This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 70 | ← | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 |
Prompted by Racism in Poland, where some users are claiming types of antisemitism and islamophobia generally are not racism and should be excluded from the article while the also claiming the main focus of the article should be racism against Poles in Poland - as opposed to racism against minorities in Poland ( diff). A number of users have also challenged mainstream academic sources on the topic (e.g. on Jewish ghettos in the middle ages in Poland). The question raised, however, is a general one. Currently - articles such as Racism in the United Kingdom or Racism in the United States cover religious based hate. Sources and organizations coverage hate discourse (e.g. SPLC) do not differentiate between racist and religious hate in terms of their coverage (they do cover the motivations of hate groups - which often are mixed (e.g. both ethnic and religious based, though for some one is dominant) - thus sources on "racism in X", tend to also cover hate discourse that is not strictly racist in the sense of "racial theory". Outside input requested. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The word “racism” first came into common usage in the 1930s when a new word was required to describe the theories on which the Nazis based their persecution of the Jews. As is the case with many of the terms historians use, the phenomenon existed before the coinage of the word that we use to describe it. But our understanding of what beliefs and behaviors are to be considered “racist” has been unstable. Somewhere between the view that racism is a peculiar modern idea without much historical precedent and the notion that it is simply a manifestation of the ancient phenomenon of tribalism or xenophobia may lie a working definition that covers more than scientific or biological racism but less than the kind of group prejudice based on culture, religion, or simply a sense of family or kinship.
It is when differences that might otherwise be considered ethnocultural are regarded as innate, indelible, and unchangeable that a racist attitude or ideology can be said to exist. It finds its clearest expression when the kind of ethnic differences that are firmly rooted in language, customs, and kinship are overridden in the name of an imagined collectivity based on pigmentation, as in white supremacy, or on a linguistically based myth of remote descent from a superior race, as in Aryanism. But racism as I conceive it is not merely an attitude or set of beliefs; it also expresses itself in the practices, institutions, and structures that a sense of deep difference justifies or validates. Racism, therefore, is more than theorizing about human differences or thinking badly of a group over which one has no control. It either directly sustains or proposes to establish a racial order, a permanent group hierarchy that is believed to reflect the laws of nature or the decrees of God. Racism in this sense is neither a given of human social existence, a universal “consciousness of kind,” nor simply a modern theory that biology determines history and culture. Like the modern scientific racism that is one expression of it, it has a historical trajectory and is mainly, if not exclusively, a product of the West. But it originated in at least a prototypical form in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries rather than in the eighteenth or nineteenth (as is sometimes maintained) and was originally articulated in the idioms of religion more than in those of natural science.— Fredrickson, George Marsh (2003). Racism: a short history (5. print ed.). Princeton, NJ: Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11652-5.
Issues of NPOV have been raised during the review: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1. In the course of the review, the article has been tagged for NPOV: [1]. Additional input would be appreciated; the more recent comments can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1#August 2019 update. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 12:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: This is a long standing dispute that has opened back up again, so I'm asking for external input in advance
There is a dispute at Campus sexual assault that could use some outside input ( discussion). To summarize: the article cites a number of conservative commentators (like Christina Hoff Sommers, Stuart Taylor Jr., and KC Johnson) who believe that the survey methods used to study campus sexual assault are systematically over-estimating the prevalence of the phenomenon. None of these people are experts in a relevant academic field, and their criticisms are, at this point, out of step with what peer reviewed research says about the prevalence of CSA. I have argued that their critiques should be given less weight and be placed in a separate "criticism" subsection, but another editor has disagreed with that approach. Any outside input is appreciated. Nblund talk 21:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Nblund has removed several critiques of the current approach that some academics and schools use to measure sexual assault. He/she relies heavily on primary sources that support the maximal views while removing viewpoints that don't, or put the studies in context. S/he even calls the Bureau of Justice Statistics (a federal government agency that analysis crime statistics) dubious [2]. For the record just because something is academic, doesn't mean it's free of POV which is why secondary sources are valuable. Yoffe is a seasoned journalist and is a secondary source. Per WP:RS, this is preferred. Likewise KC Johnson has spent years on this topic. Just because Nblund says he's not relevant is an opinion. Mattnad ( talk) 17:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
it is likely that the NCVS is undercounting rape and sexual assault victimization (p. 4). Nblund talk 19:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Jim, the subject of the James D. Zirin Wikipedia article. I've had difficulty making and suggesting improvements to this page in the past, though my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines was fairly limited then. I now know I shouldn't edit the article directly and should work with other editors to discuss and make changes for me.
I'm looking for help with the "close connection" tag. In June, one editor has said they "don't have any philosophical opposition to removal of the Close Contributor template if someone discovers that the article is now in a reasonable shape…". I've asked for assistance at Talk:James_D._Zirin#Close_connection_tag with no luck. I'm hoping someone who reads this noticeboard might be willing to take a look at the article's text and either remove the tag if there are no major concerns, or share which text is problematic so I can take appropriate steps to address.
Might there be someone willing to review? If not, perhaps there are other places I could go to seek help? Thanks. Jim Zirin ( talk) 20:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed this when I added the subject line, but this is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messiah ben Joseph (LDS Church) with NPOV and NOR issues cited as the reason. I came here because of this: "Ancient ancestral prophecies concerning the House of Joseph (many of them, according to Latter-day Saints, now 'restored' through Joseph Smith from their lost or 'corrupted' state) [1]. [2] center upon what some members and scholars of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in recent decades, have come to view as a messianic figure at the core of those prophecies — an 'anointed one' of Jewish tradition and legend who is variously called ' Messiah ben Joseph' or 'Messiah ben Ephraim'. [3] [4] [5] I took this to the talk page and User:Chauvelin2000 gave what to me is an unsatisfactory explanation, although I admit I'm not sure I understand it. Doug Weller talk 06:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Awesome, now, if you were only allowed to use those six sources, what would the article look like, and how would it be different from Messiah ben Joseph? (Not asking you to write it, btw, just basic outline.) Someguy1221 ( talk) 01:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I recently published an article on behalf of Dr. Chin, and it flagged for speedy deletion. The editor ( Praxidicae ) has been playing power games by responding to my questions with more questions and not clearly stating what violations need to be corrected. Can an admin review, and help me to resolve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCDLLC ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
A massive percentage of Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet was written by User:Arbil44, who claims to be a descendant.
I already trimmed out some blatantly POV insertions, but the rest of the page is extremely long for a man who was a minor noble, and the entire Images section doesn't seem like it should be there.
Can someone with a better understanding of policy have a look?
74.70.146.1 ( talk) 04:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I will take a look at what has been culled from this page when I can. Right now I am busy working with colleagues in America to bring history-changing information to Wikipedia users and the wider community. Charles Asgill was at the centre of the United States's first international diplomatic incident in 1782, known as The Asgill Affair, involving George Washington and Queen Marie Antoinette. This places him as considerably more than a minor noble. Take a look at the further reading section, if it is still intact, to see that several plays were written about him. Signing off as Arbil44 in case I cannot get the approved system to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbil44 ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
TThank you Alexbrn, the Nuremberg Trials concluded that Nazis engaged in genocide of Poles and Jews, and this position is followed by scholars on the subject, in general the conclusions on Nazi atrocities by Nuremberg Trials aren't rejected(although there are aalways minority and revisionist views).Your suggestion to move ssources to main body where this is ddescribed seems like a good one. MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
hardly any type of antisemitism? Are we again going to have a discussion about Polish sources admitting antisemitism is so widespread that, [12] in the words of Irena Sendler, "it was easier to hide a tank under the carpet than shelter a Jew"?
As to the article, note that it is about racism in Poland, not HolocaustSo why are you pushing so hard on the German treatment of Poles?
there is debate what shape should it takeThere is indeed, [13] and if we'll follow the community's opinion [14] then the article would look very different.
Again, nothing against mentioning that Jews were first targets of Nazi German genocideThat's a lie. [15] [16]
hardly any type of antisemitism? Are we again going to have a discussion about Polish sources admitting antisemitism is so widespread that You seem totally confused as to my statement, which is simply stating fact that mentioning genocide of Poles or Roma is hardly antisemitism.
Historians like Timothy Snyder, Norman Naimark, states that Poles were victims of Genocide, author of genocide definition Rapheael Lemkin states so as well Timothy Snyder: When the Germans shot tens of thousands of Poles in 1944, with the intention of making sure that Warsaw would never rise again, that was genocide, too. Far less dramatic measures, such as the kidnapping and Germanisation of Polish children, were also, by the legal definition, genocide. Norman Naimark Genocide: A World History Hitler's genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and at the Jews.
This is in line with verdict at Nuremberg Trials and Polish genocide trials that stated:The policy of extermination was in the first place directed against the Jewish and Polish nations. This criminal organization did not reject any means of furthering their aim at destroying the Jewish nation. The wholesale extermination of Jews and also of Poles had all the characteristics of genocide in the biological meaning of this term [18](Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals Selected and prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission)they conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others. I am not really sure what you are trying to argue here.That historians like Snyder or Neimark shoudn't edit Wikipedia? That Lemkin was wrong? That Nuremberg Trials should be questioned? Denying that genocide of Poles by Nazis took place, which unfortunately seems like you are doing(you are free to correct me on this if I am wrong and I will delete this if I am indeed wrong about your intentions) Anyway, this is not the place for personal theories. Both legal authorities and historians agree on genocidal policies and actions of Nazi Germany against both Jews(who of course were treated much more severely, nobody denies this here) and ethnic Poles. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually it was me who added to the article's lead partYes, after I forced you to, [19] after four days of discussion.
