–1856. | |||
| ::''"Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here."'' | |||
| *1st Louisiana Inf.: Lt. col., March 13, 1861, col., October 30, 1861. | |||
| ::. | |||
| *Lost right eye at Shiloh. | |||
| ::'''What's wrong with the book's title? How does that invalidate the source?? It states the Portuguese were raiding the city and sacked it, once again you won't find a source that states exactly "the Portuguese won the battle" because it wasn't a proper field battle or something like that but more of a raid/sack. This doesn't mean the Portuguese lost or that the outcome was inconclusive. What's wrong if they invaded this city other times, literally YEARS after this event. The commanders and leaders changed, goals and motivations change..''' | |||
| *Wounded: Perryville, Stones River (Murfreesboro). | |||
| ::- | |||
| *Wounded and captured at Chickamauga, exchanged 1864. | |||
| ::''"Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did; | |||
| ::'' 'For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.' '' | |||
| ::''Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won."'' | |||
| ::. | |||
| ::'''I already responded to this above''' | |||
| ::- | |||
| ::''"Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders."'' | |||
| ::. | |||
| ::'''Hello?? ''"defended itself from the invaders"'' - Can you explain how the source literally states: "Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary ''they were horribly routed''……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, "''' | |||
| ::- | |||
| ::''"Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded."'' | |||
| ::. | |||
| ::'''I could say the same thing to you. If the Portuguese committed acts of piracy and just went into coastal cities to just plunder them and leave, why wouldn't this be another case of piracy? See how this can be a bad argument? You ignored the part where I asked for you to give me a source where it states the objective was to capture the city? Look at this source (in Portuguese) about Portuguese piracy in the Indian Ocean that states Al-Shihr, among other coastal ports, suffered from frequent Portuguese incursions that aimed to sack the city's goods back to the ''Estado da Índia: "Este podia ainda engrossar graças às incursões que eram levadas a cabo em cidades portuárias como Zeila e Barbora, na margem africana, ou Al‑Shihr, na costa do Hadramaute; isto, claro, quando as previdentes populações não as abandonavam, carregando os haveres de valor, ao terem notícia da proximidade das armadas do Estado da Índia."''''' | |||
| ::- | |||
| ::''"Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."'' | |||
| ::. | |||
| ::'''I already stated multiple times why the sources I removed from the article were unreliable and what you should do to prove to us that they are in fact reliable and meet[REDACTED] standards. I am not going back-and-forth anymore. ''"None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."'' Sorry but the last one did, which you chose to ignore it. If the Portuguese successfully attacked and sacked the city you can extrapolate that they weren't driven out..''' ] (]) 15:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) discussion === | |||
| These have apparently been reduced already, by Donner60. Given that this as American Civil War related, his role as senator is unrelated, it pre-dates the ACW by 5 years, and I don't see why the brother relation matters here. The last four points are the only notes direct related to the ACW. | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> | |||
| === Zeroth statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr) === | |||
| Now, please go to ], see this example of what ''not to do'' per MOS, and tell me how this table (or Union) is any different? How can these articles ever attain ] standard, for example, when they completely blatantly contradict the requirement which states: "''5. '''Style.''' It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages''", WP:TRIV being a supplementary. I'm failing to comprehend why articles of such lengthy content should be permitted to go against the universal MOS, and ] when others are reduced to comply? I know there are some that are necessarily TOOLONG, but that is usually as result of the subject being vast, but in this case it is evident that the Notes, a repetition of content in each General's article, is superfluous, thus creating the TOOLONG result. The solution to ''both'' the trivia and length issues is clear. ''']<sup>[]]</sup>''' 00:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :That's what I'm saying. We should make it more like this article: ]. If we're going to cut down the "Notes" section because it's ] because it does have some trivial information, we should get rid of the other columns that don't exist at List of American Civil War Generals (Union) because ] covers the entire article not just the "Notes" section. Regards, ] <small>(])</small> <sup>]</sup> 00:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read and indicate your acceptance of ]. Be civil, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and comment on content, not contributors. Please note that discussions and edits relating to infoboxes are a ]; by agreeing to these rules, you agree that you are ] of this. | |||
| ===Explanations, detailed comments on various points raised, proposals for revisions, possible splitting=== | |||
| {{collapse top|Donner60's response}} | |||
| Risking criticism that my comments are too long, I have posted the following explanations on the article, the revisions to the article, the comments on the article and proposals concerning the article on the talk page for ]. I do this because the tenor of the discussion comes off quite a bit like an attack on a good faith attempt to create a useful and informative and accurate article that I was still in the process of revising. Even this explanation is not total but some earlier comments on the talk page address these same issues (without all the substantive comments) before the issue on length was raised. I may not address a few of the specific criticisms, but I think I have most of them. I do not disagree that some revisions would be useful, even necessary. I do think some thought should be given to what readers, researchers and authors might look for in a list of Civil War generals and what hooks might lead them to the main articles. I also go on at length because the discussion is a bit one-sided (although even I do not disagree with the conclusion, only the possible extent of the changes). I repeat this post here because I am not sure where the matter may finally be resolved and because I am not sure everyone who is commenting on or considering the matter on this page would look to the other page. I suppose I could have posted this paragraph and a referral only, but I copy the whole item for the convenience of anyone who simply wishes to view the entries on this page. | |||
| I would like to ask the editors to briefly state what changes they want to the article (or what they want to leave the same) and why (including sources). Please keep in mind ]. ] (]) 12:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I start a new subsection to respond as completely as I can to various points scattered throughout the previous comments. I refer mainly to the Confederate generals list but also will comment on the brevet Union generals list. | |||
| === Zeroth statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr) === | |||
| I think the Union generals list is fine, although I suggest that the thumbnail photos are not needed and brevet generals who did not achieve full general officer rank could be left to the brevet general list. This list had not been put on line when information on some of the more notable of these officers was added to the Union general list. It seems not to be the subject of much, if any, controversy here but if the debate includes that article, those are my suggestions. The basic information about the substantive Union generals would not be touched at all. | |||
| I have read and am willing to follow ]. I am now aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic. <br><small>(Do we state what changes we want now?)</small> ''']]''' 13:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Ping|Abo Yemen}} Yes. ] (]) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Alright,<br><u>Changes that I want to be made:</u> | |||
| ::* I want the ] section hierarchy and text back, especially the sourced stuff | |||
| ::* The infobox should Include the ] with the Portuguese as suggested by the source 2 which Javext provided above and the quote that he used from the text<ref>: {{tq|1=However, the fact that the Mahra occasionally partnered with the Portuguese has been held against the Mahra by Ḥaḍramī partisans as a blemish on their history; in contrast, the Kathīrīs appear to have generally collaborated with the Ottoman Turks (although not always; see Serjeant, 1974: 29). For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. '''With the apparent collusion of some Mahra,''' the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage (Muqaddam, 2005: 343-46, citing al-Kindī and Bā Faqīh, and al-Jidḥī, 2013: 208-20).}}</ref> | |||
| ::* As much as I want the result to be "Kathiri victory" as per the sources used on the old revision, I am willing to compromise and keep It as "Inconclusive" and add below it that other battles between the Portuguese and the Kathiris took place a few years later in the same city (talking about ] and ]). | |||
| :: ''']]''' 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Yes I have read everything and I am willing to follow the rules, I am also aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic. | |||
| Since I have spent considerable time on the project and such words as "ridiculous" and "crap" have been used to describe it, I hope you will indulge some explanation and defense of the work. Also, this may give some food for thought on what should be or might be profitably retained and what is of lesser value. Admittedly I was doing that by trial and error but I think I had a good reason to do that because the article was already under way when I became interested in turning it into a complete list and resource. I tried to explain this but obviously I ran out of time using the unorthodox approach to developing the article. I would do it differently with a new article or a revised article that is not as lengthy, maybe even with this article. In any event, I have been trying to create a good resource, not just some crap. So at the risk of being boring or (ironically) too detailed, I will make my statement in some detail and hope to avoid further comment or at least any detailed further comment. I won't have much time for it in the next few weeks in any event. | |||
| For now, I don't want any changes. I want the article to remain as it is now. ] (]) 15:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ping|Abo Yemen|Javext}} Is the root of the issue whether the sources are reliable? If so, ] would be a better place to discuss it. ] (]) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The notes proved to be overdone and other items could be trimmed. Especially with the formatting, and the number of entries, it is difficult if not impossible to complete the article and to see what it would look like in a word processing document. I have such a document, of course, but it is the record of the work and the information, not its base. It also can not be done in a sandbox because categories and other information leak over into the main pages and I know of no way to keep a draft for a long time without this possible disruption. | |||
| :I don't think that removing huge chunks of well-cited text is an issue of the reliability of the sources and is more of Jav removing it because ]. None of the text (esp from sections from the old article like the Cultural Significance and Losses, which had the names of the leaders that are still in the infobox) had any contradictions with the sources that Jav had brought up and even if they did, according to ] all significant viewpoints should be included ''']]''' 16:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Look man, you fail to prove how the sources I removed from the article were reliable, you just instantly assume bad faith from me. How am I, or any other editor supposed to know a "source" that comes from a weird website, an unknown person with an unknown academic background is reliable in any way? Please read ]. | |||
| ::If I am wrong then please state who wrote the source's article and their academic background.. ] (]) 18:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Use Google Translate's website translator to know what the text says. As for the names of the authors, they are given in those articles. I can give you more sources like from ] which not only says the name of the author but also has a portrait of him. In fact I can spend the entire night bringing sources for the text that was there already as this battle is celebrated literally every year since the "kicking out of the Portuguese" according to the shihris and articles about the battle are made every year. There is a whole cultural dance that emerged from this battle called the iddah/shabwani (] and a ] from commons) if you're interested in it. Here are more sources (A local newspaper that is praised for its reliability and neutrality) and this is a publication from the (In both English and Arabic). I think you get what I'm saying. ''']]''' 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's so funny how every source you put in the page of the battle comes from random shady Arab/Yemeni websites/articles that every time I open them it looks like 30 different viruses will be installed on my computer; all the authors are either completely unknown, for example, can you tell me who "Sultan Zaher" is? It's either that or Yemeni state-controlled media outlets which is obviously neither neutral nor reliable. It's very clear it's all an attempt to glorify "yemeni resistance against colonialism" or something like that because when you take a look at REAL neutral sources from universities or historians like the ones I gave, they never mention such things that the yemenis kicked the Portuguese out. If it was true and such a big event that it's even celebrated in Yemen every year, why would every single neutral source ignore that part? Or even disagree and state no one could oust the Portuguese? | |||
| ::::Your link to the Independent Arabia source isn't working. Where exactly is the publication from Sanna university? ] (]) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::https://www.independentarabia.com/node/197431/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8A{{pb}}https://journals.su.edu.ye/index.php/jhs/article/download/499/156/2070 ''']]''' 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What's the page in the last link? ] (]) 14:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::sanaa uni's journal ''']]''' 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I asked for the page not the publisher, but nevermind. Once you open a thread at ] ] (]) 00:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe that is a big issue but there's also an issue in the infobox about the Result of the battle. ] (]) 18:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{talkreflist}} | |||
| After commenting on each substantive point, I will end with a proposal as to how I would progress the article to reduce the length of the article. If the consensus is against that, or is in favor of mass deletions without taking time to save some of the material of interest, we will have to decide how to proceed. | |||
| === First statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr) === | |||
| After writing this off line, I now note the proposal to possibly split the article and IcarusPhoenix's reply to it. I will say up front that I agree with his response. I would rather see what the length of the articles might be after the proposed reductions and revisions that I propose to make, if accepted, have been made. I might even wish to see what his more drastic reductions might produce, but frankly, I think they could approach the reductions proposed by the mass deletions, which would be somewhat more than I propose. I would not reject the proposal out of hand, as I have done before, if mass deletion is the only alternative. I do think that having the information all on one page would be better for comparative analysis but I also think that keeping most of the information may be better than keeping only one page with mass deletions. | |||
| It does seem like that this dispute concerns the reliability of some sources, so I suggest the editors to open a thread at ] and discuss it there. Once the discussion there finishes, if there are any problems left, we can discuss that here, alright? ] (]) 19:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * TOO LONG. I have worked the most on this article in the past two years. (This does not imply ownership but it does imply familiarity with the subject and how the article has developed.) Before the length of the article became an issue rather than just a point of discussion between a few of us, I acknowledged that it had developed to the point that it consumed too many kbs. I noted (not just on my talk page) that I was working on it in a considered way to produce a good resource of information while cutting the length. I have a few other ideas about cutting it. I may wish the article to contain more than others may wish to include, but I have realized that it should be cut and had begun to do that. | |||
| {{Ping|Abo Yemen|Javext}} Any reason why this hasn't happened? This dispute seems to be based on whether some sources are reliable, and it's difficult to proceed if we aren't on the same page regarding that. Once the reliability of the sources is cleared up, we can continue discussing here. ] (]) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * TOO LONG TAG; LISTS. The template for the "too long" tag appears to have been developed for use on long, or perhaps long and complicated or multi-faceted, articles. Lists generally are in alphabetical order and have discrete entries. They are not necessarily read, or meant to be read, from end to end or "navigated." Even if someone does "read" it, rather than peruse it, the person is likely interested in comparative information or detail on particular entries or categories or determining whether to look at a full article. Name and rank alone are not likely to serve that purpose. I think the substantive considerations concerning articles that are too long, as contrasted with the kbs used, are less likely to apply to lists. Also, since the lists are in alphabetical order, and these lists are in table grids, they are not difficult to navigate or follow. I submit this for thought, not to take back the acknowledgment of the length of the list. | |||
| :Oh yes my bad. Ill be starting a thread there in a bit ''']]''' 09:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Ping|Abo Yemen}} Any updates on this? ] (]) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::OH YEAH my bad. I got myself into lots of on-wiki work (2 GA reviews and an article that im trying to get to FL class as part of the WikiCup) and kinda forgot about this. I actually went to the notice board but didn't find any clear guidelines on how to format my request (and what am i supposed to do there anyways); Do I just give some background and list all the sources or is there something else that i am supposed to do? ''']]''' 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{Ping|Abo Yemen}} I guess give some context, and list the sources in question. ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Im actually writing it up rn just give me a few mins ''']]''' 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] ''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === First statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr) === | |||
| * RUSH; PAGE VIEWS. The article has been viewed about 9,500 more times (33,455 total) in the past 90 days than in the first three months of last year when it was shorter. Fewer than 10 people have commented on the length, most of them just recently. I suspect few, if any, would have commented if the article had not been tagged. Two years ago the list was incomplete, had some errors, was disorganized and was of little value until a few editors attempted to complete it and add information of interest and split it along the way. Perhaps I find too much of the information interesting or valuable as a gateway to articles or as a source of individual references to categories of information (e.g. generals killed during the war, West Point graduates, etc.). The organization could be improved, as I believed I was doing. With the lack of complaint and a continuing large number of page views, I thought I had time to do this. But if there is now some urgent need to perform mass deletions to get the article to a certain number of kbs in a hurry, perhaps a different approach is needed. Despite time constraints for the next few weeks, I could delete the photo column and photos easily enough. I have never thought they were necessary and kept them only because of the preference of other editors. If there is otherwise a rush to revise the article wholesale, someone else will need to do it. I suppose that one does not need any interest in or knowledge of the subject or what a previous editor was trying to accomplish to do mass deletions, but I hope some of the following points would be read and even considered. | |||
| === Second statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr) === | |||
| * MY AVAILABILITY. I thank the commenter who checked my user page and noted I would either be unavailable and "off line" entirely (which I have been from March 23 until today) or will have very limited time to devote to Misplaced Pages until about April 17. I have spent quite a lot of time on the American Civil War generals' lists so my absence from the site or this discussion does not indicate a lack of interest. I have spent quite a lot of time on Misplaced Pages in the past 21 months but I have had a few periods of time when I could not. This is one of them. Again, I will have only short periods of time either to comment further or to edit over the next two or even three weeks. | |||
| The thread at RSN {{Diff2|1270464721|has been archived}}, and it appears to me that the consensus is that the listed sources are not reliable in this context. Taking this into consideration, what are the issues that remain? ] (]) 15:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * THUMBNAIL PHOTOS. Although I may be alone, or nearly so, among the editors who have worked on these articles, I see no need for the thumbnail photos. Many were in the list articles when I started working on them. Others have been added. So I have not deleted them or pressed for their deletion. This is the one type of information that is in the main articles on the generals. I would prefer that the kbs be used on information and not on the pictures which are (or can be) in the main articles. I agree with IcarusPhoenix that the photos are an all or nothing proposition because use of some photos makes the formatting uneven and would tempt editors to add photos back. | |||
| :I've restored it for a bit wait <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 15:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :No issues remain. Without those listed sources there's nothing he can change. The article is good as it is now. ] (]) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Commenting as a regular editor=== | |||
| * TABLE GRID LINES. The table format uses quite a few kbs. Unlike building kbs through more words, the format makes the entries easier to read and navigate, not more difficult. Some columns could be removed, although I would like to preserve some information in the notes as I further explain. The net reduction in the kbs would be substantial. Of course, if almost all of the information is to be deleted and perhaps only the first two columns kept, the table grid might even be removed and even more kbs saved. I don't endorse this. | |||
| The defenders of the city "were horribly routed."<ref>Azmat Alishah. ." Retrieved January 22, 2025.</ref> ] refers to being "defeated overwhelmingly," signifying a decisive victory for the invading forces. ] (]) 08:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * BIOGRAPHY, NOT JUST ACW. While many of the generals certainly are most interesting because of their American Civil War contributions, or in some cases their lack thereof, some have interesting accomplishments that are worthy of note, may pique interest of viewers of the list or be of comparative value for research. | |||
| === Second statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr) === | |||
| * AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION IN ARTICLES. I recently finished the last of 34 articles on the Confederate generals not covered by articles. These should have all the information in the notes (or any omissions can be quickly remedied. I used the same seven or eight sources plus an occasional more specific source. All of the articles on the few dozen most prominent generals should be comprehensive. Many of the four hundred or so other articles are stubs or need some further information. Since we seem to have little interest in working on such articles (they are all on my watchlist), it will take some time to review and edit them all. Even if they are all made satisfactorily detailed, it would seem useful to have some hooks in the comprehensive list to draw readers' interest or to provide references to generals who fit certain categories. It would seem easier to find certain information in summary form in discrete entries in a list than to search about 500 articles. | |||
| == Movement for Democracy (Greece) == | |||
| * ACCESS IN ARTICLE HISTORY. I was interested to see the comment that the additional notes could be accessed in the article history. I had proposed that and may have noted somewhere in the current draft that my "maximum" draft could be found in the article history. I realized that the article on the main page should be reduced but that if someone wanted to see a longer and more detailed version, we could refer to the appropriate previous version. This is perhaps unconventional but I think would work in this case. I would rather do it in the context of the reductions I propose below, but making this reference in the article would make me more enthusiastic about cutting back (not eliminating) some of the notes. | |||
| {{DR case status|open}} | |||
| {{drn filing editor|77.49.204.122|18:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. | |||
| * GENERAL OFFICER RANKS. I think the most important information may be the details concerning the grades or ranks the general officers held and when they were appointed to those ranks. What rank a general held during a certain battle or at a certain time may be important to authors, researchers and editors as well as readers. I do not agree that the nomination dates are unimportant. The rank date indicates seniority and is often referred to by casual or amateur writers. It often has no relation to the actual date of appointment or the date an officer exercised general officer command. No general actually became a general until his appointment was confirmed and his commission was delivered and accepted. But the nomination date often was the appointment date, or close to it, and was a date when at least temporary command of a general officer position might take place. Early in the war, all of the relevant dates were often close together and some steps in the process even occurred on the same date. In the column, I have shown only one date for two or three steps if that was the case. Later in the war, confirmations were often held up for political reasons or because the Confederate Congress was out of session. Exercise of command under an appointment might have been exercised much earlier. These differences are very instructive. I don't think enough kbs would be saved by eliminating some dates, or some times just "nom." to justify the reduction in information. (Appointment dates, in addition to the other three dates and sometimes coincident with one or more of them, can be found for Union generals but I have no source for separate appointment dates for Confederate generals.) I thought the format looked better and was easier to follow with the general officer ranks in bold font. That, and the fact that I could not bring myself to abbreviate the ranks in this column, adds kbs. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | |||
| * ABBREVIATIONS. I almost never use abbreviations except U.S. or occasionally U.S.A. since this is generally discourage and is often confusing. I even have changed abbreviations to full words in some articles. I started using some abbreviations in this article to save kbs. I think most of these are obvious and would not require repetitive reference to keys. I actually would prefer not to use the abbreviations if the extra kbs in spelling out certain words would not result in deletion of more substance. Military rank abbreviations are accepted, even encourage on Misplaced Pages. Other than those, I think USMA for United States Military Academy, VMI for Virginia Military Institute. Sem. War for Seminole Wars and Mex-Am War for Mexican-American War are not too hard to follow. Nom. for nomination and conf. for confirmation should be easy to follow. I don't object to and might even use KIA and a few similar military abbreviations also used in the Union general article. I have not yet converted all the spelled out words to abbreviations after the "F" section. I could go either way on the use or non-use of some or all abbreviations, especially if information is kept. I would welcome comment if my general approach to revisions is accepted as the way to proceed. | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Movement for Democracy (Greece)}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | |||
| * {{User|Hellenic Rebel}} | |||
| * {{User|Rambling Rambler}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| The disagreement concerns the filling in of the infobox on how many MPs the party has in the Greek parliament. According to the website of the Greek Parliament, the party has no parliamentary presence - according to the user who disagrees, the party has 5 MPs representing it in the Greek Parliament. The difference is that these 5 people are independent MPs who belong to the Democracy Movement but do not represent it as they do not form a parliamentary group. | |||
| * UNENCYCLOPEDIC NICKNAMES, ETC.: The nicknames were all taken from the entries in the massive and encyclopedic reference that is a favorite of many Civil War authors and editors, Eicher, John H., and ], ''Civil War High Commands.'' Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0-8047-3641-3. They are also found in other sources cited in the reference. Some might find these interesting and even look at the article to see how the nickname came about. Others might find them boring and a waste of kilobytes. Since they are used by the Eichers and others, I don't see how they can be considered unencyclopedic. While I may have considered some comments in the text or notes as placeholders or information that could be eliminated when the article was "final," I offer them for what they are worth. Incomplete or missing reference to such topics can invite tags or premature comment. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> | |||
| * BIRTH DATES AND PLACES: This is the first of three columns that could be eliminated, especially if some information on some generals were transferred to a note point, keeping some pertinent information but saving many kbs. Were any Confederate generals born in the north? Why did they fight for the South? Who were the oldest and youngest? Who were the longest and shortest lived after the war? This column is part of the information that answers those questions, specifically as well as generally, if someone wishes more information on the specific individuals, they know which ones to look at. | |||
| * ] *] *] *] *] *] | |||
| * DEATH DATES AND PLACES; DEATHS DURING WAR: This column obviously is needed to determine the ages at time of death. About 20% of Confederate generals died during the war, most from wounds. The deaths during the war and those with the most notable life spans could be in a note entry for those generals to whom it applies. There is some duplication by noting the battle in which the fatal wound was received already which could be eliminated. Places of burial are given twice in the Eicher book, in the individual entries and in a separate section. Even if this is of some interest to some people, I think elimination of this information from the list would not diminish it much. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> | |||
