Jump to content

Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Torchwoodwho (talk | contribs) at 09:37, 16 September 2010 (→Afghanistan: resolved, users have escalated to ANI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    History of this page
    Shortcuts
    • The content noticeboard used to be a board where general advice and resolution was sought in regards to content issues. Due to low use of this board, and partly to the board being superseded in function by the dispute resolution noticeboard, this board has been marked as historical.
    This page is now historical, new posts should be made at the dispute resolution noticeboard.

    Noticeboard archives

    Content noticeboard
    123456789

    Template:Article discussions

    Help needed in cleanup

    Main pages: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 2

    Your help in the above cleanup effort would be appreciated. This is not a task that four people can take on alone. It's an order of magnitude larger than the largest of the other currently open CCI listings. Uncle G (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    discuss this

    Mass blanking of ten thousand articles by a 'bot

    It has been proposed that we mass blank articles using a 'bot. For details, see the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    discuss this

    We're now at the stage where the 'bot is ready to roll, and no-one has voiced an objection. (Indeed, to the contrary: Several people want to go further, and mass delete the articles.)

    If the 'bot goes ahead, this will probably light up some people's watchlists like Diwali. Be warned. Uncle G (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Force10

    Hi, The page force10 seems to be advertising. How do you flag the content as advertising? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force10

    Trevgoodchild (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Force10 doesn't look too bad from a spam point of view, but I did delete 2 inappropriate external links. Did you have any specific concerns? -Atmoz (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just wondering about all the other Force10's in the world, isn't there more to it than just a networking company? A Movie, Beaufort Scale :) Seems like it's spurious somehow.

    Trevgoodchild (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I get it. Those are generally written as Force 10 though; note the space. I added a link at the top to the disambiguation page that should help. -Atmoz (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Afghanistan

    Resolved

    User:JCAla is making the "History section" on the Afghanistan page very long by creating unnessary sub-sections in which he added many useless information that attempts to degrade one group and praises another (Northern Alliance with its leader Ahmad Shah Massoud) [1]. His entire edits are mess--Jrkso (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)y and confusing, filled with countless unsourced personal POVs, and is written very unencyclopedic. I removed it and gave my reason but he reverts and insists that it should stay. He did edits to other pages and added very bizzare stuff in them. For example, in Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001), besides countless unsourced POVs, he added in the infobox all the top Pakistani politicians (Pakistani Presidents Pervez Musharraf, Nawaz Sharif, and others) being at war with Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance group in Afghanistan. In this edit he demonstrated his unpleasant biased view toward Pakistanis and a group of Afghanis but in the meantime he praised Amer Saheb, leader of the Northern Alliance. I don't know if this is the right place to fix this problem I discovered about User:JCAla's edits. Please help, thank you.--Jrkso (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Jrkso is starting an unnecessary edit war. He was already blocked in the past for doing edit wars on another topic. He has been putting the Soviet war, Islamic State and Taliban Emirate periods of Afghan history as one section. All I did was to divide them into three parts. After Jrkso insisted they were too long, as a compromise, I made them into very short sections.see here Everyone can see for themselves that the edits I undertook are very well sourced. Jrkso seems to have a problem with the reality of the Afghan history. I am not anti-Pakistan. But I do point out the realities of Pakistan's so-called depth strategy (well known among scholars and Afghanistan experts) and what this strategy has meant for Afghanistan. Jrkso does not have a problem with the longitude of very long sections about the Daoud republic and Saur revolution periods of Afghan history. So there clearly is a bias towards the sections in which Pakistani involvement in Afghan history are mentioned. (The edit in which Jrsko perceives me as praising Massoud was on my private talk page not any wikipedia article. It was meant to bridge ethnic divisions another user was talking about.)
    As for the Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001) article, again my edits regarding Pakistan's policy are well-sourced. While other foreign countries' involvement in the war was limited to financial support or arms supplies, Pakistan was directly and actively playing a role in the war. Even Human Rights Watch writes:
    "Official denials notwithstanding, Pakistan ... has openly encouraged the recruitment of Pakistanis to fight for the 
Taliban. ... Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and 
that senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning military operations." 
- Human Rights Watch