Because racism towards Poles was especially drastic during periods of German control over Poland, Oh, and Jews? But you're perfectly content pushing Jews out because "this isn't about the Holocaust".
/info/en/?search=Genocide_Convention Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as
All of the above applies to treatment of Poles under Nazi Occupation, which Nuremberg Trials recognized for example:
a)
Operation Tannenberg,
AB-Aktion or e)
Kidnapping_of_Polish_children_by_Germany
So again you're in a spot where only two of your (now) 16-17 sources are thorough RS that seem to support the notion of a Holocaust-scale genocide Incorrect. All the sources state that Nazis carried out genocide against Poles. You are now changing the goal posts however, because you now changed your phrasing to Holocaust-scale genocide,which the article doesn't state, a genocide doesn't have to be on a scale of Holocaust to be defined as one, and I have already stated numerous times that Jews of cource were treated more severely. I think the issue we are having here is that you are unware that genocide isn't restricted to Holocaust and that actually it has a broader definition than you believe it does. But you're perfectly content pushing Jews out because "this isn't about the Holocaust" I haven't removed any information about Holocaust from the article. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
per UN Genocide ConventionBut we're not in a position to state where it applies - that's WP:OR.
All the sources state that Nazis carried out genocide against Poles"Carried" or "planned"? Again, we've addressed it before.
You are now changing the goal postsI'm not, I'm just reading through your own comments, on that page and elsewhere.
I think the issue we are having hereYou've already made that statement and I already replied. [23] This is about poor sourcing, marginalization of minorities, and WP:GAMING.
I haven't removed any information about Holocaust from the articleNo, you just pushed it down, along with some statements... [24] [25]
All the sources state that Nazis carried out genocide against Poles"Carried" or "planned"? Again, we've addressed it before.
I am pretty sure Nazis did mass murder Poles in AB Aktion and kidnapped over 200,000 Polish children. Are you saying this didn't happen? And as Nuremberg trial states They conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others. This is about poor sourcing, marginalization of minorities, and WP:GAMING.There are more than 10 sources, all of them of great value and scholarly that confirm the obvious-genocide of Nazis against Jews, Poles and Roma.The section on Jewish minority currently is far bigger than the section on Poles who were larger group affected by racism.
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC) -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
In addition to falsely accusing another editor of "trolling" (when it's clearly a content dispute), Francois Robere makes some false statements about sources above. He also tends to set up a lot of strawman. Sometimes at the same time. For example:
Naimark states that about Polish elites (...) It's terrible, but it's not the systematic extermination of a nation in extermination camps.<-- Actually that's not true. Naimark does NOT say the "genocidal intentions" were aimed only at the Polish elites. FR just made that part up. Naimark clearly states: Hitler's genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and Jews. It kind of can't get clearer than that [29]. As to the second part ("but it's not the systematic extermination of a nation in extermination camps") yeah, it's not. But nobody claimed it was. It could've been a genocide - indeed sources say it was - WITHOUT the use of extermination camps. There have been many genocides in history without death camps. This is Francois Robere setting up the strawman.
Actually that's not true. Naimark does NOT say [that]Naimark, there (2nd ed.), p. 78: "Hitler’s genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and at the Jews. At the outset of the occupation, in Operation Tannenberg, the Nazis identified some 60,000 leading Polish politicians, clergymen, teachers, lawyers, writers, and other prominent members of the Polish elite for arrest and elimination. The idea was to decapitate the Polish nation and force the remainder of the population into a subservient role as denationalized helots in the service of the Third Reich. Some Polish children were taken as “Aryans” to the Reich to be raised as Germans." (emphasis for readability purposes)
nobody claimed it wasAs always, you're missing the point, and with a splendid "straw man" of your own. I trust that every reasonable editor can read past it, so I won't dwell on it further. I will remind you, though, that Molobo claimed at least twice that Poles (as a nation) should be considered Holocaust victims, [30] [31] which is most certainly not a view shared by RS (you're familiar with Gutman and Krakowski's Unequal Victims: Poles and Jews During World War Two (1988)). Top that with his current fight to put Poles - a 90%-97% majority - at the top of Racism in Poland, possibly pushing out expressions of antisemitism and Islamophobia, and you end up with a nasty fight to remake the entire article from a particular ethnocentric POV. François Robere ( talk) 01:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hitler’s genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and at the Jews. That's about as clear as it gets. Killing off the "politicians, clergymen, teachers, lawyers, writers" is PART OF a genocide. As is the kidnapping of children. You're trying to flip the argument on its head. "If elites are killed it's not genocide!". How does that makes sense? There's no "ONLY" there - that is the part you've invented yourself. And it says "genocidal policies at Poles" black on white, crystal clear, as straightforward as it gets. And then *you* accuse others of original research? Seriously?
NONE of these disputes makes it ok... to engage in personal attacksI generally agree that we should be generous interpreting others' intentions, AGF and avoid "casting aspersions". I also notice that you've been paying much more attention to these things since the ARBCOM case concluded. Maybe, after a year and a half, we can finally agree on etiquette, if little else. François Robere ( talk) 16:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
"Similar statements were often made by other political leaders who denied the uniqueness of the Holocaust in order to present their own nations as unique victims of historical atrocities and to deny the historical cruelties perpetrated by ingroup members. Thus, perception of ingroup victimhood serves as a strategy that allows for denial of responsibility", and
"Polish participants who felt that their nation was especially victimized throughout history or victimized more than Jews, tended to believe more strongly in a Jewish conspiracy and their attitudes toward Jews were more negative.".
"the research found that individual Jews and the general Jewish population were stereotyped or Polonized, while the Holocaust was cited as part of an overall Nazi policy to destroy non-Jewish Poles. Thus, Jewish victims were, by and large, folded into the story of Polish victimhood"
"The current PiS government pursues a very aggressive and nationalistic policy of commemoration, stressing Polish victimhood, innocence and heroism"
" Poland is at the forefront of this process, all distortions leading to a wide- spread self-depiction of the Polish ethnic community as the main victim of the Holocaust, a portrayal supported by the myth of historical tolerance of the Jews in Poland.
"Yet in Poland, a country where ethno-nationalism has always been strong and that became almost mono-ethnically Polish after the war, the phrase ‘the Polish Nation and other Nations’ like the word ‘nation’ was understood largely in the ethnic sense. A consequence was that the Jews – the largest category of Auschwitz deportees, prisoners, and victims – were listed last in official Polish publications as the Polish word for them (Żydzi) begins with the last letter of the alphabet. More importantly, regardless of whether the word ‘nation’ was understood in the civic or ethnic sense, the phrase ‘martryrdom of the Polish Nation and other Nations’ placed the suffering and death of the Poles first, above the victimhood of others. This was a legal rendering of what Jonathan Huener called ‘a Polish-national martyrological idiom’ that was characteristic of Poland’s postwar commemorative vocabulary in general and in reference to Auschwitz in particular.". ....
", at present Auschwitz as a symbol of martyrdom of the Polish nation essentially means that the Poles (in either meaning) were the first to suffer and die at the camp, and their suffering and death marked the beginning of Auschwitz and other Nazi camps and victimhood of all other groups.".
Some editors are trying to spin Elizabeth Warren's ancestry by removing the reactions by prominent Native Americans who support Warren, which exist to provide balance and neutrality for those who are offended or upset by her ancestry. PunxtawneyPickle ( talk) 02:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
This article could probably use some more eyes, and possibly an AfD. GMG talk 00:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Is Adam Minter's opinion in Bloomberg Opinion piece "When It Comes to Twitter Meddling, China's No Russia" (reproduced below) considered due weight in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Social media?
Whatever the backstory, a brief perusal of the database reveals that the vast majority of content tweeted by these accounts wasn't related to Hong Kong and -- most important -- failed to generate retweets, likes or responses. In fact, most of the tweets in the database have no connection to the protests; some of the most popular appear to link to prurient material.
"When It Comes to Twitter Meddling, China's No Russia", Adam Minter, Bloomberg Opinion
I'm not convinced that
Adam Minter's "brief perusal"
of the
two data sets released by Twitter is
due here, as the columnist is not a
subject-matter expert, and his opinion was not mentioned by other reliable sources.
See also prior discussion at Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding the Twitter data sets. — Newslinger talk 22:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I've added Mozilla Foundation fellow Renee DiResta's analysis to balance the paragraph, which has been split to International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Social media. Feel free to make further adjustments if necessary. — Newslinger talk 23:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia#country categorization dispute
list of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia
Current text; ===States with limited, but substantial, international recognition=== In this list, Palestine is a state with substantial and widespread international recognition and UN observer-state status but without practical control over tangible territory, while Taiwan is a de facto state with full practical sovereignty over its territory and unofficial ties with most of the international community but not widely recognized de jure. A founding member of the United Nations as the Republic of China, as of 1971, Taiwan is no longer recognized by the United Nations.
