Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:01, 3 January 2015

Hello, Lipsquid and a belated welcome to Misplaced Pages! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! zzz (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Boko Haram

Hi. I completely understand your reservations about the section in question, however, the reference to the Iranian revolution is not only referenced, but the reference references several other references:

Other contributing factors were the rejection of the secular nature of the Nigerian society and the impact of the success of the 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini revolution in Iran (Hickey 1984: 251-256; Lubeck 1985: 369-390; Hiskett 1987: 209-223; Usman 1987: 11-25; Isichei 1987: 194-208; Clarke 1987: 93- 115; Kastfelt 1989: 83-90; Ibrahim 1997: 509-534; Albert 1997: 285-325; Falola 1998: 137-162; Albert 1999a: 274-309; 1999b: 19-36; Stock 2004: 415- 417).

zzz (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the main factors are mentioned in the section and the other contributing factors are portrayed as the main contributing factors.

"The rejection of secular authority, and the increasingly radical nature of Islam, locally and internationally, beginning with the 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini revolution in Iran, "

does not reflect the views in the citation and I specifically have an issue with "beginning with"

https://en.wikipedia.org/Sayyid_Qutb https://en.wikipedia.org/Muslim_Brotherhood

Maybe I should spend the time later re-writing the paragraph to match the citation. I don't have any axe to grind, I don't make a lot of edits and only make efforts to correct things that are glaringly incorrect.

Lipsquid (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that the connection to the Iranian revolution is reliably referenced, as I mentioned above. zzz (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"Beginning with" is not reliably referenced because it is not factually true nor is it in the cited reference.

The reference says: "and the impact of the success of the 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini revolution in Iran"

Lipsquid (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How would you word it (without actually copy/pasting the source)? zzz (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The rejection of secular authority, the increasingly radical nature of Islam, both locally and internationally, and the success of the 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini revolution in Iran contributed to the Maitatsine and the Boko Haram uprisings.

Acceptable?

Lipsquid (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not averse to improving the wording, as I have already demonstrated. But the present wording is better than what you propose. The revolution marks a new Islamic radicalism, which your proposed wording obscures. I did not believe this to be controversial, so I omitted other sources which make precisely the same point. Note that uncontroversial claims such as this do not need to be specifically referenced. If there are reliable references asserting that it (ie, the phrase "beginning with") is wrong, you have not provided them. zzz (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

And for future reference, when you object to 2 words, it's not a good idea to delete the entire sentence and claim that it's unreferenced. Not every word or phrase needs to appear in a reference. Indeed, if it did, as in your wording proposed above, that would be properly rejected as "close paraphrasing". zzz (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed sentence that does not include "beginning with" when referencing the Iranian revolution. I have already sent you Sayyid Qutb pages which contains many references to him being the father of radical islam and spefically so within the Salafi?wahhabi sects of which Boko Haram belong. Are you for some reason set on "beginning with" even though it is not in the cited reference? Lipsquid (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a reliable reference. Besides which, you have not indicated where the Misplaced Pages articles mention Nigeria. To say that the Iranian revolution marked a new upsurge in modern Islamic radicalism is in no way controversial, and is well-supported in the references provided. Naturally one could (hypothetically) mention earlier, as well as later, developments; reliable sources, however, do not connect other events with events in Nigeria. In summary, it's too early to say whether I'll come up with an equally satisfactory alternative. The point you seem to be making is that "the increasingly radical nature of Islam, locally and internationally, beginning with the Iranian revolution" implies that the revolution marked a significant upsurge in radicalism, in that period. I can't accept there is anything controversial about that, unless you provide reliable references refuting it. zzz (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we enlist an article editor with an understanding of Islam. The section is poorly written and does not accurately portray the statements in the cited reference. I proposed a more neutral solution that in my view is still far from ideal and you seem to have some insistence that the 1979 Iranian revolution was the start of radical Islam, it was not; therefore we are at an impasse. Lipsquid (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've discussed this with you, and you're welcome to request other opinions. In the meantime, you are not entitled to make unilateral changes to the text of the article, which has been stable for several months in its present state, so as to agree more closely with your POV. zzz (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.zzz (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Boko Haram

You've been warned per the result of WP:AN3#User:Lipsquid reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: Both warned). Either of you may be blocked if you continue the war. If you get agreement on Talk, then there will be no problem. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

bokoharam

I changed the wording. If your still not satisfied please state your concerns (rather than deleting the paragraph), to avoid edit-warring. thanks zzz (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

