Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Line 257: | Line 257: | ||
Reference 6 [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Subjects_of_Ottoman_International_La/n6UEEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=treaty+of+gandamak+protectorate&pg=PT163&printsec=frontcover] Reference states '''Afghanistan was technically a PROTECTORATE of the British Empire since the treaty of Gandamak of 1879 and reinforced in the Durand line accord of 1893.''' <br> |
Reference 6 [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Subjects_of_Ottoman_International_La/n6UEEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=treaty+of+gandamak+protectorate&pg=PT163&printsec=frontcover] Reference states '''Afghanistan was technically a PROTECTORATE of the British Empire since the treaty of Gandamak of 1879 and reinforced in the Durand line accord of 1893.''' <br> |
||
Reference 7 [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Afghanistan/J9_wDMaOowMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=treaty+of+gandamak+protectorate&pg=PA126&printsec=frontcover] Reference states '''by the treaty of Gandamak of May 1879, Afghanistan, in effect, became a British PROTECTORATE and gave British control of the Khyber Pass to ensure easy entry by the British troops.''' |
Reference 7 [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Afghanistan/J9_wDMaOowMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=treaty+of+gandamak+protectorate&pg=PA126&printsec=frontcover] Reference states '''by the treaty of Gandamak of May 1879, Afghanistan, in effect, became a British PROTECTORATE and gave British control of the Khyber Pass to ensure easy entry by the British troops.''' |
||
Reference 8 [https://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/rp/publications/no14/14-05_Toriya.pdf] Reference states: According to a large number of previous studies, Afghanistan was fixed as a buffer state between Russia and British India as a result of the war and the Gandamak Treaty, which was concluded between Amīr Ya‘qūb Khān and the British on 26 May 1879, substantially as proof of the surrender of the Afghan side. In this treaty, the Amīr of Kabul, a previous ruler of Afghanistan, not only ceded various territories but also handed over diplomatic rights to the British. '''In short, Afghanistan was virtually a British protectorate until 1919.''' |
|||
This is what 3rd opinion said on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Anglo-Afghan_War&diff=1046174633&oldid=1046162837], '''Here is my non binding opinion. I am for inclusion of protectorate. David A. Lake writes "Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate". Princeton University Press. Seems enough. Cinadon36 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)'''. [[Special:Contributions/199.82.243.96|199.82.243.96]] ([[User talk:199.82.243.96|talk]]) 17:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC) |
This is what 3rd opinion said on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Anglo-Afghan_War&diff=1046174633&oldid=1046162837], '''Here is my non binding opinion. I am for inclusion of protectorate. David A. Lake writes "Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate". Princeton University Press. Seems enough. Cinadon36 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)'''. [[Special:Contributions/199.82.243.96|199.82.243.96]] ([[User talk:199.82.243.96|talk]]) 17:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:26, 25 September 2021
![]() |
|
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Neith | In Progress | Potymkin (t) | 24 days, 14 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 9 hours | BrocadeRiverPoems (t) | 2 hours |
Kuči | Closed | Setxkbmap (t) | 6 days, 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 13 hours |
Kyoto International Junior and Senior High School | Closed | Meganinja202 (t) | 6 days, 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 14 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 14 hours |
Defense of Sihang Warehouse | New | Adachi1939 (t) | 5 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 20 hours | Adachi1939 (t) | 1 days, 15 hours |
Joseph Barbera | Closed | Whatsupkarren (t) | 4 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 11 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 11 hours |
Dominika Banevič | Closed | 88.216.164.52 (t) | 3 days, 22 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 13 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 11:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
![]() | If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputes
Social Democracy
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
A prior consensus (minus 1 user) was reached on the second sentence of the preamble, specifically that its economic ideology is a capitalist mixed economy, not socialism.
This dispute now is over the very first sentence which states the exact opposite (that it is socialism). The first sentence is directly contradictory to the second sentence.
I believe we need clarification on 3 points: 1) That Economic Ideology and Economic Philosophy are synonyms, and are not different. 2) The first sentence directly contradicts the second sentence. 3) Since the second sentence is not in question, the first sentence should be changed to match the second.
Unfortunately most of the talk page with this issue has been archived. Let me know if I need to provide relevant archived discussions or any other additional information.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[[1]]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Clarify the 3 points listed
Summary of dispute by Czello
I am surprised this post was made -- Twozerooz, I thought we agreed that an RfC was the best way to resolve this issue?
However, my summary of the issue is simply that there was no consensus to remove "economic philosophy" from the opening sentence, and Erzan was in discussion with OP about this issue, before OP stopped responding. As the the text remained for the next few months, I assumed the issue was resolved -- until OP chose to remove the text again by deceptively labelling it as vandalism.