    "Pervez Musharraf [then Pakistani military chief of staff] was responsible for sending scores of Pakistanis to fight 
alongside the Taliban and Bin Laden. Musharraf wanted his troops ..." 
- National Geographic
    You may not like this history. But it nevertheless remains a significant part of Afghanistan's history. -- JCAla 7 September 2010 (UTC)

    Questions for Jrkso:

    • Do you have any content-specific issue with JCAla's edits besides their length? For example, are they not properly sourced?
    • Can you provide a diff or link of the consensus you reference related to section length on the article?
    • Can you provide diffs from article edits, not talk pages, that show POV pushing by JCAla?
    • What would your ideal outcome be for this dispute?

    --Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    I suggest the following:

    • JCAla should create content forks WP:FORK for some of his longer editions so they can be debated on their own notability and POV merits outside of the main article. These forks can be listed in a see also subsection. If this creates undue weight the articles can be debated at WP:AFD.
    • All information sourced to places outside of the scope of WP:RS should be removed on sight due to the controversial nature of the subject (a country currently involved in international military action).
    • I see some leading language in certain edits by JCAla, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it blatant POV pushing yet. If there is a sourced addition that is worded in a POV way, rewrite it to neutral. If it is not sourced, move it to talk. If JCAla disagrees with these informal guidelines you can explore other conflict resolution venues such as RfC or Arbcom.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did some fixing and re-arranging, tagged 2 sections, basically just organized it a little.[4]. If I find time I'll do some more work to it. Thanks for helping I just hope the other fellow follows this.--Jrkso (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    +++

    First, Torchwood Who?, thanks for getting involved. I do not have a problem with your suggestions. My information were sourced inside the scope of WP:RS. Most information Jrkso perceives as POV are direct citations. I hardly gave any controversial information unsourced. Second, Jrkso should be warned for his false and offending allegations against me, especially the one where he blatantly lies, see "He's inciting sectarian or ethnic hatred.". I will not tolerate such allegations. Third, I don't even know if I should answer such ... allegations.

    "fiercely anti-Pakistan and pro-Ahmad Shah Massoud tone." (by Jrkso)

    • I described Pakistan policy in Afghanistan as written down by countless sophisticated sources. And I wrote down the role played by Ahmad Shah Massoud as described by countless sophisticated sources. Finally, I gave all these sources. Jrkso has a problem with these historic (well-sourced) realities. Jrkso called Massoud "evil, a warlord, terrorist and bad guy" see here. That is what I would call a strong POV-agenda.

    "edits discredit all Afghan Mujahideen" (by Jrkso)

    • ???

    "and even foreign presidents and politicians of other nations who were not involved in the Afghan civil war" (by Jrkso)

    • Jrkso is referring to what he sees as unjust inclusion of Pakistani political and military leaders in the Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001) article. He is repeating that allegation, although I gave sources above. That shows he is deliberatedly ignoring sources given.

    "He's inciting sectarian or ethnic hatred." (by Jrkso)

    • I will not even dignify that with a direct answer. Everyone can see what I wrote on my Talk page. (Furthermore the link that Jrkso gives about the Haqqani network has not one ethnic line. I just restored and rewrote information given by other users, that had been deleted. I even added that the allegations against the Haqqanis were not verifiable. When Jrkso deleted the whole section, I did not object.)

    "a group that's described in every media report as one of the worst warlords and terrorists" (by Jrkso)

    • What Jrkso calls "every media report" is the internet platform of the RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan). These are not media reports. RAWA is a very non-differentiating source. They do, indeed, very valuable humanitarian work. But, they are a very bad source for political discussion. They have a clear communist agenda and not only have strong connections to other communist movements but also have a pattern of attacking other Afghan women rights organizations or Afghan women who rise to prominence outside RAWA with smear campaigns. That they would do the same with every political person of "greater evil" (as they must perceive it) is a logical consequence. RAWA (referring to the Soviet war in Afghanistan) called Massoud "the man who wouldn't fight" when the Wall Street Journal called him "the Afghan who won the cold war" source see at 40:50.