| * COLLEGES; PREVIOUS MILITARY TRAINING: Many Civil War generals were trained soldiers, not politicians or amateurs. Reference to those who attended West Point, VMI, the Citadel (predecessor) and a few other military schools shows this, by individual, not just in an aggregate sentence. While alumni of other colleges might disagree, I suppose the references to other colleges could be eliminated although they show that many officers were educated individuals. | |||
| We need the opinion of other users on whether these 5 independent MPs should be registered on infobox as party MPs in parliament. | |||
| * PRIOR WARS; PREVIOUS MILITARY SERVICE: All Seminole War and Mexican-American War officers and veterans were not graduates of military schools and all did not remain in the U.S. Army after the war. Reference to this service adds more individuals to the list of those with military experience. | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by Hellenic Rebel ==== | |||
| * PRIOR REGULAR ARMY SERVICE, RESIGNATION: Reference is often made to the officers who resigned from the regular army and entered Confederate soldier. This entry identifies the individual officers who defected to the Confederacy. It again adds general officers with military experience to the number of Confederate generals. | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> | |||
| Hello dear users, those are my points: | |||
| * BROTHER V. BROTHER; RELATIONSHIPS: Some relatives fought for opposite sides; some fought for the same side. These relationships are often commented on in reference to this, and other, civil wars. I did not even list all of the relationships, just many of the ones that seemed most direct or pertinent. On the other hand, I suppose the reference to a general born in France having been adopted by a Southerner as an explanation for how he became a Confederate general might be too insignificant a detail for a list. I might have eliminated that with one last pass through the notes - but it did have a purpose. It's not worth going on at length. There is a very incomplete article on the topic. Perhaps it would be most useful to add some information to that. | |||
| <br/> | |||
| * Lack of Consensus: | |||
| Contrary to claims that the community rejected my point, only two users disagreed with me, while one agreed that the party has 5/300 MPs. The original article mentioned this, and while the page was locked for consensus, no actual consensus was achieved. It should have reverted to its original version. | |||
| <br/> | |||
| * Evidence from Sources: | |||
| Reliable sources and reputable newspapers (e.g., To Vima, Nea), confirm that the Democracy Movement has five MPs affiliated with it. Also, we have sources that state the membership of this MPs, for example: | |||
| * Documento: | |||
| * Politic: | |||
| Similar language is used across multiple reliable sources. | |||
| These sources clearly describe the MPs as belonging to the Democracy Movement. | |||
| <br/> | |||
| * Policy Misinterpretation: | |||
| Some argued that specific phrasing in the sources (e.g., “stand for”) was absent, invalidating their use. However, I have identified sources stating that the MPs belong to or joined the party. Later the users tried to interpretate the policies strictly, but this is rigid and inconsistent with similar cases on Misplaced Pages (e.g., ], ], ]). The accepted practice allows acknowledging parties represented by MPs without a parliamentary group. | |||
| ''Additionally, Rambling Rambler used tactics like WP policies overloads (which in reality was not even responding to my contributions as I demonstrate to users through my responses) and ad-hominem attacks, focusing on my block history instead of addressing my arguments, which I find irrelevant and unconstructive.'' | |||
| * POLITICAL GENERALS; PRIOR PUBLIC OFFICE: Political offices held by officers before the war are not just as a matter of biography. Much has been written about "political" generals who owed their commissions solely to their political or societal prominence, not to any military experience, training or qualification. Identification of who they were may be of interest. (Every political general was not necessarily incompetent. Union general "Black Jack" Logan is usually considered a good general.) | |||
| <br/> | |||
| * Parliamentary Website Context: | |||
| The Hellenic Parliament website lists only parliamentary groups, not individual parties represented in parliament. This does not mean a party lacks representation. The Democracy Movement’s five MPs are validly affiliated with the party, even without forming a parliamentary group. Additionally, an MP with no Parl. Group, is called "independent" in the Hellenic Parliament, that's why you see sometimes the term "independent" as a reference to those 5 MPs. | |||
| <br/> | |||
| * Request for Fair Evaluation: | |||
| I urge users and admins to thoroughly review the discussion and evidence. The version I support is based on clear, reliable sources. If the community, after proper review, agrees with the opposing view, I will accept the decision. However, there is currently no consensus to override the original version. | |||
| Thank you for your time and consideration. | |||
| * RANKS BEFORE GENERAL OFFICER APPOINTMENT: Many generals were appointed general officers late in the war. To place them in the proper rank at the dates of certain battles and to see their development, an entry for their previous units and ranks completes the time line of their commissions at various times during the war. | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">P.S.: I am really sorry, I did not managed not to not to exceed 2000 characters, I exceeded them by 500.</div> | |||
| * POST-WAR POLITICAL OFFICE: I think it is of some interest and notability that many of the "Rebels" were reconstructed enough to hold state and federal positions, even elective office. A brief additional reference to these positions where applicable seems interesting and perhaps shows that some individuals may have benefited from Confederate service in the long run. | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by Rambling Rambler ==== | |||
| * OTHER DETAILS: While I may have kept a few details I thought were interesting in the A to F sections, I would probably eliminate these in limitation of the categories of notes. That might leave a few more entries than IcarusPhoenix would use, but fewer than are currently included. | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> | |||
| Functionally the issue is a very simple one. What has been established in fact and which no one is disputing is that five independent MPs are members or in some way affiliated with this new political party Movement for Democracy in a personal capacity. | |||
| However Hellenic Rebel wants to move beyond this and state categorically that these MPs have been officially recognised as MPs of this new party within the Greek parliament, something that has not been demonstrated at all via reliable sources. This includes the parliament’s website, where they are included amongst the 24 independents and not as a recognised set of party MPs, and various Greek newspapers where they are referred to as either independent MPs or using more vague language that they are MPs with an affiliation to the party as opposed to official MPs of the party. | |||
| * LAST THREE SECTIONS: The last three sections of officers are not unimportant but could be reduced to names and very brief notes. They include individuals who have often been identified as generals or who would have been generals if the process were completed or who were militia generals who may have briefly taken an active role in the war, but who were not regularly appointed and confirmed and commissioned Confederate general officers. They are notable and should receive some recognition. Also, some people might look for these names and try to add them to the article despite their dubious actual status, if they remained unmentioned. | |||
| The most convincing source against Hellenic Rebel’s desired changes however is that at least one of the five MPs has explicitly said they do not currently sit as an MP for the party but there is an intention to make it official at some point in the future. | |||
| * PURPOSES: I have been trying to create a list with details that would interest people to click through to the main articles, to note interesting facts about certain generals, to show when they fit in certain categories and to provide dates about ranks and service dates that would be helpful to researchers and those interested in placing the generals in their proper grades as of certain dates and battles. A mere list of names is little more informative or useful than the category list of articles, except the casual reader might find it more easily. | |||
| While it may seem a minor distinction it is not one that is uncommon, for example an MP may be a member of a party but not presently officially representing them in parliament due to disciplinary matters which can be seen currently for the House of Commons for the United Kingdom and is reflected on Misplaced Pages as well. | |||
| * BREVET UNION GENERAL LIST: The first section of this list contains the names of the officers who received brevet general appointments. Only about 59 of these were appointed by President Lincoln. A few of these were posthumous appointments in recognition of service. Some exercised command under the brevet appointments. All of the many others received the appointments after the war, most many months or even a few years after the war, in recognition of service. Many of these individuals are erroneously described as "generals" without further explanation that their highest actual rank was colonel or even lower. The date of rank is grossly misleading with respect to all officers not actually appointed as brevet generals by President Lincoln because there was mass backdating of rank dates, often to the arbitrary date of March 13, 1865. Most of these appointments, even if announced some time in 1865 (I have not been able to find exact dates of earlier announcements but I know that any that were made were not made by President Lincoln) were not the subject of nomination and confirmation until some time in 1866 or even later, often after or just immediately before an officer was mustered out. The information in the list is necessary to correct errors or wrong impressions about these officers and the dates and significance of their brevet appointments and, since there are not articles about many of them, to give a bit of information about them.<br>A few entries in the notes sections for the first few letters of the alphabet and for could be removed but some date information needs to be added. I would be willing to remove the entire sections on actual rank generals that received brevet appointments before their promotions to full rank or were brigadier generals who received brevet general appointments. The information could be reworked off line to shorten the entries and to provide information not fully given in the Union general list. IcarusPhoenix has covered much of this information so temporary removal would not be as much of a loss as other removals of information. | |||
| Given the status of these MPs would fall under BLP policy and we cannot clearly establish with sources these MPs are officially recognised as Movement for Democracy MPs we shouldn’t be making the claim they are, until such a time as we have good reliable sources explicitly stating they are officially MPs for the party. | |||
| * THANKS TO ICARUSPHOENIX: Thanks to IcarusPhoenix for his contributions including creation of much material and information, his thoughts on saving space and on formatting and for noting my approach, unorthodox as it may have been, to producing an informative but manageable list. | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by 77.49.204.122 ==== | |||
| * SPLITTING THE ARTICLE: I noticed this and IcarusPhoenix's reply just before posting this note. I address this as a possibility, but after other proposals are drafted and reviewed, in the paragraph before the paragraphs with topic headings. I note it here as a possible compromise or second choice so it does not seem to be overlooked, with a little more detailed comment above. I add a brief reply where the comment is made above. | |||
| I am user 77.49.204.122 who submitted the request but unfortunately through no fault of my own, my ip has been changed. I don't know if I can participate, - if I can't, please take the trouble and delete my edit. Since I speak Greek I wanted to contribute with a parliamentary question by MP Giota Poulou | |||
| MP Yiota Poulou, who belongs to the Movement for Democracy, when she submitted a question to the Parliament, described herself and the other 5 MPs as Independents belonging to the party. According to the Greek parliamentary concept, as expressed by the Greek Parliament on its website, MPs are described as independent - that is, they do not represent their party in Parliament, but only themselves. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| * PROPOSAL: For the Confederate generals list, to eliminate kbs, I would eliminate the thumbnail photo column and all the photos as well as the columns on birth, death and college. I would add bullet points to the notes on deaths during the war (date, aged, location), officers born in the north and why they fought for the South (moved south as children or married Southern women, mostly), and the youngest, oldest, longest lived officers. This would result in a substantial reduction in kbs while keeping some hooks, the most interesting information and the information needed to put the individuals in certain categories. I would continue my reduction and reorganization of the notes but I would keep the categories of notes I have mentioned above. I would also review the notes a final time to see if more points could be eliminated while keeping the most notable items. I would use the abbreviations I have started using and mentioned above, unless there is a consensus to not use some or all of them without requiring the elimination of information. I would reduce the text and notes on the final three categories of officers to a very minimum of information. I think this would reduce the kbs considerably and still result in a list with hooks and interesting information that many readers, researchers and writers on the Civil War would find useful on a single page. I do not agree with, endorse or support a mass deletion of the information that would remain - which anyone could do as I noted above. Also, I can only accomplish this careful revision over the course of several weeks starting a few weeks from now. The line breaks and formatting alone (which add some kbs but are necessary) take considerable time, as I have found out from working on the earlier revisions.<br>The brevet general list has basic information that needs to remain. Many of the officers have no articles and are not likely to have them. Moreover, much misinformation about these officers can be corrected through this list. There are no photos. A few notes on dates, Lincoln appointments may need to be added but a few entries might be reduced. Others have been adding to the notes so these perhaps can not be kept completely clear unless the column is eliminated or changed to cover only one or two specific additional items. I am also willing to remove the sections concerning full rank generals who received brevet appointments (or not, because the others are also listed) and to rework that information to shorten it. I thought it was better to make that information available, although not as completely edited as the first sections, than to hold it until I got around to whittling it down. In the meantime, IcarusPhoenix has added enough information to the Union general list that the temporary removal will not result in the complete disappearance of all such information on Misplaced Pages.<br>If consensus can not be reached on the approach, I would prefer to have the matter decided by the military history or military biography groups or more neutral administrators - or perhaps to let someone from the majority complete the project. Thanks to all who may read and thoughtfully consider the above. ] (]) 06:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| :Donner60, thank you for your comments. I've just collapsed your response for ease of access of this noticeboard, I hope that's okay. IcarusPhoenix was mentioning that you were drafting a refactored version of the article in question - do you happen to have a userpage draft created to incorporate the ideas that you mentioned? If not, we can consult the assistance of the associated WikiProject(s), like Donner60 has suggested above, and close this thread because having two discussions open at different forums would be counterproductive. Regards, ] <small>(])</small> <sup>]</sup> 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Movement for Democracy (Greece) discussion === | |||
| == Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England == | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> | |||
| Hi there, I'm Steve, and I'm a dispute resolution volunteer here at DRN. My approach is significantly different to others that contribute here, and is less structured, but as always, a reminder to remain focused on the content issues at hand. This one is relatively clear cut, but I'll explain in a little more detail, but there are a few content related policies that apply here, broadly the ones that cover ] and ]. Both of these are key to any discussion regarding a dispute on content, and even a limited consensus on a talk page, or even here, cannot override our requirement to abide by these article policies. Having read several of the linked discussions, editors have correctly noted the need to observe what reliable sources say regarding the MPs and their party affiliation/membership. While some of the sources that were presented mention affiliation with the party, reviewing the sources provided, the point that the IP editor here ]: ''<font color="#777777">"</font>We care what the sources say. And the sources describe them as Independent MPs who belong to the party. Ιn terms of their parliamentary presence, they are listed as independent. And (sic) infobox is asking for the listing of parliamentary presence."'' | |||
| In this situation, as editors we also weigh the sources provide to ensure we balance coverage in the article, and ensure we don't give specific sources ]. While one source was provided , the majority of sources provided do not make this distinction. I don't see anything here as a DR volunteer that would give precedence to the one viable source provided against all others, and while it's not my role to make "decisions", the consensus here and in other discussions is quite clear against inclusion in the infobox based on the sourcing provided. As always, ], but I would advise additional discussions would likely be unproductive without additional, substantial sourcing in favour of changing the status quo. <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 04:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 17:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> | |||
| :@] Good evening. I have a small observation to make. There is no disagreement about whether these MPs are members of the Democracy Movement. They are, and this is obvious, the only we wanted was one-two sources to to verify it, and we found them. The disagreement stems from the fact that, based on the rules of the Greek Parliament, the formation of a parliamentary group is not carried out with less than 10 MPs. Thus, these 5 MPs are called parliamentary independents. That's why the sources call the MPs independents. The users believe that the fact that the parliament recognizes them as independent automatically makes them non-representative of the Democracy Movement party. Me on the other hand, believe that the status in parliament is something different from whether and how many MPs each party has in it, citing the above and other similar cases abroad. This is the disagreement, and that is where the community should focus. No more is needed, the rest are just big debates and meaningless fights that confuse the community. So based on this, isn't the logical thing to do to add the 5 MPs bar? ] (]) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Passive smoking}} | |||
| ::Thanks for providing this clarification. The discussion that has been had around whether to add them in the infobox as MPs part of a recognised parliamentary group are based on coverage in reliable sources, and the rules of the parliament in question. These are documented in the parliamentary article, too - ] - "''A parliamentary group in the Hellenic Parliament should consist of at least ten MPs who are members of the same party. Five MPs should also suffice provided the party they belong to had ballots in at least two thirds (2/3) of the constituencies and got at least three percent (3%) of the total number of valid ballots in the country.''. So as editors (and DR volunteers) we evaluate the article and whether they meet that threshold. I can see two parties are mentioned on the Hellenic Parliament page as a parliamentary group with under 10 members, ] (with 6) and ] with 5, and according to the results of the ], both received at least 3% of the national vote, which is why they meet the criteria set by parliament of a "parliamentary group". Even with 5 MPs affiliated with this party, it is clear they are a new party per the article, and did not stand in the June 2023 elections (as they did not exist) and thus, don't meet the defined criteria of the parliamentary body to be described as a parliamentary group, and describing it as such on their own article would ignore the defined rules of the parliament. I'm afraid this is pretty clear cut - unless the governing body changes their defined parliamentary rules for recognition as a parliamentary body, noting them as such on their Misplaced Pages page (or on the parliament page) is not in line with policy. <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 21:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Smoking ban in England}} | |||
| :::@] Yes, here is my opinion: ''are based a) on coverage in reliable sources, and b) the rules of the parliament in question''. I agree with a, and in our case there is coverage in reliable sources. I remind, that the term "independent" in the sources, does not contradict the status of party membership: this is evident both from the Parliament's regulations and from the fact that a source refers to "independent members of the Democracy Movement". So, we have reliable sources that consider 5 MPs of parliament to be members of the party, and no source that disputes this. Regarding b, we disagree here. The Parliament's regulations on parliamentary groups are something different with the number of members of each party. Please, just look at the examples of other countries that I cite, and they do not have P.G. but despite this, no one has questioned the appearance of their members in bars. To give an example: "{{small|New Democracy, with 156 MPs, could have an internal parliamentary disaggrement, and so the P.G. could decide to create two different parliamentary groups, the «P.G. New Democracy - Liberals», and the «P.G. New Democracy - Moderate Conservatives», without dissolving the New Democracy party itself and without any MPs leaving the party}}". In this hypothetical scenario, New Democracy would clearly still have 156 MPs, even though it would not have any P.G. that identifies with the party. One thing is the P.G., another is the party... ] (]) 23:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@], thanks for your reply. There's a few things to consider, and a common frequently quoted guideline is ] - it's more specific to why certain articles can't exist when others do, but it's still a good point here. The presence of content in an infobox in one article doesn't always mean it should be in another article - we weigh the policies and guidelines applicable, plus information we can find in reliable sources. In your examples provided, we can't consider what's the standards applicable in other countries, as the reliable sources here that define inclusion are specific to the Greek Parliament (their regulations on recognised political groups). As discussed above, they have defined criteria for recognising a political group, which this article does not meet. You also mentioned a hypotheitcal scenario where an existing PG splits into two - as per the article and provided requirements from the parliament, if one of the factions had less than 10 members, and didn't have a specific vote share in the most recent election, it too wouldn't be recognised. The Hellenic Parliament article infobox only lists the count of members of recognised political groups, with the remainder grouped under "independents". Adding this proposed bar to the Democracy Movement party would not be in line with policy. <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 10:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] Here lies my main disagreement: why should the bar of political parties, specifically and especially in the case of Hellas, refer only to the parliamentary groups of these parties? The articles are clear. They refer to the Movement for Democracy party, the KKE party, the New Democracy party, etc. Not to their parliamentary groups. For example, in the case of France there are different articles for parliamentary groups and different articles for parties (and this is the most correct in my opinion). When you have an article that refers to a party, then the bar should refer to the elected members of parliament who are members that party or represent it. Clearly, the parliamentary group that the party has - if it has one - is mentioned within the article, but the bar simply refers to the members of parliament of the party. There are reputable sources for Greek data that refer to the 5 MPs as members of the Democracy Movement. At the same time, there is no source that disputes this. Is that against the WP policy? | |||
| :::::Regarding the citation of the WP policy ], yes, I saw it, but I think that in our case, the citation of examples that I made above is NOT something like "''since there is an identical article, let's do the same here''". In the discussion of the article, I have cited more examples, and in general if we start searching in all the parties of all the countries, the pattern is the same. The examples that I give are simply indicative, and in this case if we don't add the bar, we are creating a "hellenic" exception to the general pattern that is followed everywhere, throughout Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@] just wanted to thank you for taking the time to look into this. I am of course glad that you have concurred that this is a simple matter of BLP and reliable sources and that at present the evidence doesn't support the desired changes by Hellenic Rebel. I hope as they stated in their opening summary that they will accept the decision and this can finally be laid to rest until such a time sources demonstrate otherwise. ] (]) 01:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Urartu == | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| * ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?'' | |||
| {{DR case status|open}} | |||
| It all began with a request for ] to be moved to ] (see: ]). I was one of those who opposed. I then discovered that since December 2011 ] had been systematically changing "passive smoking" to "second-hand smoke", and "smoking ban" to "smoke-free regulations" on many articles (see e.g.: , ) — he subsequently used the more frequent occurrence of "his" term as a justification in the move request, an issue I raised at the time. The move request was declined. | |||
| <!-- ] 16:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739378392}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! --> | |||
| {{drn filing editor|Bogazicili|16:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | |||
| Things went downhill on 26 February, when the user moved ] and many related pages unilaterally, and move-warred with two editors when they attempted to revert him (see: ). Eventually he gave up and disappeared for a month after an experienced editor criticized his edits to ], which is a semi-protected article (see: ). | |||
| Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. | |||
| Reappeared last week, and has tried to copy/paste articles from one page to another, causing attribution problems (see: content and edit histories of ] vs ], and ] vs ]). I reverted his most recent changes but he reverted me back, calling my edits "vandalism" (see: edit summaries at , ). I then approached the admin who had closed the original move request for advice, and he directed me here. | |||
| Entirely separately, the user has changed several articles from US to UK English, and then reverted editors who try to change it back. I have warned him about this, and he seems to know the rules (see: , but still makes the changes regardless. See e.g.: | |||
| * ''']''' = (then edit-warred over this) | |||
| * ''']''' = | |||
| * ''']''' = , then | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Urartu}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | ||
| * {{User|Bogazicili}} | |||
| * ''Who is involved in the dispute?'' | |||
| * {{User|Skeptical1800}} | |||
| :* {{user|Hypocaustic}} | |||
| :* {{user|Cross porpoises}} | |||
| :* {{user|Wikophile}} | |||
| :* {{user|Escape Orbit}} | |||
| :* {{user|Favonian}} | |||
| : | |||
| (last three editors are only marginally involved, compared to Hypocaustic and myself) | |||
| * ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)'' | |||
| Yes. | |||
| * <small>'' N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small> | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span> | |||
| * ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?'' | |||
| ], ] (now blanked), ] | |||
| * ''How do you think we can help?'' | |||
| Explain to User:Hypocaustic what consensus is, why copy/paste moves are wrong, why WP:RETAIN exists; restore content of pages at ] and ] per the GFDL requirements. | |||
| ] (]) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England discussion=== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div> | |||
| Thanks for bringing this to the attention of a wider group of Wikipedians. There seem to be two or three different issues or concerns here, all of which seem to have presented a risk of unhelpful disputes (or even 'edit wars') and some of which may perhaps offer some wider learning for phrasing of WP guidance. I'll do my best to list these and explain the situation, as far as I understand it. | |||
| '''1. Smoke-free laws / smoking ban'''. Some time back, I initially made what I have to concur was an error in how I interpreted the guidance to 'be bold', by carrying out some swift move-and-redirect edits on grounds which appeared, at least from a technical standpoint, to be uncontroversial. We got into what looked perilously near to an edit war, and I did indeed pull back from involvement for a while to let tempers cool. What the sometimes heated debate around this suggested was that some contributors are motivated to 'defend' explicit references to bans because this makes it easier to argue against such measures (essentially bans are presented as illiberal a politically 'bad thing'); I don't know if that's part of this specific complainant's concern so this is an observation rather than accusation, but it does seem to have clouded the conversation a little further. What I have endeavoured to do more recently is gradually improve the clarity with which Misplaced Pages defines, and distinguishes, both terms - rather than getting into an either/or dichotomy, or sudden 'big bang' edits. I'm sure I haven't done that absolutely perfectly and would very much welcome input from fellow contributors to strengthen the content, but I do indeed think that knee-jerk reverts of careful and considered edits are rather close to vandalism, much as I regret having to level such a charge. | |||