Flag | Map | English short and formal names | Status | Domestic short and formal names | Capital | Population | Area |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Palestine State of Palestine |
Claimed as part of Israel. Recognized by 140 UN member states. (Not recognized by Israel and 55 other UN member states.) One of two United Nations non-member observer states | Arabic: فلسطين (Filasṭīn) |
Jerusalem (declared) Arabic: القدس (Al-Quds) Ramallah (de facto) Arabic: رام الله (Rāmāllah) |
4,550,000 | 6,220 km2 (2,402 sq mi)
Proposed change; Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question. Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context. It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format | ||
Taiwan Republic of China [1] [2] |
Claimed as part of the People's Republic of China. Officially recognized as the rightful government of all of China by 11 UN member states and the Holy See. However, Taiwan maintains unofficial relations with most other countries and is de facto recognized by most sovereign states. See Political status of Taiwan for more information about the situation. | Traditional Chinese: 臺灣/台灣 — 中華民國 (Táiwān—Zhōnghuá Mínguó) |
Taipei
[1]
[3] Traditional Chinese: 臺北/台北 (Táiběi) |
23,071,779 [4] | 35,980 km2 (13,892 sq mi) [5] |
Proposed change
In this list, Taiwan is a de facto state with full practical sovereignty over its territory and unofficial ties with most of the international community but not widely recognized de jure. A founding member of the United Nations as the Republic of China, as of 1971, Taiwan is no longer recognized by the United Nations.
Flag | Map | English short and formal names | Status | Domestic short and formal names | Capital | Population | Area |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Taiwan Republic of China [1] [6] |
Claimed as part of the People's Republic of China. Officially recognized as the rightful government of all of China by 11 UN member states and the Holy See. However, Taiwan maintains unofficial relations with most other countries and is de facto recognized by most sovereign states. See Political status of Taiwan for more information about the situation. | Traditional Chinese: 臺灣/台灣 — 中華民國 (Táiwān—Zhōnghuá Mínguó) |
Taipei
[1]
[3] Traditional Chinese: 臺北/台北 (Táiběi) |
23,071,779 [4] | 35,980 km2 (13,892 sq mi) [5] |
The change proposed is to recategorize Palestine not as a state with “substantial, but limited recognition” but as a “generally recognized” state
Lo meiin ( talk) 14:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Europa
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Capital
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Population
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Area
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).There's a discussion over at the Tulsi Gabbard talk page regarding how to apply due weight to questions about legislative co-sponsorship. The main questions are:
Background The
Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard page mentions multiple bills that Gabbard co-sponsored, but most of these bills are covered only in primary sources such as Congress.gov. For instance: Gabbard co-sponsored the
Government by the People Act, but she is
one of 163 representatives to co-sponsor that bill. Reliable sources do not mention her as a significant supporter of that bill, and she has co-sponsored
over 1000 bills while in Congress. I've argued that it is probably
WP:UNDUE to include her co-sponsorships unless they receive coverage in secondary sources.
Xenagoras
has argued that the due weight policy only applies to opinions and does not apply to undisputed facts like Gabbard's co-sponsorship. I don't think this is correct, but I would appreciate external feedback.
Nblund
talk 02:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to mention legislative co-sponsorships when they are not covered by secondary sources?No.
Does WP:DUE apply to factsYes.
DrifAssault has added an extraordinary amount of criticism to the 5-Minute Crafts article, mostly using original research, self-published sources (including Wikia ( RSP entry) and other YouTube ( RSP entry) channels), and selective quoting of news articles. The addition of the chart at Special:Diff/913019435 is a bit over-the-top.
I've started a discussion on the talk page at Talk:5-Minute Crafts § Original research to no effect. It would be nice to see some additional opinions on the content of this article. — Newslinger talk 10:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
DrifAssault: Yes, there are a lot of negative idea on my page, but I thought I can add some idea to them. However, i have cited to be more "third-party" and also some positive ideas. However, i want to have a fresh eye on this. P/S: social blade is acually an analystic tool to youtube channel, which count subscriber and views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Is mentioning also not allowed? as I just show people that there is that channel? (I have read that, and found out most of my added source are biased, and I thank you for helping me as I am a new Wiki editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I will remove direct source altoghether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC) /info/en/?search=User:DrifAssault/sandbox so if newslinger or/and gmg want to help me, please edit my sandbox page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Our policies/guidelines on sourcing and reliability can be a lot to read through, so let me summarize the relevant parts for you:
I searched for articles or something about this wonderful singer, even though dead, it will still be great to see some information about her.
Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.199.69 ( talk) 18:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, everybody! Please see Talk:Jennifer_Pan#Possible_bias_in-text for a discussion on whether the ethnic backgrounds of the individuals involved and whether the status that one of the convicted co-conspirators (none of the people charged by the Canadian authorities - "the Crown" - were exonerated, all were convicted or pleaded guilty) was a drug dealer, a way in which he got to know and recruited other co-conspirators, are relevant or irrelevant details for this article.
Thanks, WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
This rather sorry article has some potential sources listed at the foot, but I don't understand the geopolitics enough to weed out polemic from news. Anyone here feel like taking pity on it? Guy ( Help!) 13:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I issued a RfC almost a month ago. As one of the main arguments concerns POV related issues, may I ask your kind contribution fellow wikipedians? Talk:EOKA#Request for Comment. Cinadon 36 19:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Recently, the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau contravened a Conflict of Interest Act. In referring to this incident Trudeau said he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but cannot apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs. An editor on the SNC Lavelin article has removed part of the information on this so that the article reads, "the Prime Minister said that he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but did not apologize." instead of Trudeau's full statement, "Prime Minister said that he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but could not apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs."
There are multiple sources documenting and discussing Trudeau's words so RS is not an issue. Here is one: [42]. As a disclaimer: I was the editor who added the words, "could not apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs." as context but am now being accused of POV editing. Discussion here. Welcome all input as to whether this content can and should be added to the article. Littleolive oil ( talk) 02:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Iblismesdara's entire contribution to Wikipedia has been to note that particular biographical subjects have made significant donations to Donald Trump's campaign. The edits do not place any value judgement on said donations, but merely point them out.
I contend that, since none of the subjects in question is a notably active political person, their political donation history should not be a part of the Wikipedia biography. Iblismesdara contends that, since these donations are a matter of public record, they are valid content for the Wikipedia articles. On this basis, to be neutral, we would need to record the political donation history of every Wikipedia biographical subject. I further contend that, since Iblismesdara is concentrating solely on contributions to Trump, his motivations, whether positive or negative, are not neutral. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As you may know, the phrases climate change and global warming have been officially replaced by some (certainly not all) media outlets. For example, the editorial board of the The Guardian has adopted substitute phrases climate crisis and global heating. Greta Thunberg and the school climate strike movement uses similar language and will be making a lot more headlines in weeks ahead. Meanwhile here at home is a surge of new interest in the climate pages, and a fast-rising citing of "climate crisis" phrasing in RSs. Inevitably, some editors want to follow the The Guardian's lead by embracing the use of "climate crisis" in Wikivoice. It's my view that the balance of RSs may get us there one day, but not yet, and so we need to report on the reframing issue itself, and use inline attribution where necessary. I'm interested in consensus that leaves us all stronger together, but fear this has earmarks of a potential blow up. We're gonna need your skilled NPOV help, I think, and right now the focal point might be at Greta Thunberg and Climate crisis.
Caution, all climate pages are under DS per WP:ARBCOMM. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
We have the data. We understand the science. So, it still amazes me that there are people who are not convinced that we are facing a climate crisis. Research published in Nature has revealed that the power of storytelling is as key to scientific communication as much as presenting the numbers. It is important therefore for scientists to tap into these skills if we want to engage everyone in the debate. [48]
I have been trying to wrestle this article down to something supported by third party sources. There is a small community of fans co-ordinating on social media because they prefer the version with the full HOWTO based almost exclusively on press releases and self-sourcing. I tried helping them via Twitter, but the indications there are that they aren't interested in anything less than a full technical manual, and aren't really that interested in finding secondary sources. I need to walk away before I lose my temper with them. Guy ( help!) 20:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
There's a dispute over at Talk:Dave Rubin over whether or not the category "classical liberal" can be applied to his article. Several sources describe him as applying this categorization to himself, but few reliable sources actually use the term to describe him in their own voice (he's commonly described as a libertarian). Outside input would be appreciated. ( discussion here)
Broadening a bit: I recently removed this category from several contemporary political figures (ex: Charles Koch, Allen West, Christina Hoff Sommers) who are usually described as conservative or libertarian. Clearly it applies to people like John Locke (although he's not in the category) but I'd be open to input on whether it is appropriate from some contemporary political figures. Nblund talk 01:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. source
There is a request for comment currently active at Talk:Andy_Ngo#RfC:_Do_sources_support_calling_Ngo's_statements_on_the_hammer_attack_"false"? Andy Ngo that may be of interest to users of this noticeboard. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
On Music of Somalia article as well as other articles related to Somali music, editor MustafaO is attempting to include that artist Abdi Sinimo is known as "father of Somali music", they have a single source supporting this statement [49], and the source does not even state the exact wording they are using (source states "father of modern Somali song"), the only other academic source they've provided is a primary source interview. In contrast, the vast majority of published reliable sources state the artist known as "father of Somali music" is Abdullahi Qarshe, I have included numerous reputable sources e.g. [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] ...etc etc, but they continue to edit war across multiple pages. I have tried to explain that inclusion of Sinimo is undue and that most reputable sources give Qarshe the title to no avail. They do not even accept their own source that they've cited which states that "The Somali people and others regard you [as in Abdullahi Qarshe, not Sinimo] as the “Father of Somali Music” [60]. Any opinions would be appreciated. Regards -- Kzl55 ( talk) 13:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo]. There are many other sources that make the same claim. What is extremely concerning is the fact that he constantly vandalises these pages with unwarranted removals of these sourced, accredited and referenced works.
Inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE because this is not an issue of a minority view versus a majority view. The titles are completely different and are reflective of different realities hence why I edited the title to reflect the sourced content. I dont understand how you can make an allegation such as me 'abandoning both the original title and there being many sources that claim Abdi Sinimo is the Father of Somali Music'... And at the same time you say: 'We dont need to hear why you've abandoned "father of Somali music" and now pivoting to another title'. So in fact you were never interested in having a discussion because had you read my comments you would have realised that I sourced more than two comments in which there is reasonable argument to give him such a title... However I edited the title to remove any ambiguity and further stop any act of vandalism on your part. Unfortunately you did not take heed. Having said that, the titles 'Father of Somali Music' is very different to 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. A fact that you continuously attempt at distorting by injecting the majority versus minority view which is unsubstantial, simmply because there is NO contradiction. The titles are different. Didn't you say you would allow the editrs to weigh in? Why are you continuing to fuel the debate and then claim to withdraw at the same time? MustafaO ( talk) 14:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The fact remains that the inclusion isn't WP:UNDUE, here are TWO sources that can be used to make the argument for keeping the title of 'Father of Somali Music', (see: [73]) and (see: [74]). The only reason why I am repeating myself CONSTANTLY is because of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Interesting you've leveled that at me when the reality is that I've mentioned on so many occasions (please refer to the discussion on this page) as to the reasons as to WHY I edited the title despite it being valid to use. I mentioned clearly and many times why I edited it. At this point I would just be repeating myself. The titles that were given to both Abdullahi Qarshe and Abdi Sinimo are different now. So it's irrelevant to continue making the minority versus majority argument since the tiles denote two completely different meanings. You continue to say you will wait for the other editors to comment, yet you keep interjecting. This certainly is not helpful. The articles do not need continuous and disruptive acts of vandalism. MustafaO ( talk) 15:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Whether or not having a single source supporting each statement is completely irrelevant to the point being that it is vandalism for you to remove the sourced content since the titles denote TWO completely different meanings. The titles 'Father of Somali Music' and 'Father of the Modern Somali Song' are two different titles. This is why it cannot be seen as being contradictory as this is NOT a case of inclusion of minority views. The titles, live I've said many times, are different. Inclusion therefore, is not WP:UNDUE. I literally quoted more than one source, so to keep repeating a fabrication is unwarranted. The sources do not contradict each other and there is no exclusivity as this issue is more likely than not, subjective. It doesn't warrant continued vandalism and unwarranted removals on your part. MustafaO ( talk) 16:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It is vandalism, simply because it is NOT a minority view that you are removing. It is a published and referenced work which confers a title ('Father of Modern Somali Song) completely DIFFERENT to the title you claim it is contradicting ('Father of Somali Music'). The whole premise of your argument rests on the point that the source I quoted is a minority conflicting with more referenced works. The FACT is, that's absolutely NOT the case because the the titles in the articles (as currently stands) are completely different regarding the respective individuals involved, Abdi Sinimo and Abdullahi Qarshe. Therefore it can never be considered as being WP:UNDUE. MustafaO ( talk) 16:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The reason why it is NOT WP:UNDUE is because the differences in the titles reflect TWO completely different realities. So recycling the same argument over and over is now redundant. Here are examples that prove these titles are not variations in any way. They are not merely different wordings. The sources itself explain clearly WHY the titles were given.
1. One source says: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. There is a correlation between penning and creating the genre and the title 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. This is CLEAR from the source.
2. Another source states the reason as to why many consider Qarshe to be the 'Father of Somali Music' is when he said: 'Perhaps, I am the first Somali to set Somali songs to the music of the lute (kaman)' Source: Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [75]. So the inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE in any way.
So the majority views versus minority is redundant as you can see here, the titles were given to reflect two completely different realities.
This whole section of your argument: And even if they were not, it would still be undue inclusion'Bold text' is arguing on the premise that there the titles are the same or a variant of the same original title, which it isn't. Refer to: (Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160 [76] and Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [77] to see the reasons why the titles reflect different meanings as the sources leave very little room to argue otherwise. MustafaO ( talk) 16:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Why is that argument clearly WP:UNDUE? It doesn't contradict any claim that Qarshe is the 'Father of Somali Music'. So I do not understand why you keep pushing the same argument and obfuscating the discussion.
1. The first source was (see:
[78]), Qarshe considered Abdi Sinimo to have been more deserving as he quoted him DIRECTLY when faced with the question regarding if he is the 'Father of Somali Music'... This was the one of the sources that I used to make the earlier argument.
2. The second was (see: [79]). Where an argument to dub him with the title can easily be validated per the editing regulations by Wikipedia.
I explained the reason as to WHY I edited the title to 'Father of Modern Somali Song' for two main reasons: a. To stop your unwarranted removal and vandalism on the page. b. To align the title exactly to the worded source. MustafaO ( talk) 17:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
There are over 10 different sources (see:
[80],
[81],
[82],
[83],
[84],
[85],
[86],
[87],
[88] and
[89]) stating that Abdi Sinimo penned and pioneered the Balwo, which was the exact reason as to why the source you constantly remove makes that claim that he is the Father of the modern Somali Song: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. Refer to:
[90].
I await the other editors to comment, especially those who are independent from the issue at hand. The sources are all correlated.
MustafaO (
talk) 18:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
As a Somali, I have personally never heard of this individual (Abdi Sinimo). I am with Kzl55 that the statement father of Somali music is a bit excessive. Wadaad ( talk) 14:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
On Music of Somalia article as well as other articles related to Somali music, editor MustafaO first attempted to include that artist Abdi Sinimo is known as "father of Somali music" (e.g. [91], [92]). They have provided one single source supporting this statement [93] (the source actually states "father of modern Somali song", not "father of Somali music"). In contrast, the vast majority of published reliable sources state the artist known as "father of Somali music" is Abdullahi Qarshe e.g. [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103] (...etc etc). At this stage MustaphaO abandoned their original claim of Abdi Sinimo being "father of Somali music", and instead opted to pivot to use the wording: "father of modern Somali song", seeing as the only source they have provided uses this wording. I have tried to explain that inclusion of Sinimo is undue and that the vast majority of reputable sources give Qarshe the title. I have cited both WP:UNDUE, explaining that inclusion of Sinimo, using a single source, gives undue importance and weight and goes against neutrality guidelines by promotion of minority views. I have also cited WP:EXCEPTIONAL in relation to the fact that exceptional statements require exceptional sourcing numerous times in the discussion(s), and yet the editor continues to edit war against all evidence. They do not seem to even accept their own source that they've cited previously which confirms that "The Somali people and others regard you [as in Abdullahi Qarshe, not Sinimo] as the “Father of Somali Music” [104]. Any opinions would be appreciated. Regards -- Kzl55 ( talk) 13:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Is that your own made up summary? It's very interesting that you attempt to distort the reality of the discussion to suit your agenda. However, I can easily give my own explanation without having to distort the facts. I will clearly outline my contribution.
The user (Kzl55), attempted many times to remove a sourced content from the articles Balwo, Abdullahi Qarshe and Abdi Sinimo. His main contention was that Abdullahi Qarshe was unanimously agreed upon that he was the 'Father of Somali Music' therefore the title is exclusive to him and nobody else warrants having the same title. After that I posted more than one published work that makes the case that Abdi Sinimo also can hold the same title. The source is here (see: Qarshe himself acknowledged (see: [105]) that he considered Abdi Sinimo to have been more deserving of the title as he quoted Sinimo DIRECTLY when faced with the question regarding if he is the 'Father of Somali Music'. Another source that I used to make the claim was the Horn of Africa, Journal, Vol. 15 (see here: [106]) which per Wikipedia regulations, can make the exact same case. After constant vandalism and unwarranted removals by the user (Kzl55), I edited the title to reflect the sourced edit, which was 'Father of the Modern Somali Song', which was different to the title of 'Father of Somali Music' . The primary reason why I made this edit was to stop the unwarranted edit warring and removals by this user (Kzl55). However, he continues to barrage the pages with removals unjustifiably although the titles are different and not the same. There are over 10 different sources (see: [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115] and [116]) that confirm why this title was conferred upon Sinimo. Please read: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. Refer to: [117]. Despite this he continuously vandalised the paged with the removals citing the titles are the same, where I made the argument that it isn't the same. The argument I made was when I said: "The sources itself explain clearly WHY the titles were given.
1. One source says: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160 (see: [ [118]). There is a correlation between penning and creating the genre and the title 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. This is CLEAR from the source.
2. Another source states the reason as to why many consider Qarshe to be the 'Father of Somali Music' is when he said: 'Perhaps, I am the first Somali to set Somali songs to the music of the lute (kaman)' Source: Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [119]. So the inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE in any way."
