User talk:Sunray

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Note: Messages left on this page will be replied to on this page.

Talk archives

2003-2004 1 2005 2 3 4 5 2006 6 7 8 2007 9 10 11 2008 12 13 14 15 2009 16 17 18 19 2010 20

Where are we going?

Today's motto...

→Recycling: Are you doing your bit?

Request for mediation on the historical maps of the Roman Empire in the article "History of Georgia (country)"

Hi Sunray

I'm watching the mediation of this with some interest as I provided a third opinion on this a couple of weeks ago. I just wanted to advise that I'm happy to explain or elaborate on my opinion if you think it would be of any benefit. Good luck! Thepm (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind offer. I had read your third opinion and found it most useful. I found your comments about the two maps interesting, but wasn't clear why you favoured the scanned map. If you are able to elaborate on this, or any other aspect of the dispute, I would welcome that. Sunray (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer I reply here or at the mediation talk page? Thepm (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is good. Then if we think it would be useful for the mediation, we can link it. Sunray (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I should say that my knowledge of the History of Georgia was effectively zero at the time I offered the 3O. Since then it has improved, but only slightly!

My opinion on this matter, as I stated in the WP:3O that I offered, is that the need for either map is marginal at best. There already exists a map showing the Kingdom of Iberia and I am uncertain how either of the proposed maps would contribute further. I guess it's possible that they could provide perspective on where the areas lie with regard to the wider region.

Both of the participants were very strongly of the opinion that a map showing the Roman Empire was necessary. Iberieli actually suggested that both maps could be included. So, deferring to the greater expertise of these editors, I restricted myself to determining whether one of the maps should be included or both. If one, then which one.

The subject heading where the map is shown is "The Roman Conquest of Iberia and Colchis". For that reason, it seems that the maps should clearly show these two areas. I noted that the created map does not show Colchis at all and does not show Iberia, except as a general area. The scanned map shows the borders of both areas, although for a casual reader it is not especially clear. For that reason, I opted for the scanned map.

Having said that, the scanned map was quite difficult for me to understand. Furthermore, it was published in 1907 and I would expect that there has been further research since then. If the created map showed the actual borders of Iberia and Colchis, then I would much prefer the inclusion of the created map.

I'll also note that Aregakn raised objections to the created map on the grounds of it being original research. I did not consider this a valid objection and largely discounted this in my considerations.

On balance, my opinion remains unchanged as being;

1. Neither map seems necessary.

2. If either is to be used, then the scanned map should be preferred.

3. If the created map were updated to show the boundaries of Colchis and Iberia, then the created map should be preferred.

If there's anything more I can do, please let me know. cheers Thepm (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sunray

I'm still observing this mediation and noting what appears to be slow progress. I was wondering if I might make a suggestion, but I'm not sure if I'm permitted to comment on the mediation page.

As noted above, personally I'm not convinced that either map is required. Having said that, the present situation appears to be one where each editor wants one map but not the other. The difficulty is that the article has been protected in a state that appears to favour one of the editors. This may create the perception that the current state is "endorsed" in some way with the current map, notwithstanding the disclaimer to the contrary. It may also diminish the incentive for the editor that supports the status quo to contribute to the mediation.

My suggestion is that perhaps you might want to either remove or include both maps until such time as mediation is completed. It just seems to be a fairer state for the article while the dispute is heard. As I said, this is just a suggestion and I'll leave to your judgment whether it's not appropriate. cheers Thepm (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

About "See also" section

hello....thank you for writing me.   And telling me your point.   But this is the thing.   While I understand what you're saying, the problem is why is it that many OTHER articles have wiki-links on their "See also" sections THAT ARE ALSO in the body of the article too?   In other words, I've seen it, and it IS done anyway, for handier convenience and for quick referral.

Also, that policy thing that you cited (which I appreciate), did NOT DOGMATICALLY say that links in a "See also" section could not be links that were in the main body of the article either.   It seemed to be an "it can go either way" situation.   NOT a dogmatic "rule" or "policy" per se.   But again, will you agree that there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that have the same wiki inter-links in both the body and the See also?  

As to the Ecumenism article, it has NO "See also" section at all, and I, sincerely, felt a need for one, for EASIER access to those links that you mentioned that are in the body.   Meaning sometimes there are people who don't read the whole article right away, but skim or peruse parts, and then like to see the "See also" section for other articles related, QUICKLY.   Whether those same links are in the body of the article or not.  Meaning, IMHO, it depends, and it CAN be done.  At least from what I've seen.   And again, the Wikipedia policy is not dogmatic on that.  And that's all I was saying.  

Also, I was curious as to why you just didn't leave the "See also" section that I put there, and maybe (if you thought the links were redundant etc) simply put links there that you thought were maybe better.   (By the way, there WAS one term in the "See also" that was NOT a link in the rest of the article, the term "separated brethren".   That's not linked at all, in the body of the article.   So that probably could have remained in the "See also" section.)   But anyway, let me know what you think.   thanks... Sweetpoet (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied on Sweetpoet's here. Sunray (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's cool.   And I had the feeling that it is true that the better and more careful articles do stick to the suggestions more (though they are not absolutes as we both agree).   Also, I noticed that you did leave the "separated brethren" that's in the body of the article linked, from what I did, where it wasn't prior....which I do appreciate.   But yeah, not all articles HAVE to have a "See also" section, but I guess it's generally nice to have one though.  For easier or quicker access and referral.   Some extra links.   I was a LITTLE surprised that there wasn't one already.   I know that not all articles do, but it seems that most (from what I've seen, I could be wrong) do have one.  It depends.   Anyway, thanks for your help. Sweetpoet (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Im finishing my exams and i will get involved. Thanks for your message! Iberieli (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Any way to mail you smth? Aregakn (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just copy it, click on "E-mail this user" in the left hand column of this page. Sunray (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Help/Advice/Opinion