| '''2. Second-hand smoke / passive smoking'''. I should probably emphasise at this point that tobacco is not the only subject in the world I'm interested in! However, the picture here is rather simpler. I initially proposed a straightforward move of the old 'passive smoking' article to 'second-hand smoke'; the discussion around this revealed a robust intellectual case for doing that, but there were not a sufficient number of respondents to achieve much of a quorum and no consensus to move was reached. I nevertheless observed the group conclusion, refrained from imposing a simple move/redirect and returned to this particular topic subsequently when it became clear that the two terms, although obviously related, were importantly distinct and different in their meanings. So, as things now stand, we now have a page both for the older term, ''passive smoking'' and the currently recognised term, ''second-hand smoke'', with some explanatory text on both pages (and mutual links) to make the relationship clear. I honestly think that, for now, this is the most elegant solution and probably the one most useful for readers. However, I sense that part of the objection raised here may be that some text explaining the scientific and regulatory detail appears on just one of those pages, thus causing the complainant to be concerned that a move had been made 'under the radar'; that certainly wasn't the intention, but thoughts on how to positively respond would be welcome. It seems a less than ideal use of the bandwidth to simply reproduce text on both pages, but there is perhaps scope to produce more tailored content so as to ensure that both terms/pages have a fuller 'body' if this is desired. | |||
| '''3. Varieties of English.''' Like many contributors and editors, I think, I try to sustain and improve the consistency and accuracy of spelling, phraseology and punctuation as I go along. Because I was trained in a specific variety of English, I'm sure it's highly likely that I have, on occasion, erred in changing a spelling which was arguably not actually ''incorrect'', but simply in a different tradition. If that's happened, it has been unintentional and I'm grateful for support in addressing it. On the one clear occasion I can recall where the complainant here did challenge me along these lines, I followed the 'ENGVAR' guidance and identified alternative phraseology which was less subject to transatlantic disagreements in the first place, although that seems not to have satisfied him or her unfortunately. Does this guidance perhaps need to be clearer? Where there is felt to be an issue about retaining the variety of English used by the very first contributor, could or should there be a more visible way of indicating which this is? Thoughts welcome. | |||
| I've done what I can to enhance the resources which the encyclopaedia offers on the first two points, and would like to propose a moratorium to allow time for other Wikipedians to assist and/or comment. I'm not sure if there's already a convention on this, but it would certainly seem sensible for Cross Porpoises and I to be 'hands off' as regards those specific pages for a week or two if both agree. Thanks, in advance, for your help.] (]) 19:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment==== | |||
| My involvement in this dispute involved ]'s edits to ]. Hypocaustic has an issue with some of the terminology used, and technically speaking he may have a point. However, my position is that, per ], Misplaced Pages should prefer the more commonly known term, the one most likely to be understood by readers. The subtle shade of difference between "smoking ban" and "smoke free law" is not a reason to change everything and the article itself makes what it means clear. | |||
| I think all involved in discussions regarding what Hypocaustic wished were ready to hear what he had to say. Discussion was cordial, despite Hypocaustic repeating his changes in apparent attempts to force the issue. At the end I thought that Hypocaustic had amicably agreed to accept consensus in February and leave the article as was. | |||
| Discussions have not been helped by his ] on the issue and his belief that there is some kind of Misplaced Pages conspiracy by tobacco supporters to favour "ban", because it helps them to portray the measures as oppressive. I can't see any evidence of this and his repeated reference to it sails very close to violating ]. "Ban" is used because that is what sources most commonly use, it's as simple as that. | |||
| I believe Hypocaustic's latest edits to be disingenuous. He knows what he wishes to do is against prior consensus, so coming back for another go a couple of months later in the guise of ] is at best misguided, at worse mischievous. If he thinks he has a new compromise that could satisfy everyone, then he could raise it on a talk page ''first''. As it is, I don't think he is offering anything new, just another approach to the same changes. | |||
| I also think his work on ] and ] is a textbook example of ] and an attempt to bypass consensus in the previous move discussion. Misplaced Pages does not need two articles on these closely related topics simply because one editor doesn't like the name. Any hair-splitting necessary between "Passive smoking" and "second hand smoke" can be handled within the one article. | |||
| I don't think his changes in spelling are any big deal, and am happy to accept he did not set out to do these deliberately. --<font color="purple">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 21:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ====Section break==== | |||
| '''Clerk's Comment'''/{{cue}} Other than edit warring and some discussion on the article talk page and user talk page, there's been no attempt to resolve the dispute. As a prerequisite to the dispute resolution noticeboard, there has to be talk page discussion. I think it was inappropriate to assume bad faith of Hypocaustic by constituting his/her edits as "vandalism". I think the parties can work from the merge RfC and see what kind of consensus there is and work from there. If there's anything else I can help with, just let me know. Regards, ] <small>(])</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''Clerk comment''' This looks like a behavioural problem, on the part of user:Hypocaustic] (]) 02:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * Thanks to Escape Orbit for responding pragmatically. I do understand your reservations, but I'm happy to reassure you that I do take as neutral stance as is humanly possible on such an inherently contentious subject - a fairly knowledgeable commentator perhaps, but not an advocate (Misplaced Pages isn't really the place for that). As for whether I've been mischievous or even exhibit a 'behavioural problem', that looks regrettably like mud-slinging but let's assume that the contributors above didn't mean those comments to come across quite that way. I'm certainly not suggesting a 'conspiracy', of course; it was apparent from some aspects of a prior discussion that there were indeed contributors with a point of view to push, and if so this surely didn't help the situation, but I've already said that I have no specific reason to believe that this is at the heart of Cross Porpoise's individual concerns. Acting against consensus is a charge that I ''would'' be concerned to receive if there was a good case for it, but I'm reasonably confident I've taken reasonable steps not to - including respecting group decisions not to execute a straight switch-and-redirect and endeavouring to generate a discussion about proposals for recent changes beforehand on the appropriate talk pages. As for hair-splitting, well we may have to agree to differ there - if there didn't appear a genuine reason for covering more than one term in the encyclopaedia, I wouldn't have done it, but the solution to finding what works best here seems to lie in getting into some specific discussion about terminology rather than falling into an adversarial scenario. So, to echo the wise words of Whenaxis above - how about we mutually cease assuming bad faith and see how we can collaborate to improve the quality of the content?] (]) 20:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *:Is everyone okay with trying to collaborate and work from the merge RfC? If so, we can close this thread and if necessary, this dispute can be returned to this noticeboard should the dispute not be resolved. Regards, ] <small>(])</small> <sup>]</sup> 20:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| How is it a merge request, and not a page move? Before Hypocaustic copy/pasted the content, ''']''' looked like . ''']''' looks like . Same images, same section headings, same references and citations. Is it really that easy for an editor with an agenda to run around consensus after being declined at ]? I see lots opposing or criticizing Hypocaustic both here and on talk pages, and no-one supporting him. ] (]) 07:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| On ], He has edit warred to ''remove'' the merge request template with two different users (see: and ), even calling it "vandalism." Hypocaustic acts all nicey-nicey and verbose on talk pages and this noticeboard, but its a different story if youre trying to edit with him. Have you looked at the page history of ] from Feb 26th-28th? . Thats been his typical behaviour while he accuses other people of "POV-pushing" and "bad faith." ] (]) 07:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'Still happy to collaborate, Whenaxis, and open to ideas about how best to do that; I am not entirely clear what 'working from the merge RfC' entails, but if you have experience of resolving disagreements positively in this way it would be good to hear more. It does also sound as if it would be sensible to get some additional support with this if there is a way to do so, as the above comments suggest that at least one fellow contributor has become sufficiently exasperated that working with me constructively may be difficult at the moment (I don't criticise him or her for that, as it's evident that he or she is committed to improving Misplaced Pages even if we currently disagree about the means). I am mindful of Escape Orbit's concerns around 'POV-forking', and although I am confident that is not what's going on here I do agree that real care is required to avoid fuelling such suspicions; to my mind, engaging with the detail of the issue to build a meaningful consensus on the substance of the issue, rather than simplistic yes/no polling, is the most promising way forward. It also looks, to me, as if Cross Porpoises has an important point about ensuring that the page covering older term, 'passive smoking' does not become an unacceptably short article as the page covering the current term, 'second-hand smoke' develops; unless we simply duplicate some content there (which is presumably not regarded as best practice), we'll need to create or edit some new material to ensure that these different but connected terms are properly explained - I am happy to be involved in doing so but have held off from making any further edits to these pages while there is a discussion on this noticeboard.] (]) 10:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I realise that Hypocaustic has faulted before, but now that this user is willing to collaborate, you should be open to discussing with Hypocaustic rather than blaming them for their actions. I think the best way to start off with resolving this dispute is to refrain from editing the two articles in question until the dispute is fully resolved, as well as, ceasing all assumptions of bad faith. From there, we can use ] form February and decipher the issues at hand and find a compromise through citing Misplaced Pages policies and using references to back up your opinion. If the parties could provide statements on their opinion below, that would be great. Regards, ] <small>(])</small> <sup>]</sup> 20:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == BMW R1100GS (Reopened) == | |||
| <!-- ] 20:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> | |||
| * {{pagelinks|BMW R1100GS}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | ||
| * ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?'' | |||
| Multiple issues discussed in ]. | |||
| Regarding the relevance of a sepreate sub-section of text about a particular book that has been inserted into a general article page about a particular motorcycle. The talk page discussion has reached an impasse regarding the relevance/non-relevance of this book material to the motorbike and also, therefore, the relevance/non-relevance of sources for such. | |||
| I don't disagree with all of the changes made by Skeptical1800 but they made a large amount of changes in a few days, so I had to do complete reverts. My concerns include removal of information that is reliably sourced. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | |||
| * ''Who is involved in the dispute?'' | |||
| ::Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote. | |||
| :* {{user|Rivercard}} | |||
| :* {{user|Dennis Bratland}} | |||
| :* {{user|Biker Biker}} <small>(Added by DRN clerk after examining dispute.)</small> | |||
| : | |||
| The original deletion of the book material was reinserted by a user who has 35 out of the article's 50 edits, so there may be an issue of 'ownership' here regarding 'outsider' edits. | |||
| ::User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page. | |||
| * ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)'' | |||
| ::User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason. | |||
| Yes <small>(notices given by DRN clerk)</small> | |||
| ::User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason. | |||
| * <small>'' N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>BMW R1100GS<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small> | |||
| ::] (]) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span> | |||
| * ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?'' | |||
| Discussion on the talk page of the article. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> | |||
| * ''How do you think we can help?'' | |||
| ] | |||
| Can we get some form of consensus on what consitutes relevance and trivia? For example, the added text regarding the book may be relevant to an article <i>about the book</i>, but non-relevant to the article about the bike. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> | |||
| ] (]) 15:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Resolve issues with respect to ], ], ], and removal of content | |||
| ===BMW R1100GS discussion=== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div> | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800 ==== | |||
| I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. I've looked at the ] and the ] essay and I find no policy or guideline which ''requires'' the inclusion or exclusion of the material removed in . The essay is only an essay and is not binding in any way; the MoS guideline is, at its heart, about trivia sections not about the inclusion or exclusion of individual items which are contended to be trivia and, indeed, the third bullet point of ] expressly says:<blockquote>"This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by ]."</blockquote>No other policy or guideline has been brought forward to justify the inclusion or exclusion of this information, nor can I think of any which would do so. In light of that fact, then the information must be included or excluded by ]. The information was originally introduced into the article in and has remained there until the current controversy arose with the information being, first, broken into a separate section in , then removed in . It has been restored by two editors since that time. The ] says:<blockquote>"Some discussions result in no consensus. "No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context. ... In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article."</blockquote>There is clearly no consensus at this point in time to support the removal of this long-existing material, so it should remain in the article until a clear consensus has been formed to remove it. If the editor wishing for the content to be removed desires to attract additional editors to the question, then a ] would be the best way to do so. My personal feeling is that while the material is unquestionably marginal that it could be of importance to some readers and, indeed, supports the ] of the subject of the article, so my support would be for continued inclusion. Regards, ] (]) | ] 17:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> | |||
| ::Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote. | |||
| '''Clerk's note:''' I have reopened this discussion () pursuant to the request made at ]. The requesting party, ], must notify the other parties to the discussion that the discussion has been reopened before posting here. — ] (]) | ] 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''Supplement:''' The discussion is being opened to at least consider the effect of ] on the discussion. It should be noted that ] expressly makes ] also applicable to motorcycles, not just automobiles. It is to be noted that ] is not a policy or guideline, but is instead part of "an information page that describes communal consensus on some aspect of Misplaced Pages norms and practices. While it is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Misplaced Pages practices and policies." — ] (]) | ] 20:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page. | |||
| ::Here is the quote in question. It is about nation-state identity in the sense of modern nation-states. It is not about the presence of ethno-linguistic groups: | |||
| :First, to ], thank you very much for reopening this discussion to give me the opportunity to reply with newly found code information. | |||
| ::''"Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism"'' | |||
| :More importantly, it is to provide an answer to two assertions on the noticeboard: | |||
| :<b>(1)</b> 'I've looked at the ] and the ] essay and I find no policy or guideline which ''requires'' the inclusion or exclusion of the material removed in .' | |||
| :<b>(2)</b> 'No other policy or guideline has been brought forward to justify the inclusion or exclusion of this information, nor can I think of any which would do so.'<br> | |||
| ::User has repeatedly removed information from peer reviewed genetic paper suggesting an Armenian presence in Urartu. Here is that source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The following quote from this paper was included on page. User removed it. | |||
| :Point (2) was absolutely correct at the time on the 'other policy/guideline' issue, and I have to shoulder some blame here for not searching out the most apposite Wiki code. Apologies for that. But that is why I think it is especially important that we can now raise the following communal consensus: | |||
| ::''Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon.'' | |||
| ::<b>"Trivia and popular culture sections</b> | |||
| {{Shortcut|WP:WPACT}} | |||
| ::The following information from the same paper was also included on page. User removed it, stating it didn't have anything to do with geographic "core Urartu," although the page in question says in first and second sentences that Urartu includes Lake Urmia region/Iran: | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages generally does not support the addition of ] and ] sections within articles. There is a tendency for such sections to degenerate into long lists of movie and TV show appearances, song lyrics, and the like. Similarly, lists of celebrity owners of cars (etc.) tend to grow to inappropriate length. The guideline that has been widely accepted for automotive subjects is that mention of <i>pop-culture references should be strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle</i>. <b>It is not sufficient to note that the vehicle had a major influence on its owner or some movie or TV show — <u>such facts belong in the article about the owner, movie or TV show</b></u>." | |||
| ::''"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there"'' | |||
| : In principle, I’ve already been arguing exactly the highlighted points above - (especially re: the importance of the motorbike to Neil Peart <u>not</u> being the same as the importance of Neil Peart to the motorbike's entry) - and I’ve been putting them on the entry’s (]) page (I won’t copy/paste them all here). But this is the first time I’ve been able to present an <u>exact</u> Misplaced Pages consensus code that explicitly expresses the same. | |||
| ::So user's geographic exclusions seems arbitrary and based on their own definitions, which contradict both peer-reviewed source material, and also the very page this dispute is about. User has no issue including sources and information about other far-flung regions of Urartu (such as northern Iraq, central Turkey). | |||
| : Obviously this miscellany/relevence problem with vehicles has arisen before hence why the hard work of consensus-seeking in <b>WP:WPACT</b> has already been done on the subject by many other Wikipedians. (And, to be fair to ] (]), perhaps he was also unaware of the existing consensus of WP:WPACT.) | |||
| ::User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason. | |||
| :I do think it is an extremely important point in principle that there is no elitism on Misplaced Pages and that communal consensus clarifications are seen to be enacted equally, regardless of the insistence otherwise of editors that may have some historical ‘investment’ in an entry. That’s all I ask. Thanks. | |||
| ::Here is the quote in question: | |||
| :Regards. ] (]) | |||
| ::''"That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestor with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986)"'' | |||
| :*'''Comment''' ] is neither a policy nor a guideline (see ]). ] is useful as a minimum standard for appearances in movies and such ''with no well-sourced cultural impact'' to go with it (). As a minimum standard, if the appearance affects the car's design, sales, etc. then you can positively say the appearance belongs in the article about the car, even if the cultural significance has no reliable sources to back it up. But that doesn't mean you then have license to delete all material that doesn't meet WP:WPACT. The more general Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines have precedence, and those don't justify deleting well-sourced material that is considered culturally and socially important by many reliable sources. Examples: ], ], ]...<P>It is an error to think that the primary purpose of a Misplaced Pages article about a car or motorcycle is to recite the design details and engineering specifications. The policy ] makes that point. The same policy underscores that once again with ]. AKA WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTPLOT. With regard to fiction plots, it says "Misplaced Pages treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing ''the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary''." A good article about a book is not merely a detailed recitation of the contents of the book -- a mere plot summary. On the contrary, that is kept to a minimum, and instead the critical reaction and cultural impact is the primary purpose of the encyclopedia article. It says the same thing about song lyrics -- Misplaced Pages is not a database of lyrics; we write articles about the effect the song had on culture, and what the critics said.<P>So a Misplaced Pages article about the BMW R1100GS motorcycle should not be mere a list of statistics and technical facts. Giving sales figures and production numbers and what kind of fuel injection it had is nice, but that's not terribly encyclopedic. The policy in fact tells us to not overdo such statistics and repair manual data. Instead, ''the main point of an encyclopedia article about the BMW R1100GS should be the critical reception and the cultural impact.'' Neil Peart's book is perhaps the greatest cultural effect of this motorcycle. The policy ] has precedence and tell us to do almost the opposite of WP:WPACT in this case. Provided authoritative sources exist to support it, and for Peart's ''Ghost Rider'', as with the examples of the Brough SS100, XR-750, and CB77 linked above, sources are copiously available.<P>If anything, WikiProject Automobiles ought to either delete or rewrite WP:WPACT so as to cease the appearance of contradicting policy. It might be a good idea to transclude this discussion at ] or ] to see if anyone there wishes to defend WP:WPACT. --] (]) 04:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::User repeatedly omits following two sentences. While user admits Hurro-Urartian languages "may" be related to Northeast Caucasian languages, full quote reveals this connection is controversial and far from accepted. | |||
| ::''"The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely."'' | |||
| :*'''Comment''' | |||
| ::<p>Dear Dennis, the first argument you presented on the article talk page was: <i>‘I found several sources that show that Peart did not ride just any motorcycle. It actually mattered that the bike in his book was a R1100GS. See</i> '. <p>Now, that appears well sourced. But, when we look more closely: <p><b>source </b> simply says - ‘BMW off-road machine owned by Neal Peart of the Canadian rock band Rush’<br> <b>source </b> is a six-page/1,400 word excerpt showing ONE mention of the bike and it is only: <i>‘his wife Jackie bought him a BMW R100GS for Christmas 1993’.</i><br> <b>source </b> is a magazine exerpt that does not even mention the bike by name.<br> <b>source </b> is a Google page with 10 search results - 3 are about motorbikes but <u>none</u> mention the R1100GS; the other 7 results are websites for <u>pedal</u> bikes not motorbikes.<p> | |||
| :::So, this is very weak sourcing (in fact, most should be deleted), and none of it proves the opening claim, yet it is presented as if conclusive. It actually more proves why the Peart/book section should <u>not</u> be included on the R1100GS bike's entry page. | |||
| ::<p><u><b>YOUR POINTS</b></u>:<br><b>(1)</b><i><font color=green>'] is useful as a minimum standard for appearances in movies and such.'</i></font color=green> | |||
| :::<p>No, it is not just ‘for appearances in movies’ - please note: PACT states <b>‘It is not sufficient to note that the vehicle had a major influence on its owner,</b> <i>or</i> some movie <i>or</i> TV’ - so the movie appearance point is secondary to the primary point of relationship to owner. You are skipping the primary point (which applies here) and leapfrogging over it to a secondary point (which doesn't apply). | |||
| ::<p><b>(2)</b> <i><font color=green>'Don't justify deleting well-sourced material that is considered culturally and socially important by many reliable sources.</font color=green></i><b>Examples: ], ], ]</b>...' | |||
| :::<p> As has been demonstrated in first paragraph - (re: ,,,) - it is <u>NOT</u> well sourced and the so-called ‘cultural significance‘ is highly questionable. ‘Cultural significance’ is a phrase that should be used sparingly and only where it applies (i.e. the drummer in a non-culturally significant rock band using a motorbike is nowhere near a definition of cultural significance - So, your example, source <b>]</b>, is of the genuinely significant figure of TE Lawrence <i>(Lawrence of Arabia)</i> dying on a certain motorbike. But this only proves the case for deletion of the Peart book and disproves the case for inclusion - because: TE Lawrence, culturally significant? - <i>Yes</i>. Neil Peart? - <i>No</i>). | |||
| ::<p><b>(3)</b> Your example, source <b>]</b>, is the most damning - it first seems to prove that the book ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ should be on the entry page for the Honda CB77... but really it shouldn't. And you agree, because, if we look in the revision history, we can see that you yourself <i>deleted mention of the book</i> on the bike page because ‘(Make and model motorcycle isn't mentioned in the novel.)’ - but now you seek to use it as proof of the opposite? This doesn't make sense.<p> It makes even less sense when the next day, without explanation, you reinserted the ’Zen’ piece with a subject heading and some references. But references are not adequate support for material <b>that should not be there in the first place</b> - then it just becomes <i>referenced</i> trivia rather than <i>unreferenced</i> trivia. So the reason you first deleted it still stands. <u>Which is exactly the point.</u> And this is the same point that applies to the Peart book section on the R100GS entry. | |||
| :::<p>Again, your ‘evidence’ here unintentionally proves the case for <i>deletion</i> of Peart’s book and not for its continued inclusion. And also further proves the relevance of ] | |||
| ::<p><b>(4)</b><i><font color=green> 'It is an error to think that the primary purpose of a Misplaced Pages article about a car or motorcycle is to recite the design details and engineering specifications. The policy WP:NOTMANUAL makes that point.'</font color=green> | |||
| :::</i><p>I'm afraid that is cherry-picking policy points; the policy article you quote also says <u>‘In any encyclopaedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful’</u> and <u>‘there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done’</u>. And removing non-culturally significant information does not reduce the R1100GS page to a handbook. You seem to be using criteria for <i>what shouldn’t be there</i> as justification for <i>what should</i>. One does not follow from the other; included information has to stand independently. | |||
| ::<p><b>(5)</b><i><font color=green> 'It says the same thing about song lyrics -- Misplaced Pages is not a database of lyrics; we write articles about the effect the song had on culture, and what the critics said.'</font color=green></i> | |||
| :::<p> Again, this speaks to cultural significance - which your previous sources have failed to establish - and the policy quote regarding books and songs does not indiscriminately apply to <u>all</u> books and songs - it would only be relevant to the ones where a good case could be shown. That is the whole point. | |||
| ::<p><b>(6)</b><i><font color=green> 'Giving sales figures and production numbers and what kind of fuel injection it had is nice, but that's not terribly encyclopaedic. The policy in fact tells us to not overdo such statistics and repair manual data.</font color=green></i> | |||
| :::<p>Well, ‘not overdoing’ statistics is a point <i>in and of itself</i> : it is not a point that justifies other non-significant inclusions. The two are not linked. | |||
| ::<p><b>(7)</b><i><font color=green> 'Neil Peart's book is perhaps the greatest cultural effect of this motorcycle.'</font color=green></i> | |||
| :::<p> Once again, cultural effect not proven; (and such effect the book might have would come from Peart's description of how <u>travel</u> can help with grief, not how a particular <u>motorbike</u> can do that). | |||
| ::<p><b>(8)</b><i> <font color=green>'Provided authoritative sources exist to support it, and for Peart's Ghost Rider, as with the examples of the Brough SS100, XR-750, and CB77 linked above, sources are copiously available.'</font color=green></i> | |||
| :::<p>Here you raise for a second time the examples of your <b>1,2,3,4</b> and <b>A,B,C</b> 'sources' that have really been proven very weak (or non-existent) and even contradictive to your own case. Those examples still more heavily make the case for <u>non-inclusion</u> of the Peart book material. | |||
| ::<p><b>(9)</b><i><font color=green> 'If anything, WikiProject Automobiles ought to either delete or rewrite WP:WPACT so as to cease the appearance of contradicting policy.'</font color=green></i> | |||
| :::<p>This is so hubristic it almost offends: to argue for the <u><b>deletion</b></u> (seriously?) of a useful and hard-earned Misplaced Pages consensus <i>just because it does not support your own personal view</i> says something, I think, about even the proposer's own lack of confidence in the evidence provided (and especially when you have cited WP;PACT yourself.) | |||
| ::<p><br>I would humbly suggest that the proposal to keep the Peart book section is a classic form of ‘overvaluation’ and 'over defense' of the material. Fan fervour can be good - without great enthusiasm there would be no Misplaced Pages - but it can also effect objectivity. (And not sure why motorcylists seem particularly aggressive about 'their' edits - is it something to do with the tightness of the riding suits?) <p>Hope this hasn't been too long (but, well, what else have we got to do...) | |||
| ::<p> Regards | |||
| ::] (]) 04:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC) <p> | |||