    --JCAla (talk 7 September 2010 (UTC)


    I agree that there is an obvious difference of opinion between the two of you over what constitutes POV and Jrkso should probably take a step back and use language that is less accusing, but this is the content noticeboard not WP:ANI so, we don't try to get involved in warnings and actions unless there is a blatant and unambiguous effort to disrupt an article's factual content. If you feel strongly about the need to answer these allegations you could take this to the etiquette noticeboard WP:WQA and begin a resolution process there. Some of your sources are dubious, such as the youtube cite mentioned above and I would err on the side of taking controversial sources to the reliable sources notice board in the future. WP:RSN--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Well, the youtube link was linking to a documentary by the National Geographic. I do not see the National Geographic as being a "dubious source". The George Washington University National Security Archive provides similar information:

    1996 

    "Similar to the October 22, 1996 Intelligence Information Report (IIR), this IIR reiterates how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily 
involved in Afghanistan," but also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. Stating that Pakistan 
uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in Afghanistan, the document clarifies 
that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary - combat."

    1998 

    "According to a variety of Pakistani officials and journalists, including Ahmed Rashid, Pakistan has "regressed to a point 
where it is as hard-line as ever in favor of the Taliban." Pakistani government officials have given up "the pretense of 
supporting the U.N. effort," and have become unabashedly pro-Taliban. ... The cable speculates the spike in pro-Taliban 
Pakistani feeling can be attributed to the political fallout of recent nuclear testing and increased regional tension. These 
developments have increased Pakistan's need for a pro-Pakistan, anti-India regime in Kabul."

    "Taliban ranks furthermore continue to be filled with Pakistani nationals (an estimated 20-40 percent of Taliban soldiers  
are Pakistani according to the document), which further solidifies Pakistan-Taliban relations, even though this does not 
indicate not outward or official Pakistani government support." 

    "The parents of ... know nothing regarding their child's military involvement with the Taliban "until their bodies are 
brought back to Pakistan."

    1999 

    "Pakistan's alliance with the Taliban is stronger than Iran or Russia with Massoud ..."

    2000 

    "... in September 2000 an alarmed U.S. Department of State observes that "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been 
long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented." 

    "[The Department] also understand[s] that large numbers of Pakistani nationals have recently moved into Afghanistan to fight 
for the Taliban, apparently with the tacit acquiescence of the Pakistani government." Additional reports indicate that direct 
Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased."

    or (concerning Massoud) 

    "As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that 
senior Shura-i Nazar leaders [that included Massoud] ordered the abuses [during the period in Kabul 1992-1996]."
- Afghanistan Justice Project (source for Human Rights Watch)

    I think I have given enough evidence by now, that the information given by me is not just pov but officially recognized history. Jrkso not once has provided credible sources that Pakistan was never involved in Taliban military operations or that Massoud directly ordered abuses. Jrkso has been trying to disrupt the article's content. But, unless he comes up with new things, I (for my part) regard this time-stealing issue as solved right now.--JCAla (talk 8 September 2010 (UTC)