All I want is for OP to pursue a consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring (something he has been reported to WP:EWN twice for, the second time resulting in a block). This is why I suggested an RfC, and OP agreed to this. Why we've come here instead is rather bizarre. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 15:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just for clarification Czello: The first sentence was never discussed. But given that the second sentence now has consensus, it seems to follow that the first sentence was simply omitted by error. I think much of the confusion here is in regards to different synonyms being used, so as long as nobody has an issue with it I will make an edit to use the same term for both sentences, then we will go from there. --Twozerooz (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- It has been like this for almost half a year. 'Economic ideology' and 'economic philosophy' mean the same thing. The reader will be taken to the same page, which is economic ideology so there is no confusion. Erzan (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes agreed, my point 1 is indisputably correct. --Twozerooz (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- It has been like this for almost half a year. 'Economic ideology' and 'economic philosophy' mean the same thing. The reader will be taken to the same page, which is economic ideology so there is no confusion. Erzan (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Just for clarification Czello: The first sentence was never discussed. But given that the second sentence now has consensus, it seems to follow that the first sentence was simply omitted by error. I think much of the confusion here is in regards to different synonyms being used, so as long as nobody has an issue with it I will make an edit to use the same term for both sentences, then we will go from there. --Twozerooz (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Social Democracy discussion
- Volunteer Note -While some precedent does seem to have been put forth roughly five months ago on the talk page, the discussion between the two parties mentioned here has been very short. Additionally, User:Czello has not been notified on their talk page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Volunteer Note - The discussion on the article talk page seems to be agreeing that a Request for Comments is the best way to resolve the questions. An issue should not be discussed in two or more places at the same time, and an RFC takes precedence over discussion at a noticeboard. If the editors want assistance in formulating a neutrally worded RFC, they can request that here. Are the editors requesting moderated discussion (in place of or prior to an RFC), or do they plan on using an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry wasn't aware there was different processes. I haven't initiated any other process yet, so please let me know whether I should do that or any other actions. --Twozerooz (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Yes, I'm rather confused as to why this post was made after OP agreed an RfC is the best way forward. Given that the original talk page thread had several different discussions going on at once, I think an RfC makes the topic of contention much clearer. I would urge Twozerooz to pursue that route as agreed. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 15:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Twozerooz: The best thing to do is follow the instructions here. As a suggestion for a neutrally-worded question for the RfC, I recommend Should "economic philosophy" be removed from the opening sentence?". — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 15:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Reading the processes, it does actually seem like a dispute resolution is more appropriate given that this is not actually a conflict regarding subject matter. The issue now isn't related to economics at all, but rather just confusion over synonyms and logical contradictions. Any unbiased party should be able to rectify this, regardless of their level of knowledge in economics. An RFC would have been very useful during the first dispute over the second sentence, but that has been resolved already --Twozerooz (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- You know what, I concede. I have no interest in arguing this further. I didn't feel strongly enough the matter the first time round, and it looks like it's just becoming a new edit war -- which is the very thing I was trying to prevent. Erzan appears to have returned this debate, so I'll leave it to him.
Although what, that was before I saw this. It appears consensus may in fact be leaning to leaving it in.— Czello (Please tag me in replies) 17:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)- Valjean was referring to changing the first synonym, as opposed to the second. He was right. I changed the second one to match instead - Valjean thanked me for the edit. And yes, someone canvassed Erzan to bring him in.... --Twozerooz (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I've already explained to you, notifying someone who was part of a prior discussion that the discussion has reopened is not canvassing. See WP:APPNOTE. Again, my position on the matter isn't all that strong, so your dispute is with Erzan more than it is with me. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 21:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- From WP:APPNOTE: "but uninvolved"... "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". Given that Erzan was the subject of the original edit war who had clear and very strong opinions to the contrary - and is someone who has a long history of edit warring - it just seems bizarre that someone would deliberately bring him in in order to "stop an edit war in the first place". Regardless, the bell cannot be unrung. Tagging in another editor to take your place does not mean the dispute is over; The dispute is still on-going and needs to be resolved. --Twozerooz (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- You know what, you're right. I didn't notice the "but uninvolved" part. Given the nature of your reversion on this, where you incorrectly labeled it as vandalism, I felt it appropriate to notify someone who was part of the debate. However, if I have misread the boundaries of WP:APPNOTE then I have erred and apologise. I do wish we'd had and RfC on this, but whatever -- I hope your other post resolves this. I worry that page is becoming a WP:BATTLEGROUND so I might just remove it from my watchlist. Peace. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 18:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- You're right, I didn't understand what Wiki defined vandalism as so I apologize for that. I still fail to understand how that could justify canvassing other people to push a specific viewpoint. Regardless, this will be my last comment here - I'll let the dispute resolution process continue. --Twozerooz (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- You know what, you're right. I didn't notice the "but uninvolved" part. Given the nature of your reversion on this, where you incorrectly labeled it as vandalism, I felt it appropriate to notify someone who was part of the debate. However, if I have misread the boundaries of WP:APPNOTE then I have erred and apologise. I do wish we'd had and RfC on this, but whatever -- I hope your other post resolves this. I worry that page is becoming a WP:BATTLEGROUND so I might just remove it from my watchlist. Peace. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 18:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- From WP:APPNOTE: "but uninvolved"... "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". Given that Erzan was the subject of the original edit war who had clear and very strong opinions to the contrary - and is someone who has a long history of edit warring - it just seems bizarre that someone would deliberately bring him in in order to "stop an edit war in the first place". Regardless, the bell cannot be unrung. Tagging in another editor to take your place does not mean the dispute is over; The dispute is still on-going and needs to be resolved. --Twozerooz (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- As I've already explained to you, notifying someone who was part of a prior discussion that the discussion has reopened is not canvassing. See WP:APPNOTE. Again, my position on the matter isn't all that strong, so your dispute is with Erzan more than it is with me. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 21:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Valjean was referring to changing the first synonym, as opposed to the second. He was right. I changed the second one to match instead - Valjean thanked me for the edit. And yes, someone canvassed Erzan to bring him in.... --Twozerooz (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- You know what, I concede. I have no interest in arguing this further. I didn't feel strongly enough the matter the first time round, and it looks like it's just becoming a new edit war -- which is the very thing I was trying to prevent. Erzan appears to have returned this debate, so I'll leave it to him.
- Reading the processes, it does actually seem like a dispute resolution is more appropriate given that this is not actually a conflict regarding subject matter. The issue now isn't related to economics at all, but rather just confusion over synonyms and logical contradictions. Any unbiased party should be able to rectify this, regardless of their level of knowledge in economics. An RFC would have been very useful during the first dispute over the second sentence, but that has been resolved already --Twozerooz (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Social democracy)
I am willing to act as the moderator. I will ask the editors to read WP:DRN Rule A and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements may make the author feel better, but they seldom clarify the issues. I am neutral, except that one way to get me to be non-neutral is to ignore the rules that I set forth. Do not respond to each other's statements, except in the section for back-and-forth discussion (which I have the right to ignore). Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors.
It appears that there is some discussion of whether an RFC is needed, or whether moderated discussion is needed, or perhaps moderated discussion that decides the content of an RFC.
The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, so Be Specific at DRN. I will ask each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they want added to or removed from the article, or left alone in the article when someone else wants to change it. Then I will decide how to proceed further. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Social democracy)
Change
- Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within the socialist tradition.
to
- Social democracy is a political and social philosophy within the socialist tradition.
Reasons were already given above. It looks like everyone understands economic philosophy and economic ideology are synonyms (#1 above). So only #2 and #3 need moderation. For reference, the 'second sentence' that everyone has already agreed to is:
"As an economic ideology and policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy." Bolded to highlight the contradictions between first and second sentence.
--Twozerooz (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Social democracy)
One editor has responded, and has said to take out the phrase 'economic philosophy' from the lede sentence. Does the other editor agree, or will an RFC be needed?
They also referred to second and third points needing moderation, and they gave one example.
The other editor has not responded yet, so I will ask them again to state concisely what they want changed, or what they want left the same that other editors want changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- I presume this is directed at me -- as stated above I concede on the matter; judging by the edit history of the article, I think OP's dispute is with Erzan, still. OP did have a dispute resolution case involving Erzan open but he appears to have closed it. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 09:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Social democracy)
Third statement by moderator (Social democracy)
I am willing to start an RFC if any editor requests it. If there are any other issues, please state them concisely. If there are no issues or requests, I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Social democracy)
Back-and-forth discussion (Social democracy)
For the moderator's clarification: The dispute was with Czello, but Czello has now canvassed another editor who agrees with him to 'tag out' and take his place. This editor is aware of this DRN and has already commented on it once. --Twozerooz (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Sri Lankan Moors
![]() | Closed. The editors are obviously not ready for a moderator because they are still busy with back-and-forth discussion. The notice says: 'Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.' Continue on the article talk page. When the editors have decided that they are ready to stop the back-and-forth discussion, they can make a new request here for assistance, without continuing back-and-forth. Keep the back-and-forth strictly confined to the facts, because any personal attacks, such as lying, can be reported to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Second Anglo-Afghan War
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Noorullah21 (talk · contribs)
- 199.82.243.110 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Both of us are having a dispute over if Afghanistan was a protected state or a protectorate.