| :::I've placed a ] warning on your talk page. This is getting far out of hand and needs to stop. --] (]) 04:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I have not yet been involved in this discussion but I have just looked at the article and section in question, the WP guidelines on relevance and WP:WPACT. From the perspective of a fresh set of eyes on this article, the Ghost Rider section, as now written, does not appear to have a strong relevance to the article. But I think the connection could become more apparent by revising the language of that section. What throws the reader off is that the focus of the section as written is Neil Pearl, not the motorcycle. I would think that someone who has read the book could find a perspective there that emphasizes the characteristics of the motorcycle/the experience of the motorcycle as crucial to the author's healing process. A brief but prominent mention of these might bring the section back onto the topic of this article. If it's not there in the book, then the section does not seem relevant.] (]) 04:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)<br><br> | |||
| ::User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason. Such as https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu | |||
| :: Re: <i>comment 04:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)</i> | |||
| ::From my sourced and researched rebuttal of the argument against deletion there is perhaps one word ('hubristic'), and there is, at the end, a small joke about the tightness of riding suits(!), which was an obvious attempt to lighten any ranquor that may have developed during this discussion (levity <i>is</i> allowed; we are humans, not bots!). So I think that hardly constitutes the description above of 'getting far out of hand'. | |||
| :::(Note: Unless the user ] is referring to the use of the word 'aggressive' in the lighthearted aside about riding suits; in which case I'd like to refer Dennis back to his own quote on the BMW R1100GS ] page: <i>"I aggressively deleted mention of the movie as trivia,"</i> - Dennis Bratland'. (Also important to note, even over guidelines such as good faith, Misplaced Pages policy clearly states that this <i>'does not prohibit discussion and <u>criticism</u>.'</i> And criticism is <i>not</i> the same as uncivility.) | |||
| ::User's instance Armenians had nothing to do with Urartu is contradicted by sourced material on page, such as: | |||
| ::<u><b>However, the most important thing here is this</b></u>: | |||
| ::If we concentrate on the evidence provided regarding the original sources that supposedly support inclusion of the Peart material - (please see <b>, , , </b> and <b>A, B, C</b> mentioned in 'Comment') - we can see that have all those 'sources' have been proved upon examination <u>not to stand up</u> and <u>to not prove the case for inclusion</u>. This is the only evidence that matters. | |||
| ::Robert Drews. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. 2017. p. 228. ''"The vernacular of the Great Kingdom of Biainili was quite certainly Armenian. The Armenian language was obviously the region's vernacular in the fifth century BC, when Persian commanders and Greek writers paired it with Phrygian. That it was brought into the region between the early sixth and the early fifth century BC, and that it immediately obliterated whatever else had been spoken there, can hardly be supposed; ... Because Proto-Armenian speakers seem to have lived not far from Hurrian speakers our conclusion must be that the Armenian language of Mesrop Mashtots was descended from an Indo-European language that had been spoken in southern Caucasia in the Bronze Age."'' | |||
| ::Crucially, when new editors are introduced to this discussion (the Peart material has already been described as 'unquestionably marginal') and thereby also introduce what ] above accurately calls <i>'the perspective of a fresh set of eyes on this article'</i>, it can be objectively seen that the separate section on Peart would be much more suited to an article <i>on</i> Peart himself and not in this BMW R1100GS article. | |||
| ::and: | |||
| ::Another important point identified by Coaster92 is one previously raised in the longer 'Comment' post - <i>'and such effect the </i> <i>book might have would come from Peart's description of how <u>travel</u> can help with grief, not how a particular <u>motorbike</u> can do that'</i> | |||
| ::Paul Zimansky. "Xenophon and the Urartian legacy." Dans les pas des Dix-Mille (1995): 264-265 ''"Far from being grounded on long standing cultural uniformities, was merely a superstructure of authority, below which there was plenty of room for the groups to manifest in the Anatolia of Xenophon to flourish. We need not hypothesize massive influxes of new peoples, ethnic replacement, or any very great mechanisms of cultural change. The Armenians, Carduchoi, Chaldaioi, and Taochoi could easily have been there all along, accommodated and concealed within the structure of command established by the Urartian kings."'' | |||
| ::I contend there is no strong case for relevance to the article and we have yet to see any evidence presented that meaningfully rebuts that. There also appears to be increasing consensus for deletion until relevant sources prove otherwise ("Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument" - ]) | |||
| ::It should be noted that user has referred to the above paper and scholar (Zimansky) repeatedly in their own edits. So why is Zimansky (the world's foremost living scholar on Urartu) reputable in some cases but not in others? | |||
| ::] (]) 13:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)<br><br> | |||
| ::Additionally, there's the question of why information like the following is relevant: ''"Checkpoints: Kayalıdere Castle is one of the important centers that enabled the Urartian kingdom to control the surrounding regions from Lake Van to the west."'' | |||
| :::<u>(<b>Addendum</b></u>: | |||
| :::Also see for further evidence of the Peart material’s inability to pass Misplaced Pages Google Test ] . A Google search (Re: the WP:SET for Misplaced Pages criteria for relevance) reveals that in Google search results for the term 'BMW R1100GS' there is <u>no</u> mention of a drummer called Peart in connection with the bike. Similarly, even in the first 14 pages of Google Images under the term 'BMW R1100GS', there is <u>no</u> image of the drummer and the bike.) | |||
| :::] (]) 16:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's a single sentence paragraph that adds little to the article. There are countless Urartian sites, why is this one worth mentioning or receiving its own special paragraph devoted exclusively to it? Not all Urartian sites need to be mentioned. | |||
| == UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann == | |||
| ::To the previous point, there's also the following: ''"Archaeological sites within its boundaries include Altintepe, Toprakkale, Patnos and Haykaberd. Urartu fortresses included Erebuni Fortress (present-day Yerevan), Van Fortress, Argishtihinili, Anzaf, Haykaberd, and Başkale, as well as Teishebaini (Karmir Blur, Red Mound) and others."'' | |||
| <!-- ] 16:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> | |||
| ::Site names are repeated, both here and in other areas of the page. There's no need for this redundancy. | |||
| * {{pagelinks|UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann}} | |||
| ::There are also six paragraphs related to the reading of cuneiform in the Names and etymology section. I don't think this is necessary, it seems like overkill. The point of Misplaced Pages is to summarize information. This is not a summary. Additionally, this information seems to be copied and pasted from some other source (perhaps Hamlet Martirosyan?). It includes lines like the following (emphasis mine): "especially when '''we''' take into account the fact that the names refer to the same area." Why is "we" included here? Who is "we"? How is this Misplaced Pages appropriate? | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| * ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?'' | |||
| ::These issues were corrected in my edits, and user Bogazicili reverted these edits repeatedly with no explanation. | |||
| Editors contend that multiple neutral sources don't support a stand alone article; I contend that it passes both ] and ] for notability. | |||
| ] (]) 22:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Urartu discussion === | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> | |||
| * ''Who is involved in the dispute?'' | |||
| {{u|Skeptical1800}}, if you accept to participate in this process, we can talk all the issues here. | |||
| :* {{user|Udar55}} | |||
| :* {{user|Dennis Brown}} | |||
| :* {{user|TreyGeek}} | |||
| :* {{user|Mtking}} | |||
| I had reverted your recent changes based on ] and had removed content I added that you object to based on ], so we can discuss the issues here. Can you please undo your recent edits? ] (]) 16:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)'' | |||
| ::Undid recent edits, as requested. | |||
| Yes. | |||
| ::] (]) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * <small>'' N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small> | |||
| :::{{u|Skeptical1800}}, you can move this to "Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800" section. Then we wait for moderator instructions. If you accept to participate in this Dispute resolution noticeboard case, we can go over all the issues. ] (]) 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Zeroth statement by volunteer (Urartu)=== | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span> | |||
| I am ready to begin moderated discussion if the filing party and the other editor agree to moderated discussion, but only if there is agreement that we are discussing article content. One editor has discussed an editor conduct issue on a user talk page. It must be understood that the discussion will be limited to article content. Conduct issues may not be discussed here, and may not be discussed at other noticeboards while content discussion is in progress here. Please read ] and ]. If you take part in discussion here, you are agreeing that this case involves a ]. If you want to discuss article content here, remember that the purpose of discussion is to improve the article. So please state what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what another editor wants to change that you want to leave the same. | |||
| * ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?'' | |||
| Are there any other questions? | |||
| Tried discussion on relevant ]; any information offered is avoided. | |||
| ] (]) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Zeroth statements by editors (Urartu)=== | |||
| * ''How do you think we can help?'' | |||
| I agree to discussing article content. Issues are: | |||
| * Removal of content from the lead. {{tq|Following Armenian incursions into Urartu, Armenians "imposed their language" on Urartians and became the aristocratic class. The Urartians later "were probably absorbed into the Armenian polity".}} | |||
| * Removal of content from ]: {{tq|The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds".}} | |||
| * Removal of this content, or where it should be put: {{tq|These languages might have been related to Northeast Caucasian languages.}} | |||
| * Misrepresentation of sources. Specifically, with respect to . Note that this source was misrepresented in other articles such as: ] and ]. So I want to go over the suggested additions by Skeptical1800 with respect to sources and make sure there is no misrepresentation. | |||
| * I have no issues with changes such as switching BC to BCE. ] (]) 18:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Only one party here is misrepresenting sources (i.e. the Areshian quote regarding the presence of Armenians in Urartu, the Zimansky quote regarding Urartians' linguistic relationship with Northeast Caucasian languages). The edits in Proto-Armenian_language and Origins of the Armenians page are correct and not a misrepresentations. They are sourced. May I remind you, this dispute is about the Urartu page, not about the Proto-Armenian language or Origins of the Armenians pages, so that is all irrelevant here. | |||
| {{hat|Comment on content, not contributors. ] (]) 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Your stalking of my activities on Misplaced Pages is alarming, strange, and inappropriate to begin with. | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| Regarding the relevant article, the issues are as follows: | |||
| :::* Article should include genetic information from Lazaridis et al. (2022, peer-reviewed) suggesting a possible Armenian-speaking presence in Urartian-era northern Iran (then under Urartian political domination).https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason. | |||
| :::*Article should include source from Petrosyan (2019, peer-reviewed) (citing other Eisler, Lehmann-Haupt, and Kretschmer) saying that some Urartian kings may have had Indo-European names. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354450528_On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason. | |||
| :::*Article should include source from Çifçi (2017, peer-reviewed) (citing Zimansky) saying some kings of Urartu came from Lake Urmia region, according to Sargon II. https://www.academia.edu/31692859/The_Socio_Economic_Organisation_of_the_Urartian_Kingdom_Culture_and_History_of_the_Ancient_Near_East_89_BRILL The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason. | |||
| :::*Article ''should not'' include Zimansky quote about a possible connection to Northeast Caucasian languages ''unless'' the full-quote is included (emphasis mine): "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). '''The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by man (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely.'''" The final two sentences of this quote were removed repeatedly for no reason. If the full quote is included, it should go in the '''Language''' section. It ''should not'' be in the lead. | |||
| :::*Article ''should not'' include quote from Areshian as it is misrepresented and taken out of context. When taken out of context of paper overall, the quote doesn't make sense. As others have pointed out, the inclusion of this quote is a violation of ] as it contradicts numerous ] included on the page, such as Drews, Diakonoff, and Zimansky. Removal of this quote was reverted repeatedly for no reason. | |||
| :::*Article should generally be edited and cleaned up (including removal of redundant and superfluous information). These edits were reverted repeatedly for no reason. | |||
| :::] (]) 18:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===First statement by volunteer (Urartu)=== | |||
| Verify whether or not this UFC page (and individual other pages) pass ] and notability criteria. | |||
| Be civil and concise. A few of the statements here have not be civil. I will advise the editors again to comment on content, not contributors. If you want to make allegations of stalking or of misrepresenting sources, read ] first, and then report the conduct at ], but we will not discuss content here while conduct is being discussed anywhere. Please use some other term than saying that an editor is misrepresenting sources, which may imply intentional misrepresentation. If you think that another editor is misinterpreting sources, you may so that. | |||
| Do any of the content issues have to do with questions about the ]? I see statements that content was removed. If an editor removed content, or wants content removed, please state whether the removal is because of ] issues, or ], or other reasons. | |||
| ] (]) 16:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Please reread ] and again say whether you agree that we will only discuss content. Please also state whether there are any questions about source reliability, and what are any other reasons for removal of content. | |||
| ===UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann discussion=== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div> | |||
| *This has already been addressed via ] and ]. There is an ongoing discussion at ANI as well . The issue is that many of these articles (including this one) have sourcing from websites that are not independent of the subject matter, as required by ]. Many are also forums or otherwise fall short of demonstrating stand alone notability, which is why so many of the articles have been deleted previously at AFD. There is now a consensus that articles without independent sourcing should be merged into an omnibus article, per the conclusions of the two closing admins at the previously mentioned AFDs and other linked venues. Both admins have already indicated that the current solution is consistent with their closing statements and support the move. As such, several articles like this are being turned into redirects into the main article, where the content is being preserved. The only other alternative is AFD, yet the consensus at AFD is to do what is being done. Additionally, ] has reverted the same edit by both myself and other editors a total of 4 times in 17 hours, clearly a violation of ]. ] (]) 17:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not a single link on this page is to a forum. They are respected MMA news sites completely independent of the subject matter. There is '''not''' a consensus that articles should be moved to an omnibus, merely a suggestion that was acted upon in haste. The discussion is still ongoing at the link I provided above. ] (]) 17:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I will keep this simple, article fails ] as no lasting significance is claimed let alone demonstrated, Udar55 is edit warring, and the use of a edit sum designed to tempt others to start AfD's admins have asked to be avoided in preference to redirecting. This should be closed as it is being dealt with elsewhere.]]<sup>]</sup> 20:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::*This particular issue has already been resolved at ANI, per the DR creator's own comments, ''"No need, I'm not bothering with it anymore. Udar55 (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)"''. The topic as a whole is still being worked out in the other venues mentioned above and cooler and more productive discussion are taking place. Close requested. ] (]) 12:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''Clerk's note:''' <s>I have notified Udar55 that this listing will be closed unless he indicates here that he wishes to continue it by April 2, 2012, 13:30 UTC. It is on hold until that time; please do not post here ''unless'' one of the the other editors wishes to keep the discussion open. (If so, please ''plainly'' so state, do not merely continue the discussion.) <small>Any DRN mediator/clerk should feel free to close this listing after April 2, 2012, 13:30 UTC if there is no request to keep it open prior to that time.</small></s> — ] (]) | ] 13:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC) '''Supplement:''' Hold withdrawn, listing remains open. — ] (]) | ] 18:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I still wish for this DR to be resolved. My comment "No need, I'm not bothering with it anymore" referred solely to the revert edits I was doing on the page. ] (]) 13:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Honest mistake, your comment made it sound like you wanted to drop the issue at hand. My previous comments still stand, that it is being handled elsewhere. ] (]) 15:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I noted above, I'm a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. Though the outcome may be preordained or futile, I believe that the right way to proceed here is to nominate this article for deletion at ]. That forum, not this, is the proper place to bring broader community attention to the question of whether or not an article is notable. Regards, ] (]) | ] 14:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <small>If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 4, 2012 at 14:40 (UTC) because this is not the proper forum for this question.</small> | |||
| Are there any other questions? ] (]) 20:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree to only discuss content. | |||
| == ], ], ] == | |||
| :There is no issue with the quality of sources (although some are outdated as they were published in 1980 or before). However, the editor is misinterpreting the Areshian source ("Bīsotūn, ‘Urartians’ and ‘Armenians’ of the Achaemenid Texts, and the Origins of the Exonyms Armina and Arminiya"), which was explained to editor more than once. Their interpretation of said quote is that ''"'The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds'"''. While the page and sources do not claim that Urartians were Armenians, outside of the context of the full source, this statement can be confusing, and lead to ], as it is widely accepted there was an Armenian presence in Urartu. | |||
| {{DRN archive top|reason=This is already under discussion at ], and if you look at the top of this noticeboard you will see that "It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion in other venues on Misplaced Pages." If you would like to advertise the requested move discussion more widely, I suggest leaving a note at relevant WikiProjects, in accordance with Misplaced Pages's ]. Best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 14:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC) }} | |||
| :Editor removed information derived from the following source (which was published in the same collection as the Areshian source), that suggested some of the etymologies of Urartian kings' name could be Indo-European:https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu This source was published by Archaeopress Publishing. | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Wang Ling Rebellion}} | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Guanqiu Jian and Wen Qin Rebellion}} | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Zhuge Dan Rebellion}} | |||
| :Please note the abstract of the above source (emphasis mine): ''"Some names of Urartian kings have good parallels in the Balkans, the '''others are etymologisable in the Indo-European ground'''."'' | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| * ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?'' | |||
| :Editor also removed information saying some of the Urartian kings came from a region called Armarili, which may have been located near Lake Urmia in northern Iran or may have been located near Lake Van. The section that was removed was: ''"According to Sargon II, the hometowns of some of the Urartian kings were located in Armarili (or Aramali) district, which was probably located to the west of Lake Urmia (perhaps near modern Salmas, Iran) or near Lake Van."'' The following was the source: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/18115/1/Cifciali_May2014_18115.pdf This source is a thesis published by a doctoral candidate student from the University of Liverpool who is now Assistant Professor in Ancient History at Marmara University, and was a Senior Fellow at the Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations, who has published several articles on Urartian archaeology. | |||
| We are disputing if the title should have "'s" after each name. Ex. ''Zhuge Dan's Rebellion'' VS ''Zhuge Dan Rebellion''. One user writes: | |||
| ::''attributive usage of the personal name versus possessive usage of the person's name. I prefer not to use the possessive form, instead using the attributive form'' | |||
| :Here is the relevant passage: ''Levine (1977a: 145, Fig. 1) considered the Ushnu/Solduz Plain as a possible location of Amarili, but Zimansky (1990: 16) proposed a northerly location and considered the Shahpur (Salmas) Plain -a location in the north-west shore of the Lake Urmia.'' | |||
| Another agrees with this statement. | |||
| :Another relevant passage from this source is here: | |||
| My support on the move: | |||
| :''Further evidence in regard to events of this period may be found in Sargon II’s ‘Letter to the God Assur’, where two different noble families were mentioned, one in the city of Arbu being ‘the father's house of Ursa’(Rusa) and the other in Riar as ‘the city of Ishtarduri’ (Sarduri).'' | |||
| ::''Numerous documents state it as translated to Zhuge Dan Rebellion. However, in English, the title could be strongly suggesting that 'Zhuge Dan' is a type of rebellion and suggests something like: "I have ignited a rebellion." "I have ignited a Zhuge Dan Rebellion." So using no 's is dramatically incorrect and/or misleading. Now if we said "Zhuge Dan's rebellion", that is also misleading and/or incorrect. 1) It's suggesting that the rebellion isn't a proper noun, which the rebellion is a proper noun. 2) In a title, every word but "in", "a", "the", and "of" is capitalized unless one of those words is the beginning of the title. Now if we said "Zhuge Dan's Rebellion", the misleading no apostrophe "s" is included and fixed. Now we have a thing, "Zhuge Dan's rebellion". Now that we have a thing, is it a proper noun? Yes, it is a proper noun! But we didn't write it out as a proper noun, let us fix that! :P It's not just any type of rebellion, it's "Zhuge Dan's Rebellion". So the "R" is capitalized. I do understand the possessive usage, but that rule is negated by a proper noun. What if I said "battle of Changban". You all know that it's not correct. Even though the title of that battle doesn't have an apostrophe "s", the "Battle of Changban" is indeed stating possessive usage, even if it looks weird. The same thing applies for "Zhuge Dan's Rebellion"'' | |||
| :The following source was not included, but could be, as it supports the (removed) statement on page, that some of the Urartian kings came from Armarili: ''Riar (Rijar), city in the Urartian province Armarili'' and ''Arbu, Urartian city in the province Armarili''. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/downloads/radner_acta_iranica_51_2012.pdf | |||
| A mini-dispute on what 'numerous documents' state this follows. | |||
| :The above source was from an academic symposium about Urartu, co-chaired by Paul Zimansky, a Urartologist, whose work the editor has cited elsewhere. | |||
| Following, I give examples of articles using "'s R" in the name. | |||
| :The editor misinterpreted the Areshian quote in order to suggest there was no scientific evidence linking Urartians and Armenians. However, this is in direct opposition to numerous sources already on the page (as I have referred to in other comments in this discussion thread, using excerpts from Drews and Zimansky). I added this, which was removed, even after I changed the writing to reflect the editor's suggestions: ''"A 2022 study found that Urartian-era samples from Hasanlu Tepe in the Lake Urmia region of northern Iran possessed ancestry patrilineally related to earlier Bronze Age samples from Armenia. Both groups were discovered to be related to the Yamnaya culture, who are commonly thought to have been the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language. Due to these connections, the researchers suggested the population of Urartian-era northern Iran may have spoken a language connected to Armenian, however, they also said it was possible the language spoken was a non-Indo-European language. However, the study found that Urartian-era individuals from Çavuştepe on the southeastern shore of Lake Van had increased Levantine ancestry and lacked the Indo-European-related ancestry found in contemporaneous individuals from Armenia and northern Iran. The researchers suggested these distinct genetic communities could indicate the presence of Hurro-Urartian and Armenian-speaking populations and their respective geographic positioning during the Urartian-era."'' | |||
| Finally, I explain: | |||
| ::''A noun can always be under possession of a person's name. A rebellion in this case, is an idea. A noun is a person, place, thing, or idea.'' | |||
| :The source was the following: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ This study was published in ''Science''. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | |||
| * ''Who is involved in the dispute?'' | |||
| :Here are the cited excerpts from the source (emphasis mine): | |||
| :* {{user|Lonelydarksky}} | |||
| :* {{user|Kamek98}} | |||
| :* {{user|Deadkid dk}} | |||
| :* {{user|70.24.248.7}} | |||
| :* {{user|70.24.244.198}} | |||
| : | |||
| *Lonelydarksky believes that the rebellion leader cannot have usage of possession of a rebellion. He uses the source: ''Paragraph 7.25 of The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition) mentioned that "Chicago dispenses with the apostrophe only in proper names (often corporate names) that do not use one or where there is clearly no possessive meaning".'' | |||
| *Kamek98 (me) explains that the rebellion is a noun because ''a noun is a person, place, thing, or idea". He states that the rebellion is an idea, therefore the rebellion leader can have possession of the rebellion. He also uses examples from video games and Moss Roberts' ''Three Kingdoms''. | |||
| *Deadkid dk states that translation sources need to be provided. He also briefly comments on grammar: ''On Misplaced Pages we go with the most common usage, so if Zhuge Dan Rebellion is indeed the prevalent usage then no emotive arguements based on an incomplete understanding of English to the contrary will matter.'' | |||
| *IP Address 70.24.248.7 states what he prefers. No sources or backup is provided. | |||
| *IP Address 70.24.244.198 comments on Kamek98's examples of the current articles using the "'s R", linking: ''WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS'' | |||
| :''"An even more striking case is that of the Iron Age Kingdom of Urartu situated in the mountainous and geographically fragmented regions of eastern Turkey and Armenia where the linguistic landscape must have been complex in the Bronze and Iron Ages. The people at the center of this kingdom in the Lake Van region of Turkey (Çavuştepe) and its northern extension in Armenia, were strongly connected by material culture, and were buried only ~200km apart, yet formed distinct genetic clusters with little overlap during the kingdom’s early (9th-8th c. BCE) period (Fig. 2). The Van cluster is in continuity with the pre-Urartian population (~1300BCE) at neighboring Muradiye also in the Van region, and is characterized by more Levantine ancestry and the absence of steppe ancestry. It contrasts with the cluster of Urartian period individuals from Armenia which have less Levantine and some steppe ancestry like the pre-Urartian individuals of the Early Iron Age (1). Our genetic results help explain the formation of linguistic relationships in the region. Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. '''Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon.'''"'' | |||
| * ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)'' | |||
| :Also this: | |||
| Yes. | |||
| :''"When we compare (Fig. 2E) the Urartian individuals with their neighbors at Iron Age Hasanlu in NW Iran (~1000BCE), we observe that the Hasanlu population possessed some of Eastern European hunter-gatherer ancestry, but to a lesser degree than their contemporaries in Armenia. The population was also linked to Armenia by the presence of the same R-M12149 Y-chromosomes (within haplogroup R1b), linking it to the Yamnaya population of the Bronze Age steppe(1)." ''''"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there"''. | |||
| * <small>'' N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>], ], ]<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small> | |||
| :The editor's rational for removal was that the area in question (northern Iran) was not part of the "core" Urartu. However, numerous sources consider this region to be Urartu, and this is the same general region where some of the Urartian kings were said be to be from, according to Sargon II (as previously discussed in above sources). In fact, the Radner source calls Armarili "a Urartian province." | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span> | |||
| * ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?'' | |||
| :Lastly, the inclusion of Hurro-Urartian potentially being connected to Northeast Caucasian languages is fine. The editor cited an excerpt from Zimansky. However, the full quote must be included (i.e. including the last two sentences). I have highlighted the last two sentences of the quote in question, which was repeatedly omitted: ''"That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet yearlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). '''The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely.'''"'' | |||