    Unless the video itself was housed on a National Geographic owned site the source is borderline. I understand that companies may have official youtube "channels" so this is why I say borderline. As I've stated above, if it's properly sourced without POV commentary or color, it has a right to be in the article unless consensus dictates it should be moved to a content fork WP:FORK.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I understand your point about youtube channels. Just to render the whole thing complete: the link to the official National Geographic Documentary. --JCAla (talk) 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    I should notice, that Jrkso did not stop his vandalism and edit war. I have taken the whole thing to an administrator now, and hope he can help. I have given dozens of very reliable sources for my Afghanistan edits, but he keeps removing them, restoring his unsourced version. Here you can see my latest very well-sourced version and this is the version Jrkso keeps restoring, removing academic and other sources as well as changing content. It goes so far that he repeatedly restores the wrong spelling of names. For example Hekmatyar's surname is "Gulbuddin" see here, he keeps restoring "Gulbadin".
    This has been going on for days and I do not want to further waste my time with someone obviously keen to engage in an edit war and keen to hide realities of Afghan history or call sources such as Human Rights Watch "dubious" (while he does not provide one single source - except for the Revolutionary Association). I will have to revert once again, and that ain't no fun.—JCAla (talk) 9 September 2010 (UTC)


    I'm sorry to hear that. Is there a discussion at WP:ANI or other applicable location? I would be glad to comment on the situation from my perspective having been involved in attempted mediation. This thread can be referenced in any of those discussions.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yesterday I asked Jrkso one last time not to remove reliable sources such as Amin Saikal's book "Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival", "one of the five best books on Afghanistan" according to the Wall Street Journal, or a book by the United States Institute of Peace and Roy Gutman. I also told him not to flag Human Rights Watch as "dubious". As the warning went unheard I have taken it here since the administrator Tariqabjotu already knows Jrkso's history of edit warring on another topic. —JCAla (talk) 9 September 2010 (UTC)

    I have now taken it to WP:ANI. Thanks for you time and efforts to solve this issue by mediation, Torchwood Who?.—JCAla (talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)

    Livejournal

    I'm having some problems with editors who wish to add original research and editorialization to Livejournal concerning their recent changes to allow users to link their LJ accounts to Facebook. I believe that much of what is being written at our article is true, but non-neutral and unsourced. I've run out of reversions according to WP:3RR and in any case a third opinion would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear, are you referring to editors who wish to add references to their otherwise, non-notable blogs to our LiveJournal article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that would be straightforward enough. The issue here is that (1) LiveJournal changed their code to allow their users to link their Facebook accounts to their LivejJournal accounts, so that (if the user chose to make this link) any new blog posts or comments would be automatically echoed on Facebook; (2) they posted about it on their internal news blog; (3) as happens every time LiveJournal changes anything, thousands of users screamed bloody murder in the news blog post's comments about how horrible the change is; (4) a few of these users are trying to get their editorializations about how horrible it is included in our Wikipedia article, using only the internal news blog post as a source. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, you're saying that "LiveJournal did not acknowledge or respond to any of the user complaints" is being sourced to the comments here.[5] Or are you saying that it's OR to draw the conclusion that there's no acknowledge in the blog post? Either way is bad. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure which it is, but as you say either is bad. Fortunately it seems to be settling down; there have been no more article-space edits since my last revert (the one just before I posted here) and instead there's been some discussion on the talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if I'd call this a reliable source or not, but there is this. :-/ -Atmoz (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement

    There is a dispute going on about this article, concerning my extensive rewrite.[6] Please see this thread[7] and the article talk page. BillMasen (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Photo dispute

    I would like some assistance in a dispute over a photo. I upload a non-free image to use in the article Hal Block of Block meeting General Patton. The photo was removed when I put it up for FAC. I am not concerned over the FAC, but only that I feel the photo is important to the article. The photo is located: [8]. The FAC is at [9]. There is also only 5 days, Sept 18, until the now-orphaned photo is deleted from Wikipedia. I fully admit I cannot be certain that I am right in my argument on the use of this photo. However, I am also unconvinced by the editor's arguments for removal. In my research Hal Block, I found no other mention that Block met Patton, so the photo acts as a source of fact and not just decorative. Any assistance would be appreciated. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to cancel this request for assistance. I can't honestly say the dispute is resolved to my satisfaction, but I'm no longer opposing the removal of the photos. Thanks, BashBrannigan (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard&oldid=385141132"