This is the summary of the dispute. I would hope that the matter is resolved and fixed ad that the vandalism doesn't continue further by this user. MustafaO ( talk) 23:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Issue resolved by editors, please close. Regards -- Kzl55 ( talk) 23:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 70 | ← | Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 |
Prompted by Racism in Poland, where some users are claiming types of antisemitism and islamophobia generally are not racism and should be excluded from the article while the also claiming the main focus of the article should be racism against Poles in Poland - as opposed to racism against minorities in Poland ( diff). A number of users have also challenged mainstream academic sources on the topic (e.g. on Jewish ghettos in the middle ages in Poland). The question raised, however, is a general one. Currently - articles such as Racism in the United Kingdom or Racism in the United States cover religious based hate. Sources and organizations coverage hate discourse (e.g. SPLC) do not differentiate between racist and religious hate in terms of their coverage (they do cover the motivations of hate groups - which often are mixed (e.g. both ethnic and religious based, though for some one is dominant) - thus sources on "racism in X", tend to also cover hate discourse that is not strictly racist in the sense of "racial theory". Outside input requested. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The word “racism” first came into common usage in the 1930s when a new word was required to describe the theories on which the Nazis based their persecution of the Jews. As is the case with many of the terms historians use, the phenomenon existed before the coinage of the word that we use to describe it. But our understanding of what beliefs and behaviors are to be considered “racist” has been unstable. Somewhere between the view that racism is a peculiar modern idea without much historical precedent and the notion that it is simply a manifestation of the ancient phenomenon of tribalism or xenophobia may lie a working definition that covers more than scientific or biological racism but less than the kind of group prejudice based on culture, religion, or simply a sense of family or kinship.
It is when differences that might otherwise be considered ethnocultural are regarded as innate, indelible, and unchangeable that a racist attitude or ideology can be said to exist. It finds its clearest expression when the kind of ethnic differences that are firmly rooted in language, customs, and kinship are overridden in the name of an imagined collectivity based on pigmentation, as in white supremacy, or on a linguistically based myth of remote descent from a superior race, as in Aryanism. But racism as I conceive it is not merely an attitude or set of beliefs; it also expresses itself in the practices, institutions, and structures that a sense of deep difference justifies or validates. Racism, therefore, is more than theorizing about human differences or thinking badly of a group over which one has no control. It either directly sustains or proposes to establish a racial order, a permanent group hierarchy that is believed to reflect the laws of nature or the decrees of God. Racism in this sense is neither a given of human social existence, a universal “consciousness of kind,” nor simply a modern theory that biology determines history and culture. Like the modern scientific racism that is one expression of it, it has a historical trajectory and is mainly, if not exclusively, a product of the West. But it originated in at least a prototypical form in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries rather than in the eighteenth or nineteenth (as is sometimes maintained) and was originally articulated in the idioms of religion more than in those of natural science.— Fredrickson, George Marsh (2003). Racism: a short history (5. print ed.). Princeton, NJ: Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-691-11652-5.
Issues of NPOV have been raised during the review: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1. In the course of the review, the article has been tagged for NPOV: [1]. Additional input would be appreciated; the more recent comments can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1#August 2019 update. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 12:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: This is a long standing dispute that has opened back up again, so I'm asking for external input in advance
There is a dispute at Campus sexual assault that could use some outside input ( discussion). To summarize: the article cites a number of conservative commentators (like Christina Hoff Sommers, Stuart Taylor Jr., and KC Johnson) who believe that the survey methods used to study campus sexual assault are systematically over-estimating the prevalence of the phenomenon. None of these people are experts in a relevant academic field, and their criticisms are, at this point, out of step with what peer reviewed research says about the prevalence of CSA. I have argued that their critiques should be given less weight and be placed in a separate "criticism" subsection, but another editor has disagreed with that approach. Any outside input is appreciated. Nblund talk 21:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Nblund has removed several critiques of the current approach that some academics and schools use to measure sexual assault. He/she relies heavily on primary sources that support the maximal views while removing viewpoints that don't, or put the studies in context. S/he even calls the Bureau of Justice Statistics (a federal government agency that analysis crime statistics) dubious [2]. For the record just because something is academic, doesn't mean it's free of POV which is why secondary sources are valuable. Yoffe is a seasoned journalist and is a secondary source. Per WP:RS, this is preferred. Likewise KC Johnson has spent years on this topic. Just because Nblund says he's not relevant is an opinion. Mattnad ( talk) 17:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
it is likely that the NCVS is undercounting rape and sexual assault victimization (p. 4). Nblund talk 19:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Jim, the subject of the James D. Zirin Wikipedia article. I've had difficulty making and suggesting improvements to this page in the past, though my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines was fairly limited then. I now know I shouldn't edit the article directly and should work with other editors to discuss and make changes for me.
I'm looking for help with the "close connection" tag. In June, one editor has said they "don't have any philosophical opposition to removal of the Close Contributor template if someone discovers that the article is now in a reasonable shape…". I've asked for assistance at Talk:James_D._Zirin#Close_connection_tag with no luck. I'm hoping someone who reads this noticeboard might be willing to take a look at the article's text and either remove the tag if there are no major concerns, or share which text is problematic so I can take appropriate steps to address.
Might there be someone willing to review? If not, perhaps there are other places I could go to seek help? Thanks. Jim Zirin ( talk) 20:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed this when I added the subject line, but this is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messiah ben Joseph (LDS Church) with NPOV and NOR issues cited as the reason. I came here because of this: "Ancient ancestral prophecies concerning the House of Joseph (many of them, according to Latter-day Saints, now 'restored' through Joseph Smith from their lost or 'corrupted' state) [1]. [2] center upon what some members and scholars of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in recent decades, have come to view as a messianic figure at the core of those prophecies — an 'anointed one' of Jewish tradition and legend who is variously called ' Messiah ben Joseph' or 'Messiah ben Ephraim'. [3] [4] [5] I took this to the talk page and User:Chauvelin2000 gave what to me is an unsatisfactory explanation, although I admit I'm not sure I understand it. Doug Weller talk 06:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Awesome, now, if you were only allowed to use those six sources, what would the article look like, and how would it be different from Messiah ben Joseph? (Not asking you to write it, btw, just basic outline.) Someguy1221 ( talk) 01:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I recently published an article on behalf of Dr. Chin, and it flagged for speedy deletion. The editor ( Praxidicae ) has been playing power games by responding to my questions with more questions and not clearly stating what violations need to be corrected. Can an admin review, and help me to resolve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCDLLC ( talk • contribs) 01:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
A massive percentage of Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet was written by User:Arbil44, who claims to be a descendant.
I already trimmed out some blatantly POV insertions, but the rest of the page is extremely long for a man who was a minor noble, and the entire Images section doesn't seem like it should be there.
Can someone with a better understanding of policy have a look?
74.70.146.1 ( talk) 04:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I will take a look at what has been culled from this page when I can. Right now I am busy working with colleagues in America to bring history-changing information to Wikipedia users and the wider community. Charles Asgill was at the centre of the United States's first international diplomatic incident in 1782, known as The Asgill Affair, involving George Washington and Queen Marie Antoinette. This places him as considerably more than a minor noble. Take a look at the further reading section, if it is still intact, to see that several plays were written about him. Signing off as Arbil44 in case I cannot get the approved system to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbil44 ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
TThank you Alexbrn, the Nuremberg Trials concluded that Nazis engaged in genocide of Poles and Jews, and this position is followed by scholars on the subject, in general the conclusions on Nazi atrocities by Nuremberg Trials aren't rejected(although there are aalways minority and revisionist views).Your suggestion to move ssources to main body where this is ddescribed seems like a good one. MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 12:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
hardly any type of antisemitism? Are we again going to have a discussion about Polish sources admitting antisemitism is so widespread that, [12] in the words of Irena Sendler, "it was easier to hide a tank under the carpet than shelter a Jew"?
As to the article, note that it is about racism in Poland, not HolocaustSo why are you pushing so hard on the German treatment of Poles?
there is debate what shape should it takeThere is indeed, [13] and if we'll follow the community's opinion [14] then the article would look very different.
Again, nothing against mentioning that Jews were first targets of Nazi German genocideThat's a lie. [15] [16]
hardly any type of antisemitism? Are we again going to have a discussion about Polish sources admitting antisemitism is so widespread that You seem totally confused as to my statement, which is simply stating fact that mentioning genocide of Poles or Roma is hardly antisemitism.
Historians like Timothy Snyder, Norman Naimark, states that Poles were victims of Genocide, author of genocide definition Rapheael Lemkin states so as well Timothy Snyder: When the Germans shot tens of thousands of Poles in 1944, with the intention of making sure that Warsaw would never rise again, that was genocide, too. Far less dramatic measures, such as the kidnapping and Germanisation of Polish children, were also, by the legal definition, genocide. Norman Naimark Genocide: A World History Hitler's genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and at the Jews.
This is in line with verdict at Nuremberg Trials and Polish genocide trials that stated:The policy of extermination was in the first place directed against the Jewish and Polish nations. This criminal organization did not reject any means of furthering their aim at destroying the Jewish nation. The wholesale extermination of Jews and also of Poles had all the characteristics of genocide in the biological meaning of this term [18](Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals Selected and prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission)they conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others. I am not really sure what you are trying to argue here.That historians like Snyder or Neimark shoudn't edit Wikipedia? That Lemkin was wrong? That Nuremberg Trials should be questioned? Denying that genocide of Poles by Nazis took place, which unfortunately seems like you are doing(you are free to correct me on this if I am wrong and I will delete this if I am indeed wrong about your intentions) Anyway, this is not the place for personal theories. Both legal authorities and historians agree on genocidal policies and actions of Nazi Germany against both Jews(who of course were treated much more severely, nobody denies this here) and ethnic Poles. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 21:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually it was me who added to the article's lead partYes, after I forced you to, [19] after four days of discussion.