| We have discussed, set up a consensus, and relisted the consensus. I, tried to set up nomination for speedy deletion between the relist and expiration of 7 days of consensus. That was removed when the consensus was relisted. | |||
| :Leaving the last two sentences of the above quote out give the impression that a Hurro-Urartian linguistic connection to Northeast Caucasian languages is far more certain than the full quote implies.] (]) 21:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * ''How do you think we can help?'' | |||
| ===First statements by editors (Urartu)=== | |||
| Help us find a resolution, or compromise. Comment, or just get this dispute over with. | |||
| == Wesean Student Federation == | |||
| ] 21:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{DR case status|hold}} | |||
| ===], ], ] discussion=== | |||
| <!-- ] 14:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739542861}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! --> | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div> | |||
| {{drn filing editor|EmeraldRange|14:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| * '''Comment by ] (])''' Per the "not" section in the introduction — ''It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion in other venues on Misplaced Pages.'' — There is an open ] at ] . — ] (]) 01:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{cue}} '''Question''' What do the Reliable sources call the event? It's my understanding based on the reading ] that the name needs to be Recognizable, Natural, Precise, Concise, and Consistent. We may apply a few stylistic changes, but the name needs to come from what the reliable sources call the event. ] (]) 12:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Google each rebellion. If I typed in and searched ''"Wang Ling's Rebellion"'' I get 4,760 results. If I typed and searched ''"Wang Ling Rebellion"'', the results are 2,860. If I typed ''"Guanqiu Jian and Wen Qin's Rebellion"'', the results are 1,950. If I typed in ''"Guanqiu Jian and Wen Qin Rebellion"'', the results are 927. ''"Zhuge Dan's Rebellion"'' has 17,100 results compared to the 7,910 results from searching ''"Zhuge Dan Rebellion". '''Note without using "" you will be shown different results because it pulls results for terms relating to any of the words used in the search. The "" pulls only results using the text placed in the "". --] 20:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per ] (and it's subsection about reliable sources), Google Searches in and of themselves do not constitute a Reliable Source. ] (]) 20:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am stating what is the most common term used. --] 20:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What do the '''reliable sources''' call the events? Not common term. ] (]) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::]'s '']'' translate it to ''Zhuge Dan's Rebellion''. Not much Chinese translations follow the '''apostrophe s"''' rule. Most translations are "'s r" but since we are using it as a title it becomes "'s R" --] 00:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: ]'s '']'' doesn't need a Chinese translation. It's already in ]. And I believe you said yourself that you don't read Chinese, so don't quote from a source that you can't comprehend. Please try other sources instead. <span style= "font-family: Fangsong; font-size: 10pt">] <sub> ]</sub></span> 11:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I meant ''Chinese to English''. --] 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | |||
| {{DRN archive bottom}} | |||
| == Artiom Rudnev or Arjoms Rudnevs == | |||
| {{DRN archive top|1=No dispute and no discussion from requesting editor. Feel free to open a new thread should there be a dispute. Regards, ] <small>(])</small> <sup>]</sup> 20:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Artjoms_Rudņevs}} (Current article. Redirects with some history and .) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| * ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?'' | |||
| Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. | |||
| An editor always destroys my changes giving no explanation. The player have changed his name from Artjoms Rudnevs (Latvian) to Artiom Rudnev (proper Russian romanization) by a request to his team leadership. The issue has political echo, because he is a Latvian citizen, but from the ethnic Russian community. In Latvian, every name is distorted adding an "S" to both first and last names. I have a suspicion, that the motivation behind the behavior of this editor is political, because I have provided links from the official site of Lech Poznan (team of the player in question) about the changes. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Wesean Student Federation}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | ||
| * {{User|EmeraldRange}} | |||
| * ''Who is involved in the dispute?'' | |||
| * {{User|Flyingphoenixchips}} | |||
| * {{User|Kautilya3}} | |||
| :* {{user|Oleola}} | |||
| * ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)'' | |||
| Yes. | |||
| * <small>'' N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>I have told him about my concerns on his talkpage<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small> | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span> | |||
| * ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?'' | |||
| I have told him about my concerns on his talkpage discussion | |||
| * ''How do you think we can help?'' | |||
| please tell him not to do changes without reading the citation | |||
| ] (]) 21:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Artiom Rudnev or Arjoms Rudnevs discussion=== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div> | |||
| '''Clerk Comment'''/{{cue}} Where exactly is this dispute? <small>If there is no dispute, this thread will be closed at 20:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)</small> ] <small>(])</small> <sup>]</sup> 20:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''Clerk's Comment:''' There's some assertions by the listing editor ] and ], but no actual discussion that I can find, either. Let me note in passing that I do not believe the team's website, which is the source being asserted by the listing editor, to be a reliable source for the position he/she is attempting to assert. I would also note that despite his assertion to the contrary, above, the listing editor did not notify the other editor of this listing, except to mention it in . I'd ordinarily give that notice myself, but instead I recommend closure for no discussion. — ] (]) | ] 21:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{DRN archive bottom}} | |||
| == Almeda University == | |||
| <!-- ] 12:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Almeda University}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | ||
| * ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?'' | |||
| A couple days of edit warring between a couple of users, myself included. Specifically the dispute surrounds the inclusion of content regarding the etymology of "Wesea" being linked to separatist organisations. Five editors have expressed support to reduce the coverage of separatists organisations on this page about a student union solely based on incidental name similarities. One editor has consistent reverted demanding a consensus before removing content arguing that removing said content is censorship to promote an extreme POV normalising the term "Wesea". | |||
| I have been pursuing the reconsideration of additions to be inserted into a Misplaced Pages entry on Almeda University. As you will see from the below original email, I attempted to make an addition to the entry and it was immediately denied. I then wrote the editor (Orlady) denying the entry addition and submitted the below email two times I also submitted the email to another editor that had once commented on the discussion page concerning this entry for assistance as to how I should proceed. I did not get a return response from that editor either. | |||
| Third party opinion was solicited, but there are more than two editors involved. I am following content resolution guidelines as parties have been mostly civil in discussing the consensus before asking for a formal RfC. | |||
| I have failed to receive any correspondence to my emails. I would now like to pursue this effort through resolution channels. I appreciate your consideration and attention to this matter and I eagerly await your response. | |||
| Should I need to pursue the reconsideration of my entry addition in another matter I would appreciate that information as well. | |||
| {{collapse top|Text of email}} | |||
| Email: | |||
| Dear Misplaced Pages Editor – | |||
| I am writing concerning a recent addition I attempted to make to a Misplaced Pages entry on “Almeda University”. The addition was rejected according to an email I received for the following reason: “Using Misplaced Pages for advertising or promotion on Almeda University”. | |||
| Additionally, there is a deletion discussion underway, but it is separate to this content dispute and is itself leaning towards keep (or at least not approaching a deletion consensus) | |||
| I would like to dispute this fact and ask for reconsideration. If not, then I request information as to how to proceed to better submit the information for acceptance. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> | |||
| I added the following: | |||
| • A new citation link: 25. Almeda University Web site, retrieved February 23, 2012 | |||
| ], | |||
| • Almeda University topic area: | |||
| ], | |||
| Almeda University (also called Almeda College, Almeda College & University, or Almeda International University) is an unaccredited American institution that offers various academic degrees through distance education, including a "Life Experience Degree" and non-credit courses featuring award-winning content taught by best-selling authors, interviews with industry leaders, and lectures from technology experts . (Please note that this added information is not self-promotional but rather a more in-depth wording to explain what a life experience degree involves.) | |||
| ], | |||
| ] | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> | |||
| • History Area: | |||
| Almeda was founded in 1997 and currently has an address in Boise, Idaho. Bears' Guide says that they could not locate the physical address of the institution and were told by reception that Almeda University is a "web only" institution. As of 2005, the Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization reported that Almeda had been closed by legal action in Florida but might still be operating there, had been based in Georgia for a brief time, and also was using an Idaho address. Almeda is a non-traditional, web based distance learning educational institution. Unlike traditional colleges and universities, they have no residency requirements, no buildings or campus, or full-time faculty. (Please note that the added information is offering a clarification and more in-depth wording to the line “web-only institution” listed in the previous text before the addition.) | |||
| Provide additional unbiased perspectives and review of sources to reach consensus on content dispute, or recommend more formal processes | |||
| • Programs and Courses Area: | |||
| Almeda University offers associate, bachelor and master degrees using "Prior Learning Assessment" and also master and doctorate programs in business and theology that require the completion of a thesis or dissertation, according to its website. Almeda University also offers some 1,000 nondegree technical and business courses and certification preparation programs by e-learning. Almeda University offers a wide range of Life Experience and online degree programs for Associate, Bachelor and Master degree levels . Life Experience degrees awarded by Almeda University include: Bachelor of Business Administration, Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Commerce, Bachelor of Divinity, Bachelor of Science, Bachelor of Social Work, and Bachelor of Theology. (Please note that the added information is further in-depth information clarifying the previous text much as you would find in hundreds of other Misplaced Pages entries) | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by Flyingphoenixchips ==== | |||
| The entry I attempted to make was rejected on February 23, 2012. | |||
| Before making the additions I educated myself as to what information would be appropriate by reviewing other entries in Misplaced Pages. While some were very self-promoting I did not go in that direction. I did try to add factual information that was cited to the Almeda University site and can be easily found there. However, if simple factual information is not allowed for the Almeda University entry as above then I would like to direct your attention to the following entry from Florida State University (http://en.wikipedia.org/Florida_State_University) and inquire as to why this is allowed: | |||
| • "The Florida State University aspires to become a top twenty public research university with at least one-third of its PhD programs ranked in the Top-15 nationally" cited to the University’s own strategic plan (^ "Strategic Plan_05-13 – Florida State University, p.17". The Florida Board of Governors. June 9, 2005. Retrieved August 26, 2009.) | |||
| My argument was basically that this constitutes ] as the current information, gets away from its nominal subject which is the organization, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. It was alleged that by not talking about the term makes this a Fansite. There are no sources added that links the use of the term by the organisation in the context of separatism, and its not relevant to include unless a source establishes it in context of the "organization". '''Not talking about separatists doesn't make the article a fansite because the focus remains on the student group and its activities, adhering to the topic's scope.''' Even amongst the sources cited, they only mention Wesea once or twice '''(Wesea is not the primary or even secondary subject of the sources)''', and there is no source that explicitly is only about Wesea (from what I found). However if anyone find sources, that links this particular organisation with insurgents, then for sure and definitely must include this information, protecting Misplaced Pages's integrity. Also as another other user had brought this up, '''I would also agree with that user for the addition of etymology in the article, provided there are third party sources, that talks about the term in context of the Organization thats the subject of the article.''' | |||
| • As well as statements such as “The Florida State University athletics programs are favorites of passionate students, fans and alumni across the United States…” | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by Kautilya3 ==== | |||
| • "Students spend 20 to 24 hours with an instructor during each course, compared with about 40 hours at a traditional university. The university also requires students to collaborate by working on learning team projects, wherein the class will be divided into learning teams of four to five students. Each learning team is assigned a team forum where team members will discuss the project and submit their agreed upon portions of the learning team assignment for compilation by the nominated learning team leader. The concept of learning teams is somewhat uncommon in traditional academia; however, the University of Phoenix believes that collaborating on projects and having individuals rely on each other reflects the real working conditions of the corporate world" | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> | |||
| The information I attempted to add into the Almeda University is simple information that is in line with what is included in entries for other online diploma based businesses, online schools, universities, and colleges and with what I noted above that is included in the Florida State University entry. | |||
| === Wesean Student Federation discussion === | |||
| I am aware that there is negative information posted to the Almeda University entry. I am not trying to remove any negative information. However, there has been an aggressive smear campaign against Almeda University. Some of the information can be disputed and I have yet to discover how to address that issue but that is not my concern at this time rather I would like to begin by addressing why the additional information was not allowed to be added that was rejected on February 23, 2012. | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> | |||
| Hey there, I’m Steve, and a volunteer here at DRN. Just noting I intend to provide some assistance with this dispute, and I’ll wait for the comments of the involved editors before reviewing more fully. Also, I’ve noted the in progress AFD, so I may decide to put this on hold until there’s a clearer consensus on the status of this article, but given the good-faith dispute resolution attempts that have taken thus far, I’m not inclined to close this in just yet. Of course, if the AFD is closed as delete, this would be moot, but I agree it doesn’t look to be trending that way as of this moment. Thanks! <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 14:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Jehovah's Witnesses == | |||
| There are other entries such as the one for Strayer University which does not include the negative news and press stories associated with them which are similar to those found in the Almeda University entry. I am confused as to why the Almeda University entry contains information that is heavily laden with negative information and others are not (even where there is negative press easily found). I do not at this time wish to address the rebuttal or removal of false information but will do that at another point. I would like to simply inquire as to why direct factual information cannot be added to the site that is in line with what appears on other entries. I feel the negative information currently in the Almeda University entry may have prejudiced the new information from being accepted. | |||
| {{DR case status|open}} | |||
| The concept of online education was once considered a gimmick or a cheating process toward a degree. Today it has found acceptance and popularity as most major universities now offer some online educational courses as well as degrees. In addition there is now a growing movement in both public and private institutions to offer life experience credit and work experience credit toward degrees. The need to offer a cost effective way for late entry students and working students to graduate is moving this trend. Almeda University is on the outside of what is currently accepted by many in providing life experience degrees. Almeda is quite open about the fact that this is NOT a traditional path degree but rather an awarded life experience degree that may not be accepted by all authorities. It is rather an alternative path to the traditional degree path much as online education and life experience credit once was before a wider acceptance began to occur. | |||
| <!-- ] 18:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739645857}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! --> | |||
| {{drn filing editor|Clovermoss|18:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> | |||
| I would like reconsideration of the information that was rejected. If not, then I would like to request as to how the information can be toned to better fit acceptance into the entry. | |||
| Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. | |||
| I respect the Misplaced Pages site and your contribution to the work. I look forward to your reply. (END) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | |||
| * ''Who is involved in the dispute?'' | |||
| :* {{user|Orlady}} | |||
| :* {{user|ATaylor667}} | |||
| * ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)'' | |||
| Yes. | |||
| * <small>'' N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>Almeda University<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small> | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span> | |||
| * ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?'' | |||
| Yes, I have written the editor that denied my additional information to the Misplaced Pages entry twice and have not received a response | |||
| * ''How do you think we can help?'' | |||
| Either reconsideration and acceptance of the additional information or information as to why it cannot be accepted and how best to proceed from that point to get information added. | |||
| ] (]) 12:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Almeda University discussion=== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div> | |||
| {{cue}}Hello there. Is it possible you could break up your original description of the problem into distinct paragraphs? As it currently stands it's very difficult to discern what the problem is.] (]) 12:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Done. Thank you for the suggestion. | |||
| ] (]) 12:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Ok, from what I can tell, your edits were reverted on the grounds that they were overtly promotional and were referenced to the front page of the Almeda University website. We already have a link to their front in the external links section. In addition, your editing suggests a disproportionate interest in Almeda University. Consider branching out into other articles to understand better how Misplaced Pages works. ] (]) 12:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree entirely with my colleague, Hasteur, but would like to add that comparing one article to another will not get you anywhere in discussions here. In Misplaced Pages, each article stands or dies on its own merit: for a detailed explanation see ]. Regards, ] (]) | ] 14:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have limited internet access at the moment, so I am not in a position to respond beyond saying that Hasteur and TransporterMan have made points that I agree with, and I wonder if ATaylor667 chose this time to start this discussion because I had not edited since 27 March. --] (]) 17:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| This is an article where a handful of ] have a long history of trying to make Almeda look better. Orlady, as most of you know, is perhaps our leading expert on unaccredited schools and their articles. ATaylor, our solution to "look at the stuff that's bad in Article X; why can't I do the same?" is to try to improve Article X, not to allow other articles to deteriorate to match. --] | ] 17:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| In response to Orlady's position that I have opened this discussion since she had not edited since March 27 is I think an unnecessary comment and of a negative tone. I don't understand the reference to her comment actually, but I opened it because I had submitted the published email twice and asked for guidance and did not receive a response. My opening this discussion was not an attack but simply a desire to receive clarification and guidance. No ill will was intended nor an alterior motive. | |||
| In addition, I don't believe my case was presented in a tone of "because of X allow Y" but rather I was requesting an explanation as to why the information, which is not promotional but factual, cannot be added when in other cases it has been allowed. I do understand that each entry is under the control of the editor responsible for that entry. I simply would like a reconsideration of the simple addition I tried to add (as stated in the email). Could I be guided as to how to better word it that it would be accepted since it is a factual addition, is not promotional, and it is not an attempt "to make it look better"? | |||
| I appreciate your direction all who have responded. ] (]) 17:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *If it is important enough, the prose you wanted to add should have been published by an ] ] so that we can ] the accuracy of the claims. Because there have been previous efforts to minimize criticism and add prose that is complimentary about the article, any addition will be met with skepticism, as such consider proposing on the talk page wording before you add it to the article with a positive confirmation that the text is appropriate. ] (]) 18:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::@ATaylor667: The point that you are missing is that the argument that "in other cases it has been allowed" is, under Misplaced Pages standards, absolutely irrelevant for the reasons stated in ], which I would encourage you to read, along with the linked essay ], before making that argument again. Your edits ''have been'' reconsidered by three experienced editors, Orlady, Hasteur, and myself and all of us find them to be unacceptably promotional. I cannot speak for the other editors, but I am not offering guidance to how they could be rewritten to become acceptable because I do not believe it to be possible: the problem is not a mere matter of form (though there is some of that as well: puffery like "award-winning," "best-selling," and "experts" is especially damning), it is that the content itself is unacceptable. (And I also agree with Hasteur in his last comment, above.) Regards, ] (]) | ] 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <small>If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 4, 2012 at 14:46 (UTC) because discussion has stopped, issue appears to have been resolved.</small> | |||
| == Frank Zappa discography, Template:Frank Zappa == | |||
| {{DRN archive top|reason=See closing note at end of discussion, below. — ] (]) | ] 14:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Frank Zappa discography}} | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Template:Frank Zappa}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | |||
| * ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?'' | |||
| I cleaned up the page ] and the ] to standards established by other discographies and templates, I.E., ], ], ], ], etc. Editors named ] and ] have insisted that the template and discography don't need to be organized and repeatedly proceeded to mix up the album articles with no regard to live and studio original releases, compilations released for promotional purposes or after the artist's death, and all sources which classify albums as studio, live and compilation releases. The current template is an unorganized, unreadable piece of nonsense which would confuse even an established fan of the artist, much less someone who is trying to use these articles for research and has no prior knowledge of the artist's works. --] (]) 19:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Jehovah's Witnesses}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | ||
| * {{User|Clovermoss}} | |||
| * ''Who is involved in the dispute?'' | |||
| * {{User|Jeffro77}} | |||
| :* {{user|DVdm}} | |||
| :* {{user|Friginator}} | |||
| * ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)'' | |||
| Yes | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span> | |||
| * ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?'' | |||
| I attempted to discuss the guidelines with these editors, but they refused to listen, and falsely accused me of edit warring. | |||
| * ''How do you think we can help?'' | |||
| A good start would be informing these editors that they do not own articles. The only solution in my mind is to revert the jumbleization and restore the organized versions of these templates and articles. | |||
| ] (]) 19:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Frank Zappa discography, Template:Frank Zappa discussion=== | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div> | |||
| :This user {{user|Wisdomtenacityfocus}} was {{diff||485121043|485116410|reported for edit warring}} at . | |||
| :I don't claim any ownership of anything. On the contrary, I already said that "''Personally, I'm not even interested in these (—in this case— i.m.o. silly) categories.''" ({{diff||476619509|476541002}}). | |||
| :Not a content dispute, i.m.o. Just an editor who refuses to respect consensus. | |||
| :] (]) 19:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| There is no consensus for your edits. ''You'' reported me because ''you couldn't keep your precious article as you want it'', and as rules state, no one ''owns'' any individual article. --] (]) 21:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''Clerk's note:''' @Wisdomtenacityfocus: As set out in the instructions for this noticeboard, it is only for content (not conduct) disputes ''which have been thoroughly discussed on a talk page'', preferably the article talk page. Mere comments in edit summaries will not satisfy that requirement. I've looked for such a discussion but have found only scattered comments here and there (and most of them about conduct, not content), no substantial discussion. Can you please provide links to where a substantial discussion about the matter has taken place? Regards, ] (]) | ] 19:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : I did not get a discussion. I made repeated attempts to ask for discussion, got no response, and this guy rolled over me because he thinks he owns the article. --] (]) 21:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Is the discussion at ] (which is not one of the articles linked above) it? — ] (]) | ] 19:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::The discussion we're referring to is ], on the talk page for the main Zappa article. ] says he moved the discussion there in the hopes that more editors would see it and respond to the arguments presented. | |||
| '''@Dvdm:''' Can you please point out where (with links or diffs) and when it was that consensus was established on the issue and who was on each side of the consensus discussion so that the mediator/clerks here at DRN don't have to dig for it? — ] (]) | ] 20:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| But first off, I'd like to point out that we've been over this again and again, and consensus seems to point towards the current version of the template and discography, not the one ] has tried to create. No one has been mixing the articles up. No one has vandalized anything and no one has claimed ownership of any articles or templates. ] keeps claiming that editors who disagree with him are "mixing everything up" or vandalizing the article, or claiming ownership. In reality, there are multiple editors who all agree on the template the way it's currently organized. Every album that appears on Zappa's official discography (provided online by the Zappa Family Trust) is organized by decade, and compilations listed elsewhere (such as ], or ], or ], or ]) are currently found in the "compilations" section. There's a separate section for singles, compositions that weren't singles, Zappa's family members, etc. So the idea that the template is random and chaotic isn't correct. With Frank Zappa, there's so much crossover between studio albums, live albums, compilations, etc that it would be impossible to separate the articles by category. ] has attempted to do this in the past, but it simply doesn't work in this particular situation. Is ] a studio album? A live album? A compilation album? It's a ''collection of live recordings from different performances, overdubbed with music, vocals and sound effects added later in a studio, combined with multiple tracks which are sound bites from discussions recorded in Zappa's studio''. How do you put albums like this (of which there are several) into their own section without confusing people? The solution presented in the current version of the template (which ] disagrees with and has continued to change despite consensus pointing the other way) is to combine it with every other album, regardless of arbitrary categories. That's where the decades come in. By separating them based on decades, not only do we avoid repeating the same link twice, but we make the overall list easier on the eye. If separating the articles based on live, studio, complation, soundtrack, etc was practical, I would be all for it. But it simply isn't practical. | |||