Hey Sunray, Could you take a look at the history and talk of Bay of Quinte. Probably trivial and not worth spending a lot of time on, but I'm not totally convinced I was out of line here. What do you think? Hope all is well.  BC  _{talk to me} 05:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he didn't like your revert either. His justification this time is WP:ELMAYBE point no. 3: "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. ... A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page." There may be an interpretation problem here since the link could very well be interpreted as "well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations". To me, however, the tourism directory still looks like spam. And it's obviously a self-promo/COI thing, although, I guess this doesn't necessarily preclude his putting in a link that is otherwise "legal". Perhaps the "Links to be considered" section of WP:EL should be reconsidered or rewritten to eliminate matters of interpretation that could lead to edit wars. Cheers. BC  _{talk to me} 21:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama

The information that I put into the Barack Obama article was neither trivial nor unencyclopedic. It illustrated a public perception of the President in Great Britain. It is especially relevant because it occurred during his first few months in office and was the first real international public reaction to an action on his part. It received worldwide attention and was reported in just about every major market. It's no less trivial than the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident which received its own article for some reason. If you don't feel that the information belongs in that section or in the article mainspace, then I can understand that, but I would like to know where you think it would better fit. HarlandQPitt (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think that it truly "illustrated a public perception of the President in Great Britain," then it would be a good idea to find a quote, from a reliable source, that says so. A good reference point is WP:NOR. As to the Carter article, I haven't read it, so cannot say how it relates. Usually, though, it is not sufficient to argue that something is o.k. because something similar appears in another article. The Carter article is no longer rated as a "good article," so it is not necessarily the standard to aspire to. Sunray (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. The article that I used as a source included the following quote "London newspapers are howling over a string of alleged snubs by Obama to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown during his visit to Washington last week — including a squabble over presidential gift-giving." The name of the article was "London aghast at President Obama over gifts given to Prime Minister Brown", from the New York Daily News. There were several articles with quotes insulting the president over his choice of gift, but I did not include them, because the information was covered in the first two articles and I didn't think it necessary to include a negative quote in his article that many would automatically assume was going afainst WP:NPOV. HarlandQPitt (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pursuing this question in a thoughtful and respectful way. I do agree with you that there was a great deal of coverage of this matter in the British press. Your comments led me to wonder what was going on. Part of the story was covered by the The Times ("First Lady Michelle Obama shows even she has a gift for the gaffe") on March 5.[1] The other part of the story was led off by the The Daily Mail ("To my special friend Gordon...") on March 6.[2] The Mail is a tabloid, so the story is standard fair for them. However, the Times is generally considered to be a quality newspaper, so I was led to wonder what's up with that. The whole affair seems so trivial.

The Guardian perhaps gives part of the answer. They saw the coverage by The Daily Mail as "an example of the British press's apparent mission to feel snubbed by Obama on Gordon Brown's behalf - and obsession with the passing of the special relationship with Bush." [3]

So it seems to me that the question you are posing is: Doesn't this amount of coverage make the story noteworthy? Looking at media coverage generally, there are two basic approaches. When an event has significance, it gets coverage by dint of its importance—and the meeting of a president and a prime minister is certainly noteworthy. In such cases, its noteworthiness is reflected through coverage of the event itself and quotes from prominent persons. The other approach, (and the one usually taken by tabloids) is to manufacture news through speculation and innuendo. Such a story is usually generated by the media, rather than the event. A key feature of such a story is the absence of quotes from anyone noteworthy—as in this case.

We need to bear in mind that this is a featured article—an example of the best Wikipedia has to offer. When one looks at the section you placed this item in, the story seems to pale in comparison to the other examples of cultural and political image.

So that is my take on this issue. If you are not satisfied with my explanation, I would be happy to take our discussion to the talk page. What do you think? Sunray (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand your point of view on this, and after reviewing the information, I have to say that I do agree with you. In relevance to other major events, it does pale in comparison. The information might have fit better in Obama's first 100 days article if a section were to be created about Great Britain, as it could be considered to be more of a major development in reference to 100 days rather than four years of presidency. I also considered placing it under the Public image of Barack Obama article under the section titled "Political Image" as this was certainly an incident that shaped his political image at least in one major part of the world.

Although as you point out, neither the prime minister nor the president have commented on it, and it seems to be mainly the people who were upset with it. So perhaps it's best to leave it off unless an official statement is issued (which I seriously doubt).

As for pursuing the question in a thoughtful and respectful way, I don't see any other way to interact with people. If someone questions something that I did, I leave a note on their talk page explaining why I did it. If I want to clarify or discuss an edit or action with someone, I also leave them a note. I've had people leave me nasty notes on my talk page or make personal attacks against me during AfD or other discussions enough that I know it does absolutely nothing except cause editors to forgo rational thought.

I appreciate that you took the time to respond to me and demonstrated that you fully researched and reasoned out your action before taking it. Thanks, and I look forward to working on articles with you in the future. HarlandQPitt (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to work on making those edit summaries descriptive, yet civil. The other interesting insight for me was to consider who this story was actually about. As the Guardian article pointed out, it is really between the British press and Gordon Brown. The coverage wasn't about Obama at all (hence, I guess the scant attention paid to it by the U.S. media). Glad to meet you too. Sunray (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)