Because racism towards Poles was especially drastic during periods of German control over Poland, Oh, and Jews? But you're perfectly content pushing Jews out because "this isn't about the Holocaust".
/info/en/?search=Genocide_Convention Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as
All of the above applies to treatment of Poles under Nazi Occupation, which Nuremberg Trials recognized for example:
a)
Operation Tannenberg,
AB-Aktion or e)
Kidnapping_of_Polish_children_by_Germany
So again you're in a spot where only two of your (now) 16-17 sources are thorough RS that seem to support the notion of a Holocaust-scale genocide Incorrect. All the sources state that Nazis carried out genocide against Poles. You are now changing the goal posts however, because you now changed your phrasing to Holocaust-scale genocide,which the article doesn't state, a genocide doesn't have to be on a scale of Holocaust to be defined as one, and I have already stated numerous times that Jews of cource were treated more severely. I think the issue we are having here is that you are unware that genocide isn't restricted to Holocaust and that actually it has a broader definition than you believe it does. But you're perfectly content pushing Jews out because "this isn't about the Holocaust" I haven't removed any information about Holocaust from the article. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
per UN Genocide ConventionBut we're not in a position to state where it applies - that's WP:OR.
All the sources state that Nazis carried out genocide against Poles"Carried" or "planned"? Again, we've addressed it before.
You are now changing the goal postsI'm not, I'm just reading through your own comments, on that page and elsewhere.
I think the issue we are having hereYou've already made that statement and I already replied. [23] This is about poor sourcing, marginalization of minorities, and WP:GAMING.
I haven't removed any information about Holocaust from the articleNo, you just pushed it down, along with some statements... [24] [25]
All the sources state that Nazis carried out genocide against Poles"Carried" or "planned"? Again, we've addressed it before.
I am pretty sure Nazis did mass murder Poles in AB Aktion and kidnapped over 200,000 Polish children. Are you saying this didn't happen? And as Nuremberg trial states They conducted deliberate and systematic genocide, viz., the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others. This is about poor sourcing, marginalization of minorities, and WP:GAMING.There are more than 10 sources, all of them of great value and scholarly that confirm the obvious-genocide of Nazis against Jews, Poles and Roma.The section on Jewish minority currently is far bigger than the section on Poles who were larger group affected by racism.
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC) -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
In addition to falsely accusing another editor of "trolling" (when it's clearly a content dispute), Francois Robere makes some false statements about sources above. He also tends to set up a lot of strawman. Sometimes at the same time. For example:
Naimark states that about Polish elites (...) It's terrible, but it's not the systematic extermination of a nation in extermination camps.<-- Actually that's not true. Naimark does NOT say the "genocidal intentions" were aimed only at the Polish elites. FR just made that part up. Naimark clearly states: Hitler's genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and Jews. It kind of can't get clearer than that [29]. As to the second part ("but it's not the systematic extermination of a nation in extermination camps") yeah, it's not. But nobody claimed it was. It could've been a genocide - indeed sources say it was - WITHOUT the use of extermination camps. There have been many genocides in history without death camps. This is Francois Robere setting up the strawman.
Actually that's not true. Naimark does NOT say [that]Naimark, there (2nd ed.), p. 78: "Hitler’s genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and at the Jews. At the outset of the occupation, in Operation Tannenberg, the Nazis identified some 60,000 leading Polish politicians, clergymen, teachers, lawyers, writers, and other prominent members of the Polish elite for arrest and elimination. The idea was to decapitate the Polish nation and force the remainder of the population into a subservient role as denationalized helots in the service of the Third Reich. Some Polish children were taken as “Aryans” to the Reich to be raised as Germans." (emphasis for readability purposes)
nobody claimed it wasAs always, you're missing the point, and with a splendid "straw man" of your own. I trust that every reasonable editor can read past it, so I won't dwell on it further. I will remind you, though, that Molobo claimed at least twice that Poles (as a nation) should be considered Holocaust victims, [30] [31] which is most certainly not a view shared by RS (you're familiar with Gutman and Krakowski's Unequal Victims: Poles and Jews During World War Two (1988)). Top that with his current fight to put Poles - a 90%-97% majority - at the top of Racism in Poland, possibly pushing out expressions of antisemitism and Islamophobia, and you end up with a nasty fight to remake the entire article from a particular ethnocentric POV. François Robere ( talk) 01:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Hitler’s genocidal policies in Poland were directed both at the Poles and at the Jews. That's about as clear as it gets. Killing off the "politicians, clergymen, teachers, lawyers, writers" is PART OF a genocide. As is the kidnapping of children. You're trying to flip the argument on its head. "If elites are killed it's not genocide!". How does that makes sense? There's no "ONLY" there - that is the part you've invented yourself. And it says "genocidal policies at Poles" black on white, crystal clear, as straightforward as it gets. And then *you* accuse others of original research? Seriously?
NONE of these disputes makes it ok... to engage in personal attacksI generally agree that we should be generous interpreting others' intentions, AGF and avoid "casting aspersions". I also notice that you've been paying much more attention to these things since the ARBCOM case concluded. Maybe, after a year and a half, we can finally agree on etiquette, if little else. François Robere ( talk) 16:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
"Similar statements were often made by other political leaders who denied the uniqueness of the Holocaust in order to present their own nations as unique victims of historical atrocities and to deny the historical cruelties perpetrated by ingroup members. Thus, perception of ingroup victimhood serves as a strategy that allows for denial of responsibility", and
"Polish participants who felt that their nation was especially victimized throughout history or victimized more than Jews, tended to believe more strongly in a Jewish conspiracy and their attitudes toward Jews were more negative.".
"the research found that individual Jews and the general Jewish population were stereotyped or Polonized, while the Holocaust was cited as part of an overall Nazi policy to destroy non-Jewish Poles. Thus, Jewish victims were, by and large, folded into the story of Polish victimhood"
"The current PiS government pursues a very aggressive and nationalistic policy of commemoration, stressing Polish victimhood, innocence and heroism"
" Poland is at the forefront of this process, all distortions leading to a wide- spread self-depiction of the Polish ethnic community as the main victim of the Holocaust, a portrayal supported by the myth of historical tolerance of the Jews in Poland.
"Yet in Poland, a country where ethno-nationalism has always been strong and that became almost mono-ethnically Polish after the war, the phrase ‘the Polish Nation and other Nations’ like the word ‘nation’ was understood largely in the ethnic sense. A consequence was that the Jews – the largest category of Auschwitz deportees, prisoners, and victims – were listed last in official Polish publications as the Polish word for them (Żydzi) begins with the last letter of the alphabet. More importantly, regardless of whether the word ‘nation’ was understood in the civic or ethnic sense, the phrase ‘martryrdom of the Polish Nation and other Nations’ placed the suffering and death of the Poles first, above the victimhood of others. This was a legal rendering of what Jonathan Huener called ‘a Polish-national martyrological idiom’ that was characteristic of Poland’s postwar commemorative vocabulary in general and in reference to Auschwitz in particular.". ....
", at present Auschwitz as a symbol of martyrdom of the Polish nation essentially means that the Poles (in either meaning) were the first to suffer and die at the camp, and their suffering and death marked the beginning of Auschwitz and other Nazi camps and victimhood of all other groups.".
Some editors are trying to spin Elizabeth Warren's ancestry by removing the reactions by prominent Native Americans who support Warren, which exist to provide balance and neutrality for those who are offended or upset by her ancestry. PunxtawneyPickle ( talk) 02:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
This article could probably use some more eyes, and possibly an AfD. GMG talk 00:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Is Adam Minter's opinion in Bloomberg Opinion piece "When It Comes to Twitter Meddling, China's No Russia" (reproduced below) considered due weight in 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Social media?
Whatever the backstory, a brief perusal of the database reveals that the vast majority of content tweeted by these accounts wasn't related to Hong Kong and -- most important -- failed to generate retweets, likes or responses. In fact, most of the tweets in the database have no connection to the protests; some of the most popular appear to link to prurient material.
"When It Comes to Twitter Meddling, China's No Russia", Adam Minter, Bloomberg Opinion
I'm not convinced that
Adam Minter's "brief perusal"
of the
two data sets released by Twitter is
due here, as the columnist is not a
subject-matter expert, and his opinion was not mentioned by other reliable sources.
See also prior discussion at Talk:2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Bloomberg Opinion piece regarding the Twitter data sets. — Newslinger talk 22:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I've added Mozilla Foundation fellow Renee DiResta's analysis to balance the paragraph, which has been split to International reactions to the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests § Social media. Feel free to make further adjustments if necessary. — Newslinger talk 23:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia#country categorization dispute
list of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia
Current text; ===States with limited, but substantial, international recognition=== In this list, Palestine is a state with substantial and widespread international recognition and UN observer-state status but without practical control over tangible territory, while Taiwan is a de facto state with full practical sovereignty over its territory and unofficial ties with most of the international community but not widely recognized de jure. A founding member of the United Nations as the Republic of China, as of 1971, Taiwan is no longer recognized by the United Nations.