Brief summary of what a protected state is: [2], and the difference between the two. [3]
I am disputing and saying that Afghanistan is a protected state, and the other user claims it is a protectorate.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I wish for someone to help find a solution or to tater to either side, we both have multiple sources that veer and mine also explain the difference between protectorate and protected state, his sources claim protectorate but then go on to explain the defenition of what a protected state is for what the British had in Afghanistan. Which was foreign affairs grants given up to the british only, this is a protected state. a protectorate is more of a puppet-ish to their overlord.
Summary of dispute by Noorullah21
Me and IP user are disputing over if Afghanistan is a protected state or a protectorate after the Second Anglo-Afghan War, we both have multiple sources that tater.
I also explain the meanings between protected state and protectorate, his sources also go on to claim protectorate, but then give the definition of what a protected state is, I am arguing for protected state by the way.
- [5] (difference between both)
- [6] (protected state meaning)
- [7] (sources that mention Afghanistan as a protected state)
IP user posts sources that claim it is a protectorate, but has the definition of a protected state, the explanation behind this is that protected state was commonly referred to as a protectorate as its side name, but the two meanings have jarring differences hence why I am arguing for the second anglo afghan war page to include protected state instead of protectorate, because Afghanistan only gave up foreign rights access to the British, but did not give up its internal affairs, if it gave up internal affairs access, it would then be considered a protectorate.
[8] (one of the sources that state Afghanistan as a protectorate but then describe it as a protected state.
- [9] (also a source that refers to protected state as a protectorate, hence why most modern scholars used to use protectorate, essentially same meanings at the time until noticed otherwise.
- [10] (more sources that state afghanistan as a protected state, giving up foreign rights only)
Treaty of Gandamak page also states that afghanistan gives up foreign rights access.
- [11] Talks about it being a protectorate but also describes it as a protected state with foreign right access given to the British.
And finally, a source that states Afghanistan as a protected state.
Summary of dispute by 199.82.243.110
Dispute is that Noorullah21 claims that Afghanistan is a protected state when all sources state that it was Protectorate after the Second Anglo-Afghan war which concluded with British Victory, resulting in Emir signing Treaty of Gandamak making Afghanistan a British Protectorate state. The Treaty was later reformed in 1907 during Anglo-Russian convention and again in 1919 where Afghanistan was given independence where British Government still continued to have influence over Afghanistan. But that is irrelevant to the topic of discussion which was about the result and treaty signed in 1879 which clearly states that Afghanistan became British Protectorate as a result of British Victory and the signed Treaty of Gandamak.
Here are references by acclaimed scholars that Afghanistan became British Protectorate after Treaty of Gandamak. 3rd Opinion also claimed the inclusion of Protectorate. Below references:
Reference 1, [14] states Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate. Following the Peace of Gandamak, the Amir of Afghanistan agreed to leave the control of his foreign relations to the British Government....Afghanistan's status as a PROTECTORATE was recognized in the Anglo Russian Agreement of 1907.
Reference 2, [15]. Reference states that 1879, May 26 - Peace of Gandamak. Afghanistan became, in effect, a protectorate of Great Britain.
Reference 3, [16] Reference states that At the Treaty of Gandamak in 1879 Afghanistan became a British PROTECTORATE and Kabul was opened up to a British mission, something Afghans still consider to be an appalling loss of face.
Reference 4, [17] Reference states The following year, Anglo Indian troops invaded Afghanistan and imposed, through the treaty of Gandamak signed on May 26, 1879, an English PROTECTORATE and the loss of control over the Khyber Pass....
Reference 5, [18] Reference states In 1878, the Second Anglo-Afghan war broke out. It ended two years later with the Treaty of Gandamak, which effectively made Afghanistan a PROTECTORATE of Britain.
Reference 6 [19] Reference states Afghanistan was technically a PROTECTORATE of the British Empire since the treaty of Gandamak of 1879 and reinforced in the Durand line accord of 1893.
Reference 7 [20] Reference states by the treaty of Gandamak of May 1879, Afghanistan, in effect, became a British PROTECTORATE and gave British control of the Khyber Pass to ensure easy entry by the British troops.
Reference 8 [21] Reference states: According to a large number of previous studies, Afghanistan was fixed as a buffer state between Russia and British India as a result of the war and the Gandamak Treaty, which was concluded between Amīr Ya‘qūb Khān and the British on 26 May 1879, substantially as proof of the surrender of the Afghan side. In this treaty, the Amīr of Kabul, a previous ruler of Afghanistan, not only ceded various territories but also handed over diplomatic rights to the British. In short, Afghanistan was virtually a British protectorate until 1919.
This is what 3rd opinion said on the [22], Here is my non binding opinion. I am for inclusion of protectorate. David A. Lake writes "Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate". Princeton University Press. Seems enough. Cinadon36 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC). 199.82.243.96 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)