| I entirely agree with ] when it comes to other templates. As far as I know, unlike Frank Zappa, those artists have no resource online stating what counts as an official album and what doesn't. The idea of mixing Pink Floyd's studio albums with their soundtracks and compilations is ridiculous. But this is completely different. It's important to organize music templates in the context of what they contain, rather than organizing them according to a perceived precedent set by completely different artists and groups. ] (]) 20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''@Dvdm:''' I keep answering my own questions, I think. Do I take it correctly that states your position about consensus and that the consensus to which you refer is the organization of the template which existed for several months until WNT began making changes to it on 17 January 2012? (I haven't looked at the discography page yet.) — ] (]) | ] 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed, that is the case, and indeed the discussion is at ]. User made a change which was rejected by all other editors. It was also reverted by other editors (not by myself). There was no consensus to make a change so policy requires status quo. User was pointed to that policy on more than one occasion (, , etc...)<p>I.m.o. this user has persistently ignored all arguments (and policies) and chose to edit war over this issue, hence my entry at ] earlier today, where you find the entire history with diffs and dates. - ] (]) 20:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I now see that the same thing happened at the discography. It appears that in both cases someone objected to the change reasonably promptly and that the issue has been in play continuously since that time. Under the circumstances, I ''wholly'' agree with your analysis (i.e. that one ): that it is incumbent upon WNT to build a new consensus if he/she wishes to change the article, that he has not yet done so, and that pursuant to the ] policy that the template and discography must retain the same organization as they had before he/she began making changes. The only exception to this could be if WNT can point to a policy or guideline which requires that one organization or the other prevail, since policies and guidelines state the established consensus of the community per ]. Since WNT has made statements which would seem to claim that such a policy or guideline may exist (I am not aware of one, but I'm not an expert in this area), I'm not going to close this thread immediately but would '''ask WNT to identify any such policy or guideline'''. If no such policy or guideline exists, then this noticeboard is not <s>an appropriate</s> <u>the best</u> forum in which to attempt to establish such a consensus and this thread <s>should</s> <u>will</u> be closed with the recommendation that WNT file a ] at the template page and the discography page if he/she desires to attempt to establish a consensus for his/her point of view. Regards, ] (]) | ] 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your comments. Indeed, I also looked for such a guideline or policy and could not find any. The only thing Wisdomtenacityfocus provided was something about a vagely related partly live/partly studio album ({{diff||473697150|473478172}}, {{diff||next|473705152}}, {{diff||next|473836428}}, {{diff||next|474106003}}, {{diff||prev|474317726}} etc...) which was i.m.o. irrelevant and all easily refuted ({{diff||next|473697150}}, {{diff||next|474106411}}, {{diff||next|474317726}} etc...). - ] (]) 21:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: My objections were not at all refuted. I pointed out that reliable sources categorize albums distinctively as live, studio, compilation, box set, etc. and you ignored the sources and my objections and changed it back despite the guidelines (see ], ], etc.) - also, there is no consensus in favor of your aggressive attempt at article ownership. Please look at the Featured List discographies for ] and ] for example. --] (]) 21:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: (ec) | |||
| ::: ] and ] are not guidelines. | |||
| ::: I would kindly ask you to strike that accusation of "''aggressive attempt at article ownership''". I take this as a personal attack. - ] (]) 21:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * ''Sheik Yerbouti'' is '''''clearly''''' a live album. It was assembled by Zappa as an ''album'', not as a compilation (which would be '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', etc.) - and ''Sheik Yerbouti'' consists almost entirely of live recordings. The album '']'' consists of a disc of live recordings and a disc of studio recordings, and is categorized thusly as a ''studio and live album'', as it has more studio recordings than ''Sheik Yerbouti'', which is a live album with studio elements. --] (]) 21:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to point out that just a moment ago, as this conversation was taking place, ] yet again attempted to change the discography article. I've never accused WTF of edit warring, but this is just disruption, plain and simple. ] (]) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *What disruption? I didn't change your precious formatting to make it readable, I removed the '''reissue''' (a redirect to another article) and the album that has nothing to do with Zappa except for '''one song'''. That is not "attempting to change the discography article". Your changes provide more solid proof that you are not acting in good faith and simply trying to be possessive of the article. --] (]) 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''@WTF:''' I had asked if there are policies or guidelines which control this dispute. ] and ] are projects, not policies or guidelines. I suppose it might be possible that some part of one or both of those projects are identified as a policy or guideline, but it is unfair to expect us to dig through them to find them. Please point out the ''specific'' policy or guideline to which you refer. '''@Everyone:''' Under the rules of this noticeboard, it is wholly inappropriate to make conduct allegations here. Please refrain from discussing one another: talk about edits, not editors. If you have allegations to make about user conduct, please do so at a venue or forum which is intended for that purpose, not here. Regards, ] (]) | ] 21:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Read the style guidelines, compare this discography to, for example, ] - notice the difference? I don't think there's any resolve that may occur with these editors. DVdm falsely accused me of ] citing quotes that aren't at all personal attacks in any way, and Friginator reverted valid edits on ] that had nothing to do with the dispute on the basis that I was editing the article in ANY way, in addition to the false accusations of disruption. --] (]) 19:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Here's an example of where the editors were not even paying attention to the edits they were making. While removing all of my formatting from the template, they ]: '']'', instead of ], and ], which is a '''reissue''' of '']''. Again, this is disruptive. Instead of looking up other artist templates and discographies, as well as guidelines, and seeking additional feedback, these editors have simply reverted my edits on the sole basis that I had made them, regardless of their validity. --] (]) 20:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Also, in regards to the earlier statement, the context of the albums in which they were recorded are that they are studio albums, live albums, compilations and soundtracks, etc. THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EACH TYPE OF ALBUM. That's why it's a good idea to separate them instead of mixing them up and making the templates and discographies confusing and difficult to read, rather than going by style guidelines. Also, they claimed that during a dispute, one should keep the article and template as it is while discussing the changes. THEY DIDN'T DO THIS. They reverted to THEIR preferred version, instead of keeping it in the clean and organized versions of the discography and template. --] (]) 20:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{cue}} '''WTF''', it's been requested of you to link to the exact policies/guidelines that you believe support your position. Instead of providing the information you have been evasive and expected clerks and people who read here to do the legwork to support your position. Typing in all caps is considered shouting in internet locations. Please step back and discuss the content and not the editors. This constitutes the '''2nd''' warning regarding you providing the policies/guidelines and content/conduct. The next action may involve closing this thread with a summary consensus against your viewpoint. ] (]) 20:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| '''Closing note:''' It now being apparent that WTF is unable to identify a policy or guideline which requires his/her preferred organization of the template and discography, there is no consensus for his/her edits and the template and discography should retain the organization which they had before WTF edited them, for the reasons explained in my posting, above, of 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC). If WTF wishes to build consensus for his/her preferred version, I would recommend the use of a ]. Regards, ] (]) | ] 14:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{DRN archive bottom}} | |||
| == Fascism and authoritarian democracy == | |||
| <!-- ] 02:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) --> | |||
| {{anchor|Talk:Fascism#Someone is complaining about the length of the intro, if we reduce it, it will have problems}} | |||
| * {{pagelinks|Fascism}} | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> | ||
| * ''Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?'' | |||
| Dispute over fascism's position on democracy as a whole. Dispute over whether ''World fascism: a historical encyclopedia'' by Cyprian Blamires is a mainstream source. Blamires' encyclopedia states that fascism rejected that it was against democracy as a whole but that it was against liberal democracy, a paraphrase of this: . I am not making a position of whether fascism is democratic or anti-democratic but am addressing what fascists' claimed its position was.--] (]) 02:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> | |||
| * ''Who is involved in the dispute?'' | |||
| :* {{user|R-41}} | |||
| :* {{user|The Four Deuces}} | |||
| * ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)'' | |||
| Yes. | |||
| * <small>'' N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text'' <code><nowiki>{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=</nowiki>Fascism and authoritarian democracy<nowiki>}} --~~~~</nowiki></code> ''in a new section on each user's talk page.''</small> | |||
| There is an ongoing argument between another editor and I about how information should be presented in the lead. Part of this is about the first sentence, but the disagreement in its entirety affects the whole first paragraph. I tried to do a bold rewrite of the lead on December 12, but it was objected to on January 10. My concerns about the lead have been about making it less sea-of-bluish, giving a better overview to non-specialist readers by emphasizing the Bible Student connection, and mentioning that it is generally classified as a Christian denomination because that is true; the clarification feels nessecary because reliable sources also discuss how there is significant disagreement about other labels like new religious movements. Because explaining that in the middle of the first sentence would be hard, I used "religious group" in the first sentence for describing how JWs are an outgrowth of the Bible Student movement. I thought at first that the other editor opposed my proposed changes because of the Bible Student connection, but it's actually about using "religious group" at all. Their objections appear to be that this is a non-neutral term, makes a false theological claim, conflicts with the idea that they are highly regulated and hierarchical organization, ambiguous, and shouldn't be used because "that is essentially how the denomination markets itself to the general public". We've been at an impasse for awhile, a third opinion didn't help much, and I don't see further back and forth between the two of us accomplishing much without more outside feedback. | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''Resolving the dispute'''</span> | |||
| * ''Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?'' | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span> | |||
| I have tried discussing this with The Four Deuces at the talk page, I have addressed the users concerns about other sources, and I have provided a mainstream source that the user requested, the Blamires source that is available at multiple Anglophone world universities' libraries - including the Harvard University's library . The user refuses to accept the source and denies that what it says is significant and goes on to complain that no mainstream source has been provided - denying that Blamires is a mainstream source. | |||
| ] | |||
| Talk page section link: ] | |||
| <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span> | |||
| I think that maybe things are a bit tense between us because we're the two main editors in the topic area. I'm a relative newcomer to it, only really seriously starting to edit it in 2022. Jeffro's been editing there a much longer time. So when we disagree, things end up at somewhat of an impasse because one of us needs to agree with the other in order to move forward. I don't know if that will really help you dissolve the dispute in any way but it's useful background. | |||
| What would help is the following: <br>'''(1)''' Determining whether Blamires' encyclopedia is a mainstream reliable source. <br>'''(2)''' Determining whether the issue of fascism's claim to be democratic warrants attention for the intro - as fascism is often claimed to be completely anti-democratic. <br>'''(3)''' Reviewing other articles on other ideologies that have similarly been claimed to be anti-democratic by others but are claimed to be democratic by themselves - such as ], ], or others.--] (]) 02:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by Jeffro77 ==== | |||
| ] (]) 02:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> | |||
| In the case of most religious denominations, there is a distinction between the name of the denomination and the term for a group of believers (e.g. Catholic Church/Catholics; Church of England/Anglicans; Church of Scientology/Scientologists). However, in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, the same name is used for both the denomination and the term for a group of believers. It is also common for Jehovah's Witnesses to prefer the usage in the sense of a group of believers. As shown at ], that term is ambiguous and can refer to either, which is not ideal in this situation where the terms for the name of the denomination or its adherents are ambiguous. It would therefore be preferred that the first sentence of the lead clearly express that it is a Christian denomination rather than potentially suggesting that it is just an unregulated group of loosely affiliated believers (like other groups in the Bible Student movement).--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 23:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Fascism and authoritarian democracy discussion === | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''</div> | |||
| The source is a ] because it is an encyclopaedia and can not be used.] (]) 13:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Jehovah's Witnesses discussion === | |||
| # The source is reliable. It's clearly a serious academic book and we can work under a presumption that the information in it is accurate and properly researched. The advisory board appears to include some of the leading experts on the topic, some of whom are frequently used as sources in our article. It makes little practical difference whether we view the book as a secondary or tertiary source. | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> | |||
| # The lead is generally poor and does not follow ], so it doesn't offer a good context for considering the question asked. I think it would be irresponsible to present the fascist view on anything in the lead without properly balancing it with contrasting views. So, mainly for reasons of brevity, I think this should not be included in the lead. | |||
| Hi there, I’m Steve, and I’m a volunteer here at DRN. I’ve had a quick skim of the talk page and can see that the discussion was quite cordial there, and a third opinion was requested and provided. I’ll sit tight and wait for the thoughts of the other editor involved, and we will go from there. Thanks! <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| # I don't think comparison to other articles is likely to be useful. Whatever is says about democracy in, say, ], will be based on the sources on that topic and what editors of that article have chosen to include, neither of which are good guides as to what should be in the article on ]. ] (]) 13:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for both of your statements, let's get things going! I'll review this and the talk page discussion in the next 24 hours, and provide my initial thoughts. After that, we can discuss further in this section (I usually don't break things up into sections). Sounds like a plan? <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 11:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :So then is it a ]? <s>I</s>It could certainly be called an encyclopaedia and be a ] source. But if the encyclopedia is a encyclopedia, it can not be used because it is a tertiary source.] (]) 13:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::That sounds alright to me. ] ] 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::CC, we don't have any rule against using tertiary sources, which is why I say it doesn't make much difference. Looking at the overall quality of the source, it would be absurd to suggest that it is not reliable for our purposes. ] (]) 13:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yep. Thanks. I might not always be able to reply in a timely fashion during the work week.—] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 00:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see the policy has changed. I wouldn't see a problem if it was used to cite a definition or used to provide a quote provided it is given context.] (]) 13:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Steve Crossin}} It's okay if you need more time to reach a decision, I just want to make sure that you haven't forgotten about this since you gave a timeline earlier. ] ] 20:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{cue}} Hello R-41 and TFD. I see things are as lively as I remember at this article! First off, when I looked at the talk page it didn't seem that TFD was disputing the reliability of the source; rather, it seemed that he thought that including the claim in the lede was giving it ]. TFD, have I read this correctly? — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **To be precise, TFD stated: ''The encyclopedia makes only a brief mention of the same passage to which Arblaster refers. Articles are in any case supposed to be based on secondary sources, not what fascists said about themselves. '' That is, a rejection of the source based, it seems, on a claim that what fascists said about themselves is not usable in an article on fascism where the information comes from a standard work on the overall topic. Note also that specialized "encyclopedias" are not in the class of tertiary sources to be avoided. In fact, they frequently represent the only way to determine whether a position is "mainstream" or not. Cheers. ] (]) 14:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not questioning the validity of the source. The issue is moot because the text can be found elsewhere. The issue is what prominence "authoritarian democracy" should receive in the article. The first volume of the encyclopedia, which is 750 pages long, briefly mentions on p. 170 in a section about "democracy" that Mussolini claimed in one speech that fascism was "authoritarian democracy". Arblaster wrote in "Democracy", "Yet Mussolini, or his ghost-writer Gentile, paid lip-service to the term by defining Fascism in the next sentence as 'organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy'". The concept does not seem to have attracted much attention and therefore including it in the lead, or even in the article, would give it undue emphasis. Also, the article appears in general to emphasize obscure aspects of fascism and downplay others. The first paragraph of the lead says fascists "seek rejuvenation of their nation...where its individuals are united together as one people.... seeks to purify the nation of foreign influences...." But there is no mention of the war or the holocaust in the lead. ] (]) 15:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:04, 23 January 2025
Informal venue for resolving content disputes "WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR. |
|
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button 
to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.
| Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Request dispute resolution
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
Become a volunteer
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember:
|
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Imran Khan | Resolved | SheriffIsInTown (t) | 28 days, 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 days, 23 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 days, 23 hours |
| Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) | In Progress | Abo Yemen (t) | 23 days, 8 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 3 days, 12 hours | Manuductive (t) | 1 days, 20 hours |
| Movement for Democracy (Greece) | In Progress | 77.49.204.122 (t) | 14 days, 9 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 5 days, 18 hours | Hellenic Rebel (t) | 5 days, 14 hours |
| Urartu | In Progress | Bogazicili (t) | 8 days, 11 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 7 hours | Skeptical1800 (t) | 1 days, 6 hours |
| Wesean Student Federation | On hold | EmeraldRange (t) | 6 days, 13 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 6 days, 13 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 6 days, 13 hours |
| Jehovah's Witnesses | In Progress | Clovermoss (t) | 5 days, 9 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 4 days, 16 hours | Clovermoss (t) | 7 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Current disputes
Imran Khan
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by SheriffIsInTown on 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC).
 | This dispute has been resolved by opinions at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The content removed in this diff had been part of the article for over six years. It was initially removed by an editor citing WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:GRAPEVINE. Although I restored it, another editor subsequently removed it again. For context, Reham Khan is a former wife of the subject. After their marriage ended, she authored an autobiography titled Reham Khan (memoir), published by HarperCollins. The author, the book, and the publisher are all notable, with HarperCollins being recognised as “one of the ‘Big Five’ English-language publishers,” as noted in its Misplaced Pages article. The removed content was also supported by five other secondary sources. Given the notability of the author, the book, and the publisher, as well as the reliable reporting, the content merits inclusion in the article. The removal occurred without consensus, despite the content being part of the article for years. The material only reported Reham Khan’s allegations, including claims that Imran Khan shared certain details with her. As Misplaced Pages editors, we are not arbiters of truth but rely on reliable sources. Additionally, Misplaced Pages is not censored. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am seeking the restoration of the removed content, along with some expansion to include her allegations regarding Imran Khan’s drug use and same-sex tendencies, all of which are supported by her book and other secondary sources. Summary of dispute by WikiEnthusiast1001Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Violates several key Misplaced Pages policies especially Misplaced Pages:BLP, which states "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." While the book was published by a reputable publisher, Reham Khan's credibility is highly questionable—she has been sued for libel and defamation by one of her former husband's aides. As a result, she lost the case and publicly apologized. This clearly casts doubt on the reliability of her claims. Also, the book was released just 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election, suggesting a potential motive for bias. The allegations have only been repeated by other sources after she brought them up, and no independent or credible evidence has ever corroborated them. This fails Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy, which requires independently verifiable claims, not merely echoes of the original source. It also violates NPOV and undue weight policies by giving excessive prominence to a single, uncorroborated perspective. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC) References
Summary of dispute by VeldsenkPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Imran Khan discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Imran Khan)I am ready to act as the moderator if the parties want moderated discussion. Moderated discussion is voluntary. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom decision on editing of biographies of living persons. Please state whether you agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) and to the community. I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Imran Khan)I agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic. I want to restore the following content which was part of the article for over six years and was recently removed which started this dispute: Khan's former wife, Reham Khan, alleged in her book that he had told her that he had four other children out of wedlock in addition to Tyrian White. Allegedly, some of his children had Indian mothers and the eldest was aged 34 in 2018. Reham subsequently conceded that she did not know the identities of Khan's children or the veracity of his statements and that "you can never make out whether he tells the truth." Reham's book was published on 12 July 2018, 13 days before the 2018 Pakistani general election, leading to claims that its publication was intended to damage Imran Khan's electoral prospects. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC) References
I also agree to moderated discussion and acknowledge that the editing of biographies of living persons is a contentious topic. I strongly object to including the unverified allegation by Imran's ex-wife about his alleged children out of wedlock. This claim solely from her and lacking independent confirmation, violates key Misplaced Pages policies, particularly WP:BLP, WP:BLPGOSSIP, and WP:GRAPEVINE, which discourage sensationalism and unsubstantiated personal claims. Despite the book's reputable publisher, Reham Khan's credibility is questionable as she had been sued for libel and defamation by one Khan's former aides. As a result, she had to publicly apologize. Additionally, the timing of the book's release just 13 days before the 2018 election suggests potential bias. These claims have not been independently verified, failing Misplaced Pages's reliable sources policy and giving undue weight to an unsubstantiated view. As User:Veldsenk pointed out, without further corroboration or direct involvement from the alleged Indian mother(s), this accusation appears baseless. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) References
First statement by moderator (Imran Khan)The issue appears to be whether to include in our biography of Imran Khan the allegations made by his ex-wife. Is that correct, and are there any other issues? Has Imran Khan (or anyone acting as his spokesman) commented on the veracity of the allegations? If so, where? Have reliable sources, such as newspapers, discussed the allegations and commented on their accuracy? The memoir by Reham Khan is a primary source. The policy on biographies of living persons says that extreme caution should be used in the use of primary sources. It says that we may use the material in the primary sources if secondary sources have referred to the primary sources. So a major concern is whether secondary sources have discussed the allegations. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
References
First statements by editors (Imran Khan)Following secondary sources and many others have covered the allegations: Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC) References
Second statement by moderator (Imran Khan)The memoir is a primary source, but secondary sources have reported on the allegations in the memoir, and the content dispute is about whether to report on the allegations. I agreed to consider this dispute at DRN because the filing editor expressed a concern that some cases at the biographies of living persons noticeboard are not answered and are archived unanswered. However, I will take my chances on whether there is an answer at BLPN. I will be putting this dispute here on hold while I see if I get an answer. I have posted the dispute at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imran_Khan, and you may discuss the issues there. Be civil and concise, because that is always good advice about disputes. Please be patient. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Imran Khan)
|
Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Abo Yemen on 19:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Ever since I've translated that page from both the Arabic and Portuguese wiki, Javext (a member of the Portuguese Navy) has been trying to impose the Portuguese POV of the battle and only the Portuguese POV. They have removed sources that represent the other POV of the battle and dismissed them as "unreliable" (Which is simply not true per WP:RSP). He keeps on claiming that because the Portuguese's goal was to sack the city (Which is just a claim, none of the sources cited say that sacking the city was their goal. The sources just say that all they did was sack the city and got forced to leave), which doesn't even make sense; The Portuguese failed their invasion and were forced out of the city. They lost the war even if they claimed to have accomplished their goal.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)#Infobox "Result"
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
The article should include both POVs. Simply removing the other POV is against the infamous WP:NPOV
Summary of dispute by Javext
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Greetings, the debate that the other user "Abo Yemen" and I had was mainly about the result of the Battle, but also about a lot of the content of the article so at that time I decided to bring the topic to the talk page. All the sources that "Abo Yemen" used to cite the content that I removed (the ones I didn't remove, I found them reliable) from the article were clearly unreliable, this has nothing to do with my personal bias or that I don't want to show the Yemeni "POV", if you look at the sources he used you can notice that the authors are completely unknown, their academic backgrounds are also not known. In contrast, when you take a look at MY sources (whether I used them in the main article or in the talk page) they are all clearly reliable, all the authors and their academic backgrounds are known, plus their nationalities vary, so I find it very hard how they would be biased and how I am trying to push just the "Portuguese POV".
Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim. The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory, see:
-"However, the town was found partly deserted, and with very limited pickings for the Portuguese raiding party; nevertheless, it was sacked, 'by which some of them still became rich'"
-"For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage"
-"The Portuguese fleet proceeded towards al-Shihr, a sea-port in Hadramawt, which they sacked." In this source they also include the report of the author of Tarikh al-Shihri, who describes the event, I quote: "On Thursday 9 th of Rabi’ II (929/25 February 1523), the abandoned Frank, may God abandon him, came to the port of al-Shihr with about nine sailing- ships, galliots, and grabs, and, landing in the town on Friday, set to fighting a little after dawn. Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, the 11 Franks looting it first, then after them the musketeers (rumah) and, the soldiers and the hooligans of the town (Shaytin al-balad), in conquence of which people (khala ik) were reduced to poverty."