Flag | Map | English short and formal names | Status | Domestic short and formal names | Capital | Population | Area |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Palestine State of Palestine |
Claimed as part of Israel. Recognized by 140 UN member states. (Not recognized by Israel and 55 other UN member states.) One of two United Nations non-member observer states | Arabic: فلسطين (Filasṭīn) |
Jerusalem (declared) Arabic: القدس (Al-Quds) Ramallah (de facto) Arabic: رام الله (Rāmāllah) |
4,550,000 | 6,220 km2 (2,402 sq mi)
Proposed change; Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question. Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context. It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format | ||
Taiwan Republic of China [1] [2] |
Claimed as part of the People's Republic of China. Officially recognized as the rightful government of all of China by 11 UN member states and the Holy See. However, Taiwan maintains unofficial relations with most other countries and is de facto recognized by most sovereign states. See Political status of Taiwan for more information about the situation. | Traditional Chinese: 臺灣/台灣 — 中華民國 (Táiwān—Zhōnghuá Mínguó) |
Taipei
[1]
[3] Traditional Chinese: 臺北/台北 (Táiběi) |
23,071,779 [4] | 35,980 km2 (13,892 sq mi) [5] |
Proposed change
In this list, Taiwan is a de facto state with full practical sovereignty over its territory and unofficial ties with most of the international community but not widely recognized de jure. A founding member of the United Nations as the Republic of China, as of 1971, Taiwan is no longer recognized by the United Nations.
Flag | Map | English short and formal names | Status | Domestic short and formal names | Capital | Population | Area |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Taiwan Republic of China [1] [6] |
Claimed as part of the People's Republic of China. Officially recognized as the rightful government of all of China by 11 UN member states and the Holy See. However, Taiwan maintains unofficial relations with most other countries and is de facto recognized by most sovereign states. See Political status of Taiwan for more information about the situation. | Traditional Chinese: 臺灣/台灣 — 中華民國 (Táiwān—Zhōnghuá Mínguó) |
Taipei
[1]
[3] Traditional Chinese: 臺北/台北 (Táiběi) |
23,071,779 [4] | 35,980 km2 (13,892 sq mi) [5] |
The change proposed is to recategorize Palestine not as a state with “substantial, but limited recognition” but as a “generally recognized” state
Lo meiin ( talk) 14:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Europa
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Capital
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Population
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Area
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).There's a discussion over at the Tulsi Gabbard talk page regarding how to apply due weight to questions about legislative co-sponsorship. The main questions are:
Background The
Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard page mentions multiple bills that Gabbard co-sponsored, but most of these bills are covered only in primary sources such as Congress.gov. For instance: Gabbard co-sponsored the
Government by the People Act, but she is
one of 163 representatives to co-sponsor that bill. Reliable sources do not mention her as a significant supporter of that bill, and she has co-sponsored
over 1000 bills while in Congress. I've argued that it is probably
WP:UNDUE to include her co-sponsorships unless they receive coverage in secondary sources.
Xenagoras
has argued that the due weight policy only applies to opinions and does not apply to undisputed facts like Gabbard's co-sponsorship. I don't think this is correct, but I would appreciate external feedback.
Nblund
talk 02:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to mention legislative co-sponsorships when they are not covered by secondary sources?No.
Does WP:DUE apply to factsYes.
DrifAssault has added an extraordinary amount of criticism to the 5-Minute Crafts article, mostly using original research, self-published sources (including Wikia ( RSP entry) and other YouTube ( RSP entry) channels), and selective quoting of news articles. The addition of the chart at Special:Diff/913019435 is a bit over-the-top.
I've started a discussion on the talk page at Talk:5-Minute Crafts § Original research to no effect. It would be nice to see some additional opinions on the content of this article. — Newslinger talk 10:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
DrifAssault: Yes, there are a lot of negative idea on my page, but I thought I can add some idea to them. However, i have cited to be more "third-party" and also some positive ideas. However, i want to have a fresh eye on this. P/S: social blade is acually an analystic tool to youtube channel, which count subscriber and views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Is mentioning also not allowed? as I just show people that there is that channel? (I have read that, and found out most of my added source are biased, and I thank you for helping me as I am a new Wiki editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I will remove direct source altoghether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC) /info/en/?search=User:DrifAssault/sandbox so if newslinger or/and gmg want to help me, please edit my sandbox page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrifAssault ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Our policies/guidelines on sourcing and reliability can be a lot to read through, so let me summarize the relevant parts for you:
I searched for articles or something about this wonderful singer, even though dead, it will still be great to see some information about her.
Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.199.69 ( talk) 18:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, everybody! Please see Talk:Jennifer_Pan#Possible_bias_in-text for a discussion on whether the ethnic backgrounds of the individuals involved and whether the status that one of the convicted co-conspirators (none of the people charged by the Canadian authorities - "the Crown" - were exonerated, all were convicted or pleaded guilty) was a drug dealer, a way in which he got to know and recruited other co-conspirators, are relevant or irrelevant details for this article.
Thanks, WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
This rather sorry article has some potential sources listed at the foot, but I don't understand the geopolitics enough to weed out polemic from news. Anyone here feel like taking pity on it? Guy ( Help!) 13:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I issued a RfC almost a month ago. As one of the main arguments concerns POV related issues, may I ask your kind contribution fellow wikipedians? Talk:EOKA#Request for Comment. Cinadon 36 19:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Recently, the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau contravened a Conflict of Interest Act. In referring to this incident Trudeau said he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but cannot apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs. An editor on the SNC Lavelin article has removed part of the information on this so that the article reads, "the Prime Minister said that he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but did not apologize." instead of Trudeau's full statement, "Prime Minister said that he takes full responsibility for the mistakes made but could not apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs."
There are multiple sources documenting and discussing Trudeau's words so RS is not an issue. Here is one: [42]. As a disclaimer: I was the editor who added the words, "could not apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs." as context but am now being accused of POV editing. Discussion here. Welcome all input as to whether this content can and should be added to the article. Littleolive oil ( talk) 02:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Iblismesdara's entire contribution to Wikipedia has been to note that particular biographical subjects have made significant donations to Donald Trump's campaign. The edits do not place any value judgement on said donations, but merely point them out.
I contend that, since none of the subjects in question is a notably active political person, their political donation history should not be a part of the Wikipedia biography. Iblismesdara contends that, since these donations are a matter of public record, they are valid content for the Wikipedia articles. On this basis, to be neutral, we would need to record the political donation history of every Wikipedia biographical subject. I further contend that, since Iblismesdara is concentrating solely on contributions to Trump, his motivations, whether positive or negative, are not neutral. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As you may know, the phrases climate change and global warming have been officially replaced by some (certainly not all) media outlets. For example, the editorial board of the The Guardian has adopted substitute phrases climate crisis and global heating. Greta Thunberg and the school climate strike movement uses similar language and will be making a lot more headlines in weeks ahead. Meanwhile here at home is a surge of new interest in the climate pages, and a fast-rising citing of "climate crisis" phrasing in RSs. Inevitably, some editors want to follow the The Guardian's lead by embracing the use of "climate crisis" in Wikivoice. It's my view that the balance of RSs may get us there one day, but not yet, and so we need to report on the reframing issue itself, and use inline attribution where necessary. I'm interested in consensus that leaves us all stronger together, but fear this has earmarks of a potential blow up. We're gonna need your skilled NPOV help, I think, and right now the focal point might be at Greta Thunberg and Climate crisis.
Caution, all climate pages are under DS per WP:ARBCOMM. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 11:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
We have the data. We understand the science. So, it still amazes me that there are people who are not convinced that we are facing a climate crisis. Research published in Nature has revealed that the power of storytelling is as key to scientific communication as much as presenting the numbers. It is important therefore for scientists to tap into these skills if we want to engage everyone in the debate. [48]
I have been trying to wrestle this article down to something supported by third party sources. There is a small community of fans co-ordinating on social media because they prefer the version with the full HOWTO based almost exclusively on press releases and self-sourcing. I tried helping them via Twitter, but the indications there are that they aren't interested in anything less than a full technical manual, and aren't really that interested in finding secondary sources. I need to walk away before I lose my temper with them. Guy ( help!) 20:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
There's a dispute over at Talk:Dave Rubin over whether or not the category "classical liberal" can be applied to his article. Several sources describe him as applying this categorization to himself, but few reliable sources actually use the term to describe him in their own voice (he's commonly described as a libertarian). Outside input would be appreciated. ( discussion here)
Broadening a bit: I recently removed this category from several contemporary political figures (ex: Charles Koch, Allen West, Christina Hoff Sommers) who are usually described as conservative or libertarian. Clearly it applies to people like John Locke (although he's not in the category) but I'd be open to input on whether it is appropriate from some contemporary political figures. Nblund talk 01:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. source
There is a request for comment currently active at Talk:Andy_Ngo#RfC:_Do_sources_support_calling_Ngo's_statements_on_the_hammer_attack_"false"? Andy Ngo that may be of interest to users of this noticeboard. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
On Music of Somalia article as well as other articles related to Somali music, editor MustafaO is attempting to include that artist Abdi Sinimo is known as "father of Somali music", they have a single source supporting this statement [49], and the source does not even state the exact wording they are using (source states "father of modern Somali song"), the only other academic source they've provided is a primary source interview. In contrast, the vast majority of published reliable sources state the artist known as "father of Somali music" is Abdullahi Qarshe, I have included numerous reputable sources e.g. [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] ...etc etc, but they continue to edit war across multiple pages. I have tried to explain that inclusion of Sinimo is undue and that most reputable sources give Qarshe the title to no avail. They do not even accept their own source that they've cited which states that "The Somali people and others regard you [as in Abdullahi Qarshe, not Sinimo] as the “Father of Somali Music” [60]. Any opinions would be appreciated. Regards -- Kzl55 ( talk) 13:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo]. There are many other sources that make the same claim. What is extremely concerning is the fact that he constantly vandalises these pages with unwarranted removals of these sourced, accredited and referenced works.
Inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE because this is not an issue of a minority view versus a majority view. The titles are completely different and are reflective of different realities hence why I edited the title to reflect the sourced content. I dont understand how you can make an allegation such as me 'abandoning both the original title and there being many sources that claim Abdi Sinimo is the Father of Somali Music'... And at the same time you say: 'We dont need to hear why you've abandoned "father of Somali music" and now pivoting to another title'. So in fact you were never interested in having a discussion because had you read my comments you would have realised that I sourced more than two comments in which there is reasonable argument to give him such a title... However I edited the title to remove any ambiguity and further stop any act of vandalism on your part. Unfortunately you did not take heed. Having said that, the titles 'Father of Somali Music' is very different to 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. A fact that you continuously attempt at distorting by injecting the majority versus minority view which is unsubstantial, simmply because there is NO contradiction. The titles are different. Didn't you say you would allow the editrs to weigh in? Why are you continuing to fuel the debate and then claim to withdraw at the same time? MustafaO ( talk) 14:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The fact remains that the inclusion isn't WP:UNDUE, here are TWO sources that can be used to make the argument for keeping the title of 'Father of Somali Music', (see: [73]) and (see: [74]). The only reason why I am repeating myself CONSTANTLY is because of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Interesting you've leveled that at me when the reality is that I've mentioned on so many occasions (please refer to the discussion on this page) as to the reasons as to WHY I edited the title despite it being valid to use. I mentioned clearly and many times why I edited it. At this point I would just be repeating myself. The titles that were given to both Abdullahi Qarshe and Abdi Sinimo are different now. So it's irrelevant to continue making the minority versus majority argument since the tiles denote two completely different meanings. You continue to say you will wait for the other editors to comment, yet you keep interjecting. This certainly is not helpful. The articles do not need continuous and disruptive acts of vandalism. MustafaO ( talk) 15:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Whether or not having a single source supporting each statement is completely irrelevant to the point being that it is vandalism for you to remove the sourced content since the titles denote TWO completely different meanings. The titles 'Father of Somali Music' and 'Father of the Modern Somali Song' are two different titles. This is why it cannot be seen as being contradictory as this is NOT a case of inclusion of minority views. The titles, live I've said many times, are different. Inclusion therefore, is not WP:UNDUE. I literally quoted more than one source, so to keep repeating a fabrication is unwarranted. The sources do not contradict each other and there is no exclusivity as this issue is more likely than not, subjective. It doesn't warrant continued vandalism and unwarranted removals on your part. MustafaO ( talk) 16:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It is vandalism, simply because it is NOT a minority view that you are removing. It is a published and referenced work which confers a title ('Father of Modern Somali Song) completely DIFFERENT to the title you claim it is contradicting ('Father of Somali Music'). The whole premise of your argument rests on the point that the source I quoted is a minority conflicting with more referenced works. The FACT is, that's absolutely NOT the case because the the titles in the articles (as currently stands) are completely different regarding the respective individuals involved, Abdi Sinimo and Abdullahi Qarshe. Therefore it can never be considered as being WP:UNDUE. MustafaO ( talk) 16:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
The reason why it is NOT WP:UNDUE is because the differences in the titles reflect TWO completely different realities. So recycling the same argument over and over is now redundant. Here are examples that prove these titles are not variations in any way. They are not merely different wordings. The sources itself explain clearly WHY the titles were given.
1. One source says: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. There is a correlation between penning and creating the genre and the title 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. This is CLEAR from the source.
2. Another source states the reason as to why many consider Qarshe to be the 'Father of Somali Music' is when he said: 'Perhaps, I am the first Somali to set Somali songs to the music of the lute (kaman)' Source: Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [75]. So the inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE in any way.
So the majority views versus minority is redundant as you can see here, the titles were given to reflect two completely different realities.
This whole section of your argument: And even if they were not, it would still be undue inclusion'Bold text' is arguing on the premise that there the titles are the same or a variant of the same original title, which it isn't. Refer to: (Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160 [76] and Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [77] to see the reasons why the titles reflect different meanings as the sources leave very little room to argue otherwise. MustafaO ( talk) 16:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Why is that argument clearly WP:UNDUE? It doesn't contradict any claim that Qarshe is the 'Father of Somali Music'. So I do not understand why you keep pushing the same argument and obfuscating the discussion.
1. The first source was (see:
[78]), Qarshe considered Abdi Sinimo to have been more deserving as he quoted him DIRECTLY when faced with the question regarding if he is the 'Father of Somali Music'... This was the one of the sources that I used to make the earlier argument.
2. The second was (see: [79]). Where an argument to dub him with the title can easily be validated per the editing regulations by Wikipedia.
I explained the reason as to WHY I edited the title to 'Father of Modern Somali Song' for two main reasons: a. To stop your unwarranted removal and vandalism on the page. b. To align the title exactly to the worded source. MustafaO ( talk) 17:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
There are over 10 different sources (see:
[80],
[81],
[82],
[83],
[84],
[85],
[86],
[87],
[88] and
[89]) stating that Abdi Sinimo penned and pioneered the Balwo, which was the exact reason as to why the source you constantly remove makes that claim that he is the Father of the modern Somali Song: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. Refer to:
[90].
I await the other editors to comment, especially those who are independent from the issue at hand. The sources are all correlated.
MustafaO (
talk) 18:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
As a Somali, I have personally never heard of this individual (Abdi Sinimo). I am with Kzl55 that the statement father of Somali music is a bit excessive. Wadaad ( talk) 14:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
On Music of Somalia article as well as other articles related to Somali music, editor MustafaO first attempted to include that artist Abdi Sinimo is known as "father of Somali music" (e.g. [91], [92]). They have provided one single source supporting this statement [93] (the source actually states "father of modern Somali song", not "father of Somali music"). In contrast, the vast majority of published reliable sources state the artist known as "father of Somali music" is Abdullahi Qarshe e.g. [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103] (...etc etc). At this stage MustaphaO abandoned their original claim of Abdi Sinimo being "father of Somali music", and instead opted to pivot to use the wording: "father of modern Somali song", seeing as the only source they have provided uses this wording. I have tried to explain that inclusion of Sinimo is undue and that the vast majority of reputable sources give Qarshe the title. I have cited both WP:UNDUE, explaining that inclusion of Sinimo, using a single source, gives undue importance and weight and goes against neutrality guidelines by promotion of minority views. I have also cited WP:EXCEPTIONAL in relation to the fact that exceptional statements require exceptional sourcing numerous times in the discussion(s), and yet the editor continues to edit war against all evidence. They do not seem to even accept their own source that they've cited previously which confirms that "The Somali people and others regard you [as in Abdullahi Qarshe, not Sinimo] as the “Father of Somali Music” [104]. Any opinions would be appreciated. Regards -- Kzl55 ( talk) 13:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Is that your own made up summary? It's very interesting that you attempt to distort the reality of the discussion to suit your agenda. However, I can easily give my own explanation without having to distort the facts. I will clearly outline my contribution.
The user (Kzl55), attempted many times to remove a sourced content from the articles Balwo, Abdullahi Qarshe and Abdi Sinimo. His main contention was that Abdullahi Qarshe was unanimously agreed upon that he was the 'Father of Somali Music' therefore the title is exclusive to him and nobody else warrants having the same title. After that I posted more than one published work that makes the case that Abdi Sinimo also can hold the same title. The source is here (see: Qarshe himself acknowledged (see: [105]) that he considered Abdi Sinimo to have been more deserving of the title as he quoted Sinimo DIRECTLY when faced with the question regarding if he is the 'Father of Somali Music'. Another source that I used to make the claim was the Horn of Africa, Journal, Vol. 15 (see here: [106]) which per Wikipedia regulations, can make the exact same case. After constant vandalism and unwarranted removals by the user (Kzl55), I edited the title to reflect the sourced edit, which was 'Father of the Modern Somali Song', which was different to the title of 'Father of Somali Music' . The primary reason why I made this edit was to stop the unwarranted edit warring and removals by this user (Kzl55). However, he continues to barrage the pages with removals unjustifiably although the titles are different and not the same. There are over 10 different sources (see: [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115] and [116]) that confirm why this title was conferred upon Sinimo. Please read: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160. Refer to: [117]. Despite this he continuously vandalised the paged with the removals citing the titles are the same, where I made the argument that it isn't the same. The argument I made was when I said: "The sources itself explain clearly WHY the titles were given.
1. One source says: 'Thus crowning him as the uncontested father of the modern Somali song by penning the Balwo.' Horn of Africa Journal. 1997. p. 160 (see: [ [118]). There is a correlation between penning and creating the genre and the title 'Father of the Modern Somali Song'. This is CLEAR from the source.
2. Another source states the reason as to why many consider Qarshe to be the 'Father of Somali Music' is when he said: 'Perhaps, I am the first Somali to set Somali songs to the music of the lute (kaman)' Source: Interview with the late Abdullahi Qarshe (1994) [119]. So the inclusion is NOT WP:UNDUE in any way."
This is the summary of the dispute. I would hope that the matter is resolved and fixed ad that the vandalism doesn't continue further by this user. MustafaO ( talk) 23:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Issue resolved by editors, please close. Regards -- Kzl55 ( talk) 23:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)