But thanks for pointing out the problems. zzz (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you efforts on a difficult subject, but we all let personal opinions slip into our writing at times. Do you have a referense that specifically ties the Arewa People's Congress or Arewa Consultative Forum to Boko Haram? The word "Boko Haram" is not in the reference you cited. When searching Google I found no articles that claimed Arewa People's Congress supported Boko Haram, though they do support Muslims and Jihad. I will make updates as I feel appropriate as long as individuals place personal POV into articles rather than citing the POV of a referenced third party. The joint small efforts of massive numbers of people is what makes wikipedia an encyclopedia. Lipsquid (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

And to be specific, what does any of the following have to do with Boko Haram? "The Arewa People's Congress, the militia wing of the Arewa Consultative Forum, the main political group representing the interests of northern Nigeria, is a well-funded group with military and intelligence expertise, and is considered capable of engaging in military action, including covert bombing. Co-founder of the APC, Sagir Mohammed, has stated: "We believe we have the capacity, the willpower to go to any part of Nigeria to protect our Northern brothers in distress ... If it becomes necessary, if we have to use violence, we have to use it to save our people. If it means jihad, we will launch our jihad.""

This would be more useful on the pages dedicated to those groups. Lipsquid (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I've no idea what you think/suspect my personal opinion on the subject is! Secondly, the title of the reference cited is "Revolt in the North: Interpreting Boko Haram’s war on western education" so you I don't see what you mean on that point. And thirdly, the paragraph in question describes the long-term background of Islamic militancy in the north of the country - it is in the "Background" section, after all.

Again, thanks for pointing out the sloppy writing that appeared to suggest a direct connection (not my intention). I have re-worded it to remove this possible confusion. zzz (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps what you are saying is that there is undue weight being given to the ACF/APC. If this is what you believe, one solution would be to add other sourced material to balance what is there. I think the many riots (listed in the template) do in fact merit a broader overview, something I may tackle in the future, but I have overlooked so far. But, as you are aware, there is of course no direct connection. zzz (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It is certainly undue weight and the article even states that APC is not Boko Haram and does not even support Boko Haram. There are many religious groups fighting in Nigeria, it is naive to believe that every Muslim group that says "Jihad" automatically support Boko Haram, even if they agree with certain aspects of the group's platform. The last dispute we had in the article was a matter of playing loose with the implied intent of reference material and it is the same here. Please don't misportray the references you are citing. The commentary and reference really doesn't even belong in the Boko Haram article, which is why it should be deleted or put it the APC article.

From the reference: "While not intending to suggest herein that the APC is Boko Haram, or that the group or its parent organization, the ACF, even supports Boko Haram, those features of the APC which correspond to our perceptions of Boko Haram appear as tantalizing avenues for research." If the article's author states he is not implying the APC supports Boko Haram, why does the wikipedia article imply that they do support Boko Haram? Please remove and place in the APC article if you like. Lipsquid (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow - the Misplaced Pages article isn't saying or implying anything that the reference isn't. zzz (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, a couple of sentences to describe the main political group representing the interests of northern Nigeria is hardly undue. zzz (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"While not intending to suggest herein that the APC is Boko Haram, or that the group or its parent organization, the ACF, even supports Boko Haram, those features of the APC which correspond to our perceptions of Boko Haram appear as tantalizing avenues for research."

If the article's author states he is not implying the APC supports Boko Haram, why does the wikipedia article imply that they do support Boko Haram? Why is this even in the Boko Haram article? The way you stated it is a non-neutral point of view. Again, everyone who says Jihad does not equal support of Boko Haram and I also see you are on a crusade to delete articles about other radical Muslim groups in Nigeria. APC is not Boko Haram and APC does not support Boko Haram Lipsquid (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You have still not offered any evidence that the article implies anything of the sort, you merely keep repeating it (which doesn't make it true). With regards to my supposed "personal crusade" - please read WP:NPA carefully. Thank you. zzz (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to prove a negative, you job is to prove that APC supports Boko Haram, if you intend to put APC on the Boko Haram page. I suggest we engage a third party to settle this issue. I find it annoying to have to keep dealing with misleading edits. Lipsquid (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll try again: the article doesn't claim that APC supports Boko Haram. So I don't need, or want, to prove that. zzz (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Then why put commentary by the APC on the Boko Haram page? Put it on the APC page. If we all agree the APC is not talking about Boko Haram or supporting Boko Haram, then why could this possibly need to stay on the Boko Haram page. It is misleading! Lipsquid (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You may find the article misleading, but you have not explained why it is misleading. Please revert your last edit, as you are clearly edit-warring. zzz (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. zzz (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)