I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy, see:
-"Anthony Disney has argued that Portuguese actions in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the first decades of the sixteenth century, can hardly be characterized as anything other than piracy, or at least state-sponsored corsairing.' Most conquest enterprises were privately funded, and the crown got portions of seized booty, whether taken on land or at sea. Plus there were many occasions in which local Portuguese governors sponsored expeditions with no other aim than to plunder rich ports and kingdoms, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. This sort of licensing of pillage carried on into the early seventeenth century, although the Portuguese never matched the great inland conquests of the Spanish in the Americas. Booty taken at sea was subject to a twenty percent royal duty."
-"Their maritime supremacy had piracy as an essential element, to reinforce it."
So, with this in mind, we can conclude that just because the Portuguese didn't occupy the city, it doesn't mean it was an inconclusive outcome or a defeat, so unless "Abo Yemen" is able to provide a reliable source where it states the Portuguese had the objective to conquer this city and that they weren't just there to plunder it, the result of the battle should remain as "Portuguese victory". The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off. (as already stated in the sources above)
It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.
Thank you for whoever reads this. Javext (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed.
Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim.
First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research.The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory
Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here.Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.
Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won.Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders.I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy
Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded.The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off.
Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)
" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out...It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.
I told you on the talkpage that I was busy because I was traveling and couldn't bring out a sensible discussion. I do believe that the last message I sent during that month wasn't constructive and I have struck it out. I am sorry about it. Happy New Year to both you, Jav, and the volunteer reading this Abo Yemen✉ 08:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)- "The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed."
- .
- Did you even read what I said? All the content I removed was cited by clearly unreliable sources, their authors and their academic backgrounds are unknown. I could assume that some random person got into that website and wrote whatever, without any prior research. Unless you can prove me otherwise and show us who the authors are, their academic backgrounds and all the information that proves they are in fact reliable scholarship sources, they shouldn't be used to cite content for Misplaced Pages. According to WP:RS, the creator and the publisher of the sources affect their reliability.
- -
- "First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research."
- .
- You are right, you wanted the result to be "Kathiri victory" which is even worse. But in fact, due to pressure, you ended up accepting that the "Inconclusive" result was better. The source from Standford University doesn't state the Portuguese won? Are you serious? It literally states the Portuguese successfully attacked and pillaged the city. This wasn't an ordinary battle, the title of the article can be misleading, it was more of a raid/sack then a proper battle and that's why no scholarship will say in exact words "the Portuguese have won the battle". There was only 2 sources cited in the infobox but I belive that's enough, you can't accuse me of only having 2 sources, since I provided more in the talk page.
- -
- "Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here."
- .
- What's wrong with the book's title? How does that invalidate the source?? It states the Portuguese were raiding the city and sacked it, once again you won't find a source that states exactly "the Portuguese won the battle" because it wasn't a proper field battle or something like that but more of a raid/sack. This doesn't mean the Portuguese lost or that the outcome was inconclusive. What's wrong if they invaded this city other times, literally YEARS after this event. The commanders and leaders changed, goals and motivations change..
- -
- "Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;
- 'For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.'
- Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won."
- .
- I already responded to this above
- -
- "Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders."
- .
- Hello?? "defended itself from the invaders" - Can you explain how the source literally states: "Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, "
- -
- "Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded."
- .
- I could say the same thing to you. If the Portuguese committed acts of piracy and just went into coastal cities to just plunder them and leave, why wouldn't this be another case of piracy? See how this can be a bad argument? You ignored the part where I asked for you to give me a source where it states the objective was to capture the city? Look at this source (in Portuguese) about Portuguese piracy in the Indian Ocean that states Al-Shihr, among other coastal ports, suffered from frequent Portuguese incursions that aimed to sack the city's goods back to the Estado da Índia: "Este podia ainda engrossar graças às incursões que eram levadas a cabo em cidades portuárias como Zeila e Barbora, na margem africana, ou Al‑Shihr, na costa do Hadramaute; isto, claro, quando as previdentes populações não as abandonavam, carregando os haveres de valor, ao terem notícia da proximidade das armadas do Estado da Índia."
- -
- "Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."
- .
- I already stated multiple times why the sources I removed from the article were unreliable and what you should do to prove to us that they are in fact reliable and meet[REDACTED] standards. I am not going back-and-forth anymore. "None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..." Sorry but the last one did, which you chose to ignore it. If the Portuguese successfully attacked and sacked the city you can extrapolate that they weren't driven out.. Javext (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Zeroth statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)
I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read and indicate your acceptance of Misplaced Pages:DRN Rule D. Be civil, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and comment on content, not contributors. Please note that discussions and edits relating to infoboxes are a contentious topic; by agreeing to these rules, you agree that you are WP:AWARE of this.
I would like to ask the editors to briefly state what changes they want to the article (or what they want to leave the same) and why (including sources). Please keep in mind WP:OR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)
I have read and am willing to follow WP:DRND. I am now aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic.
(Do we state what changes we want now?) Abo Yemen✉ 13:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Abo Yemen: Yes. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright,
Changes that I want to be made:- I want the old article section hierarchy and text back, especially the sourced stuff
- The infobox should Include the Mahra Sultanate with the Portuguese as suggested by the source 2 which Javext provided above and the quote that he used from the text
- As much as I want the result to be "Kathiri victory" as per the sources used on the old revision, I am willing to compromise and keep It as "Inconclusive" and add below it that other battles between the Portuguese and the Kathiris took place a few years later in the same city (talking about Battle of al-Shihr (1531) and Battle of al-Shihr (1548)).
- Abo Yemen✉ 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright,
Yes I have read everything and I am willing to follow the rules, I am also aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic. For now, I don't want any changes. I want the article to remain as it is now. Javext (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
@Abo Yemen and Javext: Is the root of the issue whether the sources are reliable? If so, WP:RSN would be a better place to discuss it. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that removing huge chunks of well-cited text is an issue of the reliability of the sources and is more of Jav removing it because he doesn't like it. None of the text (esp from sections from the old article like the Cultural Significance and Losses, which had the names of the leaders that are still in the infobox) had any contradictions with the sources that Jav had brought up and even if they did, according to WP:NPOV all significant viewpoints should be included Abo Yemen✉ 16:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Look man, you fail to prove how the sources I removed from the article were reliable, you just instantly assume bad faith from me. How am I, or any other editor supposed to know a "source" that comes from a weird website, an unknown person with an unknown academic background is reliable in any way? Please read WP:RS.
- If I am wrong then please state who wrote the source's article and their academic background.. Javext (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Use Google Translate's website translator to know what the text says. As for the names of the authors, they are given in those articles. I can give you more sources like this one from Independent Arabia which not only says the name of the author but also has a portrait of him. In fact I can spend the entire night bringing sources for the text that was there already as this battle is celebrated literally every year since the "kicking out of the Portuguese" according to the shihris and articles about the battle are made every year. There is a whole cultural dance that emerged from this battle called the iddah/shabwani (pics and a video from commons) if you're interested in it. Here are more sources from al-Ayyam (A local newspaper that is praised for its reliability and neutrality) and this is a publication from the Sanaa university press (In both English and Arabic). I think you get what I'm saying. Abo Yemen✉ 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's so funny how every source you put in the page of the battle comes from random shady Arab/Yemeni websites/articles that every time I open them it looks like 30 different viruses will be installed on my computer; all the authors are either completely unknown, for example, can you tell me who "Sultan Zaher" is? It's either that or Yemeni state-controlled media outlets which is obviously neither neutral nor reliable. It's very clear it's all an attempt to glorify "yemeni resistance against colonialism" or something like that because when you take a look at REAL neutral sources from universities or historians like the ones I gave, they never mention such things that the yemenis kicked the Portuguese out. If it was true and such a big event that it's even celebrated in Yemen every year, why would every single neutral source ignore that part? Or even disagree and state no one could oust the Portuguese?
- Your link to the Independent Arabia source isn't working. Where exactly is the publication from Sanna university? Javext (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- https://www.independentarabia.com/node/197431/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8Ahttps://journals.su.edu.ye/index.php/jhs/article/download/499/156/2070 Abo Yemen✉ 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's the page in the last link? Javext (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- sanaa uni's journal Abo Yemen✉ 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I asked for the page not the publisher, but nevermind. Once you open a thread at WP:RSN Javext (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- sanaa uni's journal Abo Yemen✉ 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's the page in the last link? Javext (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- https://www.independentarabia.com/node/197431/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8Ahttps://journals.su.edu.ye/index.php/jhs/article/download/499/156/2070 Abo Yemen✉ 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Use Google Translate's website translator to know what the text says. As for the names of the authors, they are given in those articles. I can give you more sources like this one from Independent Arabia which not only says the name of the author but also has a portrait of him. In fact I can spend the entire night bringing sources for the text that was there already as this battle is celebrated literally every year since the "kicking out of the Portuguese" according to the shihris and articles about the battle are made every year. There is a whole cultural dance that emerged from this battle called the iddah/shabwani (pics and a video from commons) if you're interested in it. Here are more sources from al-Ayyam (A local newspaper that is praised for its reliability and neutrality) and this is a publication from the Sanaa university press (In both English and Arabic). I think you get what I'm saying. Abo Yemen✉ 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I believe that is a big issue but there's also an issue in the infobox about the Result of the battle. Javext (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- :
However, the fact that the Mahra occasionally partnered with the Portuguese has been held against the Mahra by Ḥaḍramī partisans as a blemish on their history; in contrast, the Kathīrīs appear to have generally collaborated with the Ottoman Turks (although not always; see Serjeant, 1974: 29). For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage (Muqaddam, 2005: 343-46, citing al-Kindī and Bā Faqīh, and al-Jidḥī, 2013: 208-20).
First statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)
It does seem like that this dispute concerns the reliability of some sources, so I suggest the editors to open a thread at WP:RSN and discuss it there. Once the discussion there finishes, if there are any problems left, we can discuss that here, alright? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
@Abo Yemen and Javext: Any reason why this hasn't happened? This dispute seems to be based on whether some sources are reliable, and it's difficult to proceed if we aren't on the same page regarding that. Once the reliability of the sources is cleared up, we can continue discussing here. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh yes my bad. Ill be starting a thread there in a bit Abo Yemen✉ 09:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Abo Yemen: Any updates on this? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- OH YEAH my bad. I got myself into lots of on-wiki work (2 GA reviews and an article that im trying to get to FL class as part of the WikiCup) and kinda forgot about this. I actually went to the notice board but didn't find any clear guidelines on how to format my request (and what am i supposed to do there anyways); Do I just give some background and list all the sources or is there something else that i am supposed to do? Abo Yemen✉ 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Abo Yemen: I guess give some context, and list the sources in question. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Im actually writing it up rn just give me a few mins Abo Yemen✉ 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Abo Yemen: I guess give some context, and list the sources in question. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- OH YEAH my bad. I got myself into lots of on-wiki work (2 GA reviews and an article that im trying to get to FL class as part of the WikiCup) and kinda forgot about this. I actually went to the notice board but didn't find any clear guidelines on how to format my request (and what am i supposed to do there anyways); Do I just give some background and list all the sources or is there something else that i am supposed to do? Abo Yemen✉ 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Abo Yemen: Any updates on this? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)
Second statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)
The thread at RSN has been archived, and it appears to me that the consensus is that the listed sources are not reliable in this context. Taking this into consideration, what are the issues that remain? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've restored it for a bit wait 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- No issues remain. Without those listed sources there's nothing he can change. The article is good as it is now. Javext (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Commenting as a regular editor
The defenders of the city "were horribly routed." Routed refers to being "defeated overwhelmingly," signifying a decisive victory for the invading forces. Manuductive (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)
Movement for Democracy (Greece)
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by 77.49.204.122 on 18:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
The disagreement concerns the filling in of the infobox on how many MPs the party has in the Greek parliament. According to the website of the Greek Parliament, the party has no parliamentary presence - according to the user who disagrees, the party has 5 MPs representing it in the Greek Parliament. The difference is that these 5 people are independent MPs who belong to the Democracy Movement but do not represent it as they do not form a parliamentary group.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
- Talk:Movement for Democracy (Greece)#5/300 *Talk:Movement for Democracy (Greece)#Disruptive editing *Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Greece#Movement for Democracy (Greece) *Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated pov pushing *Talk:Movement for Democracy (Greece)#Discussion *Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics#Talk:Movement_for_Democracy_(Greece)#5/300 - Dispute over whether the party has MPs or not
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
We need the opinion of other users on whether these 5 independent MPs should be registered on infobox as party MPs in parliament.
Summary of dispute by Hellenic Rebel
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Hello dear users, those are my points:
- Lack of Consensus:
Contrary to claims that the community rejected my point, only two users disagreed with me, while one agreed that the party has 5/300 MPs. The original article mentioned this, and while the page was locked for consensus, no actual consensus was achieved. It should have reverted to its original version.
- Evidence from Sources:
Reliable sources and reputable newspapers (e.g., To Vima, Nea), confirm that the Democracy Movement has five MPs affiliated with it. Also, we have sources that state the membership of this MPs, for example:
- Documento: the five MPs who have left SYRIZA and joined the Democracy Movement..
- Politic: The five MPs belonging to the Democracy Movement
Similar language is used across multiple reliable sources.
These sources clearly describe the MPs as belonging to the Democracy Movement.
- Policy Misinterpretation:
Some argued that specific phrasing in the sources (e.g., “stand for”) was absent, invalidating their use. However, I have identified sources stating that the MPs belong to or joined the party. Later the users tried to interpretate the policies strictly, but this is rigid and inconsistent with similar cases on Misplaced Pages (e.g., SSW, UDI, DemoS). The accepted practice allows acknowledging parties represented by MPs without a parliamentary group.
Additionally, Rambling Rambler used tactics like WP policies overloads (which in reality was not even responding to my contributions as I demonstrate to users through my responses) and ad-hominem attacks, focusing on my block history instead of addressing my arguments, which I find irrelevant and unconstructive.
- Parliamentary Website Context:
The Hellenic Parliament website lists only parliamentary groups, not individual parties represented in parliament. This does not mean a party lacks representation. The Democracy Movement’s five MPs are validly affiliated with the party, even without forming a parliamentary group. Additionally, an MP with no Parl. Group, is called "independent" in the Hellenic Parliament, that's why you see sometimes the term "independent" as a reference to those 5 MPs.
- Request for Fair Evaluation:
I urge users and admins to thoroughly review the discussion and evidence. The version I support is based on clear, reliable sources. If the community, after proper review, agrees with the opposing view, I will accept the decision. However, there is currently no consensus to override the original version.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
P.S.: I am really sorry, I did not managed not to not to exceed 2000 characters, I exceeded them by 500.Summary of dispute by Rambling Rambler
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Functionally the issue is a very simple one. What has been established in fact and which no one is disputing is that five independent MPs are members or in some way affiliated with this new political party Movement for Democracy in a personal capacity.
However Hellenic Rebel wants to move beyond this and state categorically that these MPs have been officially recognised as MPs of this new party within the Greek parliament, something that has not been demonstrated at all via reliable sources. This includes the parliament’s website, where they are included amongst the 24 independents and not as a recognised set of party MPs, and various Greek newspapers where they are referred to as either independent MPs or using more vague language that they are MPs with an affiliation to the party as opposed to official MPs of the party.
The most convincing source against Hellenic Rebel’s desired changes however is that at least one of the five MPs has explicitly said they do not currently sit as an MP for the party but there is an intention to make it official at some point in the future.
While it may seem a minor distinction it is not one that is uncommon, for example an MP may be a member of a party but not presently officially representing them in parliament due to disciplinary matters which can be seen currently for the House of Commons for the United Kingdom and is reflected on Misplaced Pages as well.
Given the status of these MPs would fall under BLP policy and we cannot clearly establish with sources these MPs are officially recognised as Movement for Democracy MPs we shouldn’t be making the claim they are, until such a time as we have good reliable sources explicitly stating they are officially MPs for the party.
Summary of dispute by 77.49.204.122
I am user 77.49.204.122 who submitted the request but unfortunately through no fault of my own, my ip has been changed. I don't know if I can participate, - if I can't, please take the trouble and delete my edit. Since I speak Greek I wanted to contribute with a parliamentary question by MP Giota Poulou
MP Yiota Poulou, who belongs to the Movement for Democracy, when she submitted a question to the Parliament, described herself and the other 5 MPs as Independents belonging to the party. According to the Greek parliamentary concept, as expressed by the Greek Parliament on its website, MPs are described as independent - that is, they do not represent their party in Parliament, but only themselves. On the initiative of the independent MP of Viotia Giota Poulou, which was co-signed by the five Independent MPs of the party "DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT", a Question was submitted to the Parliament on the problem of the road blockade of Delphi due to rockfalls on the National Road of Livadia-Amfissa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.120.7 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Movement for Democracy (Greece) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Hi there, I'm Steve, and I'm a dispute resolution volunteer here at DRN. My approach is significantly different to others that contribute here, and is less structured, but as always, a reminder to remain focused on the content issues at hand. This one is relatively clear cut, but I'll explain in a little more detail, but there are a few content related policies that apply here, broadly the ones that cover articles on living people and reliable sourcing. Both of these are key to any discussion regarding a dispute on content, and even a limited consensus on a talk page, or even here, cannot override our requirement to abide by these article policies. Having read several of the linked discussions, editors have correctly noted the need to observe what reliable sources say regarding the MPs and their party affiliation/membership. While some of the sources that were presented mention affiliation with the party, reviewing the sources provided, the point that the IP editor here mentioned here is accurate: "We care what the sources say. And the sources describe them as Independent MPs who belong to the party. Ιn terms of their parliamentary presence, they are listed as independent. And (sic) infobox is asking for the listing of parliamentary presence."
In this situation, as editors we also weigh the sources provide to ensure we balance coverage in the article, and ensure we don't give specific sources undue weight. While one source was provided that mentions that they belong to the party, the majority of sources provided do not make this distinction. I don't see anything here as a DR volunteer that would give precedence to the one viable source provided against all others, and while it's not my role to make "decisions", the consensus here and in other discussions is quite clear against inclusion in the infobox based on the sourcing provided. As always, consensus can change, but I would advise additional discussions would likely be unproductive without additional, substantial sourcing in favour of changing the status quo. Steven Crossin 04:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Steven Crossin Good evening. I have a small observation to make. There is no disagreement about whether these MPs are members of the Democracy Movement. They are, and this is obvious, the only we wanted was one-two sources to to verify it, and we found them. The disagreement stems from the fact that, based on the rules of the Greek Parliament, the formation of a parliamentary group is not carried out with less than 10 MPs. Thus, these 5 MPs are called parliamentary independents. That's why the sources call the MPs independents. The users believe that the fact that the parliament recognizes them as independent automatically makes them non-representative of the Democracy Movement party. Me on the other hand, believe that the status in parliament is something different from whether and how many MPs each party has in it, citing the above and other similar cases abroad. This is the disagreement, and that is where the community should focus. No more is needed, the rest are just big debates and meaningless fights that confuse the community. So based on this, isn't the logical thing to do to add the 5 MPs bar? Hellenic Rebel (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing this clarification. The discussion that has been had around whether to add them in the infobox as MPs part of a recognised parliamentary group are based on coverage in reliable sources, and the rules of the parliament in question. These are documented in the parliamentary article, too - Hellenic_Parliament#Parliamentary_groups - "A parliamentary group in the Hellenic Parliament should consist of at least ten MPs who are members of the same party. Five MPs should also suffice provided the party they belong to had ballots in at least two thirds (2/3) of the constituencies and got at least three percent (3%) of the total number of valid ballots in the country.. So as editors (and DR volunteers) we evaluate the article and whether they meet that threshold. I can see two parties are mentioned on the Hellenic Parliament page as a parliamentary group with under 10 members, Course of Freedom (with 6) and Spartans (Greek political party) with 5, and according to the results of the June 2023 Greek parliamentary election, both received at least 3% of the national vote, which is why they meet the criteria set by parliament of a "parliamentary group". Even with 5 MPs affiliated with this party, it is clear they are a new party per the article, and did not stand in the June 2023 elections (as they did not exist) and thus, don't meet the defined criteria of the parliamentary body to be described as a parliamentary group, and describing it as such on their own article would ignore the defined rules of the parliament. I'm afraid this is pretty clear cut - unless the governing body changes their defined parliamentary rules for recognition as a parliamentary body, noting them as such on their Misplaced Pages page (or on the parliament page) is not in line with policy. Steven Crossin 21:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Steven Crossin Yes, here is my opinion: are based a) on coverage in reliable sources, and b) the rules of the parliament in question. I agree with a, and in our case there is coverage in reliable sources. I remind, that the term "independent" in the sources, does not contradict the status of party membership: this is evident both from the Parliament's regulations and from the fact that a source refers to "independent members of the Democracy Movement". So, we have reliable sources that consider 5 MPs of parliament to be members of the party, and no source that disputes this. Regarding b, we disagree here. The Parliament's regulations on parliamentary groups are something different with the number of members of each party. Please, just look at the examples of other countries that I cite, and they do not have P.G. but despite this, no one has questioned the appearance of their members in bars. To give an example: "New Democracy, with 156 MPs, could have an internal parliamentary disaggrement, and so the P.G. could decide to create two different parliamentary groups, the «P.G. New Democracy - Liberals», and the «P.G. New Democracy - Moderate Conservatives», without dissolving the New Democracy party itself and without any MPs leaving the party". In this hypothetical scenario, New Democracy would clearly still have 156 MPs, even though it would not have any P.G. that identifies with the party. One thing is the P.G., another is the party... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Hellenic Rebel, thanks for your reply. There's a few things to consider, and a common frequently quoted guideline is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it's more specific to why certain articles can't exist when others do, but it's still a good point here. The presence of content in an infobox in one article doesn't always mean it should be in another article - we weigh the policies and guidelines applicable, plus information we can find in reliable sources. In your examples provided, we can't consider what's the standards applicable in other countries, as the reliable sources here that define inclusion are specific to the Greek Parliament (their regulations on recognised political groups). As discussed above, they have defined criteria for recognising a political group, which this article does not meet. You also mentioned a hypotheitcal scenario where an existing PG splits into two - as per the article and provided requirements from the parliament, if one of the factions had less than 10 members, and didn't have a specific vote share in the most recent election, it too wouldn't be recognised. The Hellenic Parliament article infobox only lists the count of members of recognised political groups, with the remainder grouped under "independents". Adding this proposed bar to the Democracy Movement party would not be in line with policy. Steven Crossin 10:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Steven Crossin Here lies my main disagreement: why should the bar of political parties, specifically and especially in the case of Hellas, refer only to the parliamentary groups of these parties? The articles are clear. They refer to the Movement for Democracy party, the KKE party, the New Democracy party, etc. Not to their parliamentary groups. For example, in the case of France there are different articles for parliamentary groups and different articles for parties (and this is the most correct in my opinion). When you have an article that refers to a party, then the bar should refer to the elected members of parliament who are members that party or represent it. Clearly, the parliamentary group that the party has - if it has one - is mentioned within the article, but the bar simply refers to the members of parliament of the party. There are reputable sources for Greek data that refer to the 5 MPs as members of the Democracy Movement. At the same time, there is no source that disputes this. Is that against the WP policy?
- Regarding the citation of the WP policy WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, yes, I saw it, but I think that in our case, the citation of examples that I made above is NOT something like "since there is an identical article, let's do the same here". In the discussion of the article, I have cited more examples, and in general if we start searching in all the parties of all the countries, the pattern is the same. The examples that I give are simply indicative, and in this case if we don't add the bar, we are creating a "hellenic" exception to the general pattern that is followed everywhere, throughout Misplaced Pages. Hellenic Rebel (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Hellenic Rebel, thanks for your reply. There's a few things to consider, and a common frequently quoted guideline is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it's more specific to why certain articles can't exist when others do, but it's still a good point here. The presence of content in an infobox in one article doesn't always mean it should be in another article - we weigh the policies and guidelines applicable, plus information we can find in reliable sources. In your examples provided, we can't consider what's the standards applicable in other countries, as the reliable sources here that define inclusion are specific to the Greek Parliament (their regulations on recognised political groups). As discussed above, they have defined criteria for recognising a political group, which this article does not meet. You also mentioned a hypotheitcal scenario where an existing PG splits into two - as per the article and provided requirements from the parliament, if one of the factions had less than 10 members, and didn't have a specific vote share in the most recent election, it too wouldn't be recognised. The Hellenic Parliament article infobox only lists the count of members of recognised political groups, with the remainder grouped under "independents". Adding this proposed bar to the Democracy Movement party would not be in line with policy. Steven Crossin 10:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Steven Crossin Yes, here is my opinion: are based a) on coverage in reliable sources, and b) the rules of the parliament in question. I agree with a, and in our case there is coverage in reliable sources. I remind, that the term "independent" in the sources, does not contradict the status of party membership: this is evident both from the Parliament's regulations and from the fact that a source refers to "independent members of the Democracy Movement". So, we have reliable sources that consider 5 MPs of parliament to be members of the party, and no source that disputes this. Regarding b, we disagree here. The Parliament's regulations on parliamentary groups are something different with the number of members of each party. Please, just look at the examples of other countries that I cite, and they do not have P.G. but despite this, no one has questioned the appearance of their members in bars. To give an example: "New Democracy, with 156 MPs, could have an internal parliamentary disaggrement, and so the P.G. could decide to create two different parliamentary groups, the «P.G. New Democracy - Liberals», and the «P.G. New Democracy - Moderate Conservatives», without dissolving the New Democracy party itself and without any MPs leaving the party". In this hypothetical scenario, New Democracy would clearly still have 156 MPs, even though it would not have any P.G. that identifies with the party. One thing is the P.G., another is the party... Hellenic Rebel (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing this clarification. The discussion that has been had around whether to add them in the infobox as MPs part of a recognised parliamentary group are based on coverage in reliable sources, and the rules of the parliament in question. These are documented in the parliamentary article, too - Hellenic_Parliament#Parliamentary_groups - "A parliamentary group in the Hellenic Parliament should consist of at least ten MPs who are members of the same party. Five MPs should also suffice provided the party they belong to had ballots in at least two thirds (2/3) of the constituencies and got at least three percent (3%) of the total number of valid ballots in the country.. So as editors (and DR volunteers) we evaluate the article and whether they meet that threshold. I can see two parties are mentioned on the Hellenic Parliament page as a parliamentary group with under 10 members, Course of Freedom (with 6) and Spartans (Greek political party) with 5, and according to the results of the June 2023 Greek parliamentary election, both received at least 3% of the national vote, which is why they meet the criteria set by parliament of a "parliamentary group". Even with 5 MPs affiliated with this party, it is clear they are a new party per the article, and did not stand in the June 2023 elections (as they did not exist) and thus, don't meet the defined criteria of the parliamentary body to be described as a parliamentary group, and describing it as such on their own article would ignore the defined rules of the parliament. I'm afraid this is pretty clear cut - unless the governing body changes their defined parliamentary rules for recognition as a parliamentary body, noting them as such on their Misplaced Pages page (or on the parliament page) is not in line with policy. Steven Crossin 21:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Steven Crossin just wanted to thank you for taking the time to look into this. I am of course glad that you have concurred that this is a simple matter of BLP and reliable sources and that at present the evidence doesn't support the desired changes by Hellenic Rebel. I hope as they stated in their opening summary that they will accept the decision and this can finally be laid to rest until such a time sources demonstrate otherwise. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Urartu
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Bogazicili on 16:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Bogazicili (talk · contribs)
- Skeptical1800 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Multiple issues discussed in Talk:Urartu#Recent_changes.
I don't disagree with all of the changes made by Skeptical1800 but they made a large amount of changes in a few days, so I had to do complete reverts. My concerns include removal of information that is reliably sourced.
- Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.
- User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.
- User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.
- User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Resolve issues with respect to WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:OR, and removal of content
Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.- Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.
- User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.
- Here is the quote in question. It is about nation-state identity in the sense of modern nation-states. It is not about the presence of ethno-linguistic groups:
- "Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism"
- User has repeatedly removed information from peer reviewed genetic paper suggesting an Armenian presence in Urartu. Here is that source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The following quote from this paper was included on page. User removed it.
- Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon.
- The following information from the same paper was also included on page. User removed it, stating it didn't have anything to do with geographic "core Urartu," although the page in question says in first and second sentences that Urartu includes Lake Urmia region/Iran:
- "The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there"
- So user's geographic exclusions seems arbitrary and based on their own definitions, which contradict both peer-reviewed source material, and also the very page this dispute is about. User has no issue including sources and information about other far-flung regions of Urartu (such as northern Iraq, central Turkey).
- User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.
- Here is the quote in question:
- "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestor with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986)"
- User repeatedly omits following two sentences. While user admits Hurro-Urartian languages "may" be related to Northeast Caucasian languages, full quote reveals this connection is controversial and far from accepted.
- "The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely."
- User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason. Such as https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu
- User's instance Armenians had nothing to do with Urartu is contradicted by sourced material on page, such as:
- Robert Drews. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. 2017. p. 228. "The vernacular of the Great Kingdom of Biainili was quite certainly Armenian. The Armenian language was obviously the region's vernacular in the fifth century BC, when Persian commanders and Greek writers paired it with Phrygian. That it was brought into the region between the early sixth and the early fifth century BC, and that it immediately obliterated whatever else had been spoken there, can hardly be supposed; ... Because Proto-Armenian speakers seem to have lived not far from Hurrian speakers our conclusion must be that the Armenian language of Mesrop Mashtots was descended from an Indo-European language that had been spoken in southern Caucasia in the Bronze Age."
- and:
- Paul Zimansky. "Xenophon and the Urartian legacy." Dans les pas des Dix-Mille (1995): 264-265 "Far from being grounded on long standing cultural uniformities, was merely a superstructure of authority, below which there was plenty of room for the groups to manifest in the Anatolia of Xenophon to flourish. We need not hypothesize massive influxes of new peoples, ethnic replacement, or any very great mechanisms of cultural change. The Armenians, Carduchoi, Chaldaioi, and Taochoi could easily have been there all along, accommodated and concealed within the structure of command established by the Urartian kings."
- It should be noted that user has referred to the above paper and scholar (Zimansky) repeatedly in their own edits. So why is Zimansky (the world's foremost living scholar on Urartu) reputable in some cases but not in others?
- Additionally, there's the question of why information like the following is relevant: "Checkpoints: Kayalıdere Castle is one of the important centers that enabled the Urartian kingdom to control the surrounding regions from Lake Van to the west."
- It's a single sentence paragraph that adds little to the article. There are countless Urartian sites, why is this one worth mentioning or receiving its own special paragraph devoted exclusively to it? Not all Urartian sites need to be mentioned.
- To the previous point, there's also the following: "Archaeological sites within its boundaries include Altintepe, Toprakkale, Patnos and Haykaberd. Urartu fortresses included Erebuni Fortress (present-day Yerevan), Van Fortress, Argishtihinili, Anzaf, Haykaberd, and Başkale, as well as Teishebaini (Karmir Blur, Red Mound) and others."
- Site names are repeated, both here and in other areas of the page. There's no need for this redundancy.
- There are also six paragraphs related to the reading of cuneiform in the Names and etymology section. I don't think this is necessary, it seems like overkill. The point of Misplaced Pages is to summarize information. This is not a summary. Additionally, this information seems to be copied and pasted from some other source (perhaps Hamlet Martirosyan?). It includes lines like the following (emphasis mine): "especially when we take into account the fact that the names refer to the same area." Why is "we" included here? Who is "we"? How is this Misplaced Pages appropriate?
- These issues were corrected in my edits, and user Bogazicili reverted these edits repeatedly with no explanation.
Skeptical1800 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Urartu discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Skeptical1800, if you accept to participate in this process, we can talk all the issues here.
I had reverted your recent changes based on WP:BRD and had removed content I added that you object to based on WP:ONUS, so we can discuss the issues here. Can you please undo your recent edits? Bogazicili (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Undid recent edits, as requested.
- Skeptical1800 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Skeptical1800, you can move this to "Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800" section. Then we wait for moderator instructions. If you accept to participate in this Dispute resolution noticeboard case, we can go over all the issues. Bogazicili (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Skeptical1800 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by volunteer (Urartu)
I am ready to begin moderated discussion if the filing party and the other editor agree to moderated discussion, but only if there is agreement that we are discussing article content. One editor has discussed an editor conduct issue on a user talk page. It must be understood that the discussion will be limited to article content. Conduct issues may not be discussed here, and may not be discussed at other noticeboards while content discussion is in progress here. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on Armenia and Azerbaijan. If you take part in discussion here, you are agreeing that this case involves a contentious topic. If you want to discuss article content here, remember that the purpose of discussion is to improve the article. So please state what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what another editor wants to change that you want to leave the same.
Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Urartu)
I agree to discussing article content. Issues are:
- Removal of content from the lead.
Following Armenian incursions into Urartu, Armenians "imposed their language" on Urartians and became the aristocratic class. The Urartians later "were probably absorbed into the Armenian polity".
- Removal of content from Urartu#Appearance_of_Armenia:
The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds".
- Removal of this content, or where it should be put:
These languages might have been related to Northeast Caucasian languages.
- Misrepresentation of sources. Specifically, with respect to this edit. Note that this source was misrepresented in other articles such as: Talk:Proto-Armenian_language#Recent_edits and Talk:Origin_of_the_Armenians#Recent_edits. So I want to go over the suggested additions by Skeptical1800 with respect to sources and make sure there is no misrepresentation.
- I have no issues with changes such as switching BC to BCE. Bogazicili (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only one party here is misrepresenting sources (i.e. the Areshian quote regarding the presence of Armenians in Urartu, the Zimansky quote regarding Urartians' linguistic relationship with Northeast Caucasian languages). The edits in Proto-Armenian_language and Origins of the Armenians page are correct and not a misrepresentations. They are sourced. May I remind you, this dispute is about the Urartu page, not about the Proto-Armenian language or Origins of the Armenians pages, so that is all irrelevant here.
| Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Your stalking of my activities on Misplaced Pages is alarming, strange, and inappropriate to begin with. |
Regarding the relevant article, the issues are as follows:
- Article should include genetic information from Lazaridis et al. (2022, peer-reviewed) suggesting a possible Armenian-speaking presence in Urartian-era northern Iran (then under Urartian political domination).https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
- Article should include source from Petrosyan (2019, peer-reviewed) (citing other Eisler, Lehmann-Haupt, and Kretschmer) saying that some Urartian kings may have had Indo-European names. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354450528_On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
- Article should include source from Çifçi (2017, peer-reviewed) (citing Zimansky) saying some kings of Urartu came from Lake Urmia region, according to Sargon II. https://www.academia.edu/31692859/The_Socio_Economic_Organisation_of_the_Urartian_Kingdom_Culture_and_History_of_the_Ancient_Near_East_89_BRILL The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
- Article should not include Zimansky quote about a possible connection to Northeast Caucasian languages unless the full-quote is included (emphasis mine): "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by man (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely." The final two sentences of this quote were removed repeatedly for no reason. If the full quote is included, it should go in the Language section. It should not be in the lead.
- Article should not include quote from Areshian as it is misrepresented and taken out of context. When taken out of context of paper overall, the quote doesn't make sense. As others have pointed out, the inclusion of this quote is a violation of WP:UNDUE as it contradicts numerous WP:RS included on the page, such as Drews, Diakonoff, and Zimansky. Removal of this quote was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
- Article should generally be edited and cleaned up (including removal of redundant and superfluous information). These edits were reverted repeatedly for no reason.
- Skeptical1800 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer (Urartu)
Be civil and concise. A few of the statements here have not be civil. I will advise the editors again to comment on content, not contributors. If you want to make allegations of stalking or of misrepresenting sources, read the boomerang essay first, and then report the conduct at WP:ANI, but we will not discuss content here while conduct is being discussed anywhere. Please use some other term than saying that an editor is misrepresenting sources, which may imply intentional misrepresentation. If you think that another editor is misinterpreting sources, you may so that.
Do any of the content issues have to do with questions about the reliability of sources? I see statements that content was removed. If an editor removed content, or wants content removed, please state whether the removal is because of source reliability issues, or due weight, or other reasons.
Please reread DRN Rule D and again say whether you agree that we will only discuss content. Please also state whether there are any questions about source reliability, and what are any other reasons for removal of content.
Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree to only discuss content.
- There is no issue with the quality of sources (although some are outdated as they were published in 1980 or before). However, the editor is misinterpreting the Areshian source ("Bīsotūn, ‘Urartians’ and ‘Armenians’ of the Achaemenid Texts, and the Origins of the Exonyms Armina and Arminiya"), which was explained to editor more than once. Their interpretation of said quote is that "'The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds'". While the page and sources do not claim that Urartians were Armenians, outside of the context of the full source, this statement can be confusing, and lead to WP:RS, as it is widely accepted there was an Armenian presence in Urartu.
- Editor removed information derived from the following source (which was published in the same collection as the Areshian source), that suggested some of the etymologies of Urartian kings' name could be Indo-European:https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu This source was published by Archaeopress Publishing.
- Please note the abstract of the above source (emphasis mine): "Some names of Urartian kings have good parallels in the Balkans, the others are etymologisable in the Indo-European ground."
- Editor also removed information saying some of the Urartian kings came from a region called Armarili, which may have been located near Lake Urmia in northern Iran or may have been located near Lake Van. The section that was removed was: "According to Sargon II, the hometowns of some of the Urartian kings were located in Armarili (or Aramali) district, which was probably located to the west of Lake Urmia (perhaps near modern Salmas, Iran) or near Lake Van." The following was the source: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/18115/1/Cifciali_May2014_18115.pdf This source is a thesis published by a doctoral candidate student from the University of Liverpool who is now Assistant Professor in Ancient History at Marmara University, and was a Senior Fellow at the Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations, who has published several articles on Urartian archaeology.
- Here is the relevant passage: Levine (1977a: 145, Fig. 1) considered the Ushnu/Solduz Plain as a possible location of Amarili, but Zimansky (1990: 16) proposed a northerly location and considered the Shahpur (Salmas) Plain -a location in the north-west shore of the Lake Urmia.
- Another relevant passage from this source is here:
- Further evidence in regard to events of this period may be found in Sargon II’s ‘Letter to the God Assur’, where two different noble families were mentioned, one in the city of Arbu being ‘the father's house of Ursa’(Rusa) and the other in Riar as ‘the city of Ishtarduri’ (Sarduri).
- The following source was not included, but could be, as it supports the (removed) statement on page, that some of the Urartian kings came from Armarili: Riar (Rijar), city in the Urartian province Armarili and Arbu, Urartian city in the province Armarili. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/downloads/radner_acta_iranica_51_2012.pdf
- The above source was from an academic symposium about Urartu, co-chaired by Paul Zimansky, a Urartologist, whose work the editor has cited elsewhere.
- The editor misinterpreted the Areshian quote in order to suggest there was no scientific evidence linking Urartians and Armenians. However, this is in direct opposition to numerous sources already on the page (as I have referred to in other comments in this discussion thread, using excerpts from Drews and Zimansky). I added this, which was removed, even after I changed the writing to reflect the editor's suggestions: "A 2022 study found that Urartian-era samples from Hasanlu Tepe in the Lake Urmia region of northern Iran possessed ancestry patrilineally related to earlier Bronze Age samples from Armenia. Both groups were discovered to be related to the Yamnaya culture, who are commonly thought to have been the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language. Due to these connections, the researchers suggested the population of Urartian-era northern Iran may have spoken a language connected to Armenian, however, they also said it was possible the language spoken was a non-Indo-European language. However, the study found that Urartian-era individuals from Çavuştepe on the southeastern shore of Lake Van had increased Levantine ancestry and lacked the Indo-European-related ancestry found in contemporaneous individuals from Armenia and northern Iran. The researchers suggested these distinct genetic communities could indicate the presence of Hurro-Urartian and Armenian-speaking populations and their respective geographic positioning during the Urartian-era."
- The source was the following: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ This study was published in Science.
- Here are the cited excerpts from the source (emphasis mine):
- "An even more striking case is that of the Iron Age Kingdom of Urartu situated in the mountainous and geographically fragmented regions of eastern Turkey and Armenia where the linguistic landscape must have been complex in the Bronze and Iron Ages. The people at the center of this kingdom in the Lake Van region of Turkey (Çavuştepe) and its northern extension in Armenia, were strongly connected by material culture, and were buried only ~200km apart, yet formed distinct genetic clusters with little overlap during the kingdom’s early (9th-8th c. BCE) period (Fig. 2). The Van cluster is in continuity with the pre-Urartian population (~1300BCE) at neighboring Muradiye also in the Van region, and is characterized by more Levantine ancestry and the absence of steppe ancestry. It contrasts with the cluster of Urartian period individuals from Armenia which have less Levantine and some steppe ancestry like the pre-Urartian individuals of the Early Iron Age (1). Our genetic results help explain the formation of linguistic relationships in the region. Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon."
- Also this:
- "When we compare (Fig. 2E) the Urartian individuals with their neighbors at Iron Age Hasanlu in NW Iran (~1000BCE), we observe that the Hasanlu population possessed some of Eastern European hunter-gatherer ancestry, but to a lesser degree than their contemporaries in Armenia. The population was also linked to Armenia by the presence of the same R-M12149 Y-chromosomes (within haplogroup R1b), linking it to the Yamnaya population of the Bronze Age steppe(1)." '"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there".
- The editor's rational for removal was that the area in question (northern Iran) was not part of the "core" Urartu. However, numerous sources consider this region to be Urartu, and this is the same general region where some of the Urartian kings were said be to be from, according to Sargon II (as previously discussed in above sources). In fact, the Radner source calls Armarili "a Urartian province."
- Lastly, the inclusion of Hurro-Urartian potentially being connected to Northeast Caucasian languages is fine. The editor cited an excerpt from Zimansky. However, the full quote must be included (i.e. including the last two sentences). I have highlighted the last two sentences of the quote in question, which was repeatedly omitted: "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet yearlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely."
- Leaving the last two sentences of the above quote out give the impression that a Hurro-Urartian linguistic connection to Northeast Caucasian languages is far more certain than the full quote implies.Skeptical1800 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Urartu)
Wesean Student Federation
– This request has been placed on hold.
Filed by EmeraldRange on 14:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- EmeraldRange (talk · contribs)
- Flyingphoenixchips (talk · contribs)
- Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
A couple days of edit warring between a couple of users, myself included. Specifically the dispute surrounds the inclusion of content regarding the etymology of "Wesea" being linked to separatist organisations. Five editors have expressed support to reduce the coverage of separatists organisations on this page about a student union solely based on incidental name similarities. One editor has consistent reverted demanding a consensus before removing content arguing that removing said content is censorship to promote an extreme POV normalising the term "Wesea".
Third party opinion was solicited, but there are more than two editors involved. I am following content resolution guidelines as parties have been mostly civil in discussing the consensus before asking for a formal RfC.
Additionally, there is a deletion discussion underway, but it is separate to this content dispute and is itself leaning towards keep (or at least not approaching a deletion consensus)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Third Opinion requested, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#POV Based Content: Possible Original Research, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Removal of the etymology section, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Request for Review: Insurgency-Related Content
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Provide additional unbiased perspectives and review of sources to reach consensus on content dispute, or recommend more formal processes
Summary of dispute by Flyingphoenixchips
My argument was basically that this constitutes WP:COATRACK as the current information, gets away from its nominal subject which is the organization, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. It was alleged that by not talking about the term makes this a Fansite. There are no sources added that links the use of the term by the organisation in the context of separatism, and its not relevant to include unless a source establishes it in context of the "organization". Not talking about separatists doesn't make the article a fansite because the focus remains on the student group and its activities, adhering to the topic's scope. Even amongst the sources cited, they only mention Wesea once or twice (Wesea is not the primary or even secondary subject of the sources), and there is no source that explicitly is only about Wesea (from what I found). However if anyone find sources, that links this particular organisation with insurgents, then for sure and definitely must include this information, protecting Misplaced Pages's integrity. Also as another other user had brought this up, I would also agree with that user for the addition of etymology in the article, provided there are third party sources, that talks about the term in context of the Organization thats the subject of the article.
Summary of dispute by Kautilya3
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Wesean Student Federation discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Hey there, I’m Steve, and a volunteer here at DRN. Just noting I intend to provide some assistance with this dispute, and I’ll wait for the comments of the involved editors before reviewing more fully. Also, I’ve noted the in progress AFD, so I may decide to put this on hold until there’s a clearer consensus on the status of this article, but given the good-faith dispute resolution attempts that have taken thus far, I’m not inclined to close this in just yet. Of course, if the AFD is closed as delete, this would be moot, but I agree it doesn’t look to be trending that way as of this moment. Thanks! Steven Crossin 14:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Clovermoss on 18:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
There is an ongoing argument between another editor and I about how information should be presented in the lead. Part of this is about the first sentence, but the disagreement in its entirety affects the whole first paragraph. I tried to do a bold rewrite of the lead on December 12, but it was objected to on January 10. My concerns about the lead have been about making it less sea-of-bluish, giving a better overview to non-specialist readers by emphasizing the Bible Student connection, and mentioning that it is generally classified as a Christian denomination because that is true; the clarification feels nessecary because reliable sources also discuss how there is significant disagreement about other labels like new religious movements. Because explaining that in the middle of the first sentence would be hard, I used "religious group" in the first sentence for describing how JWs are an outgrowth of the Bible Student movement. I thought at first that the other editor opposed my proposed changes because of the Bible Student connection, but it's actually about using "religious group" at all. Their objections appear to be that this is a non-neutral term, makes a false theological claim, conflicts with the idea that they are highly regulated and hierarchical organization, ambiguous, and shouldn't be used because "that is essentially how the denomination markets itself to the general public". We've been at an impasse for awhile, a third opinion didn't help much, and I don't see further back and forth between the two of us accomplishing much without more outside feedback.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Lead sentence
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I think that maybe things are a bit tense between us because we're the two main editors in the topic area. I'm a relative newcomer to it, only really seriously starting to edit it in 2022. Jeffro's been editing there a much longer time. So when we disagree, things end up at somewhat of an impasse because one of us needs to agree with the other in order to move forward. I don't know if that will really help you dissolve the dispute in any way but it's useful background.
Summary of dispute by Jeffro77
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.In the case of most religious denominations, there is a distinction between the name of the denomination and the term for a group of believers (e.g. Catholic Church/Catholics; Church of England/Anglicans; Church of Scientology/Scientologists). However, in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, the same name is used for both the denomination and the term for a group of believers. It is also common for Jehovah's Witnesses to prefer the usage in the sense of a group of believers. As shown at religious group, that term is ambiguous and can refer to either, which is not ideal in this situation where the terms for the name of the denomination or its adherents are ambiguous. It would therefore be preferred that the first sentence of the lead clearly express that it is a Christian denomination rather than potentially suggesting that it is just an unregulated group of loosely affiliated believers (like other groups in the Bible Student movement).--Jeffro77 Talk 23:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Hi there, I’m Steve, and I’m a volunteer here at DRN. I’ve had a quick skim of the talk page and can see that the discussion was quite cordial there, and a third opinion was requested and provided. I’ll sit tight and wait for the thoughts of the other editor involved, and we will go from there. Thanks! Steven Crossin 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for both of your statements, let's get things going! I'll review this and the talk page discussion in the next 24 hours, and provide my initial thoughts. After that, we can discuss further in this section (I usually don't break things up into sections). Sounds like a plan? Steven Crossin 11:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- That sounds alright to me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yep. Thanks. I might not always be able to reply in a timely fashion during the work week.—Jeffro77 Talk 00:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Steve Crossin: It's okay if you need more time to reach a decision, I just want to make sure that you haven't forgotten about this since you gave a timeline earlier. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Azmat Alishah. Ottoman Domination in the Arab Land and Its Effects on Muslim India." Retrieved January 22, 2025.