User talk:Njofallofall

Afghan control map

Agree that the map is unreliable if it is sourced to an anonymous Twitter feed. In this context it doesn't matter if the creator is "biased", only the reliability of the sourcing matters. It should be deleted from the Afghan war article unless it can be reliably sourced. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. I noticed this some months ago, and thought it was very strange. The fact its been used as a main source for nearly 3 years is also concerning to me. There are various other sources that attempt to depict "Control" (such as SIGAR, and LWJ) that would likely be fair substitutes. Thank you once again Njofallofall (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

People kept re-adding the situation map without discussion so I've opened an RFC to see if we can get more input and maybe a decision with some teeth - see here. Might be worth pointing out that "Other things exist" isn't a legitimate argument to include badly-sourced content. FOARP (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes! I noticed that. I went ahead and left my position there. Thank You. Njofallofall (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, basically it was the only option left after the people adding the map had just started ignoring the talk page discussion entirely. Of course we may still just get an RFC decision against including the map entirely but at that stage we can take this behaviour potentially to WP:ANI. FOARP (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I see! Well at this point is seems that many have come out in opposition to its use. It just seems like such a map would be difficult to defend on Wikipedia. Yet, many seem inclined to add it anyway regardless of what guidelines it may or may not break. I recently caught its use on other articles, for example the "2021 Taliban Offensive" page. None the less, I really appreciate your efforts on this issue. The whole thing just seemed silly and ridiculous to me.

To be honest, I find the idea of trying to depict "territorial control" during an insurgency a fools errand. Even the more "respected" and "official" sources (like the LWJ, which is used by most Major Media) tend to have very questionable methodology. Even trying to define what "Control" means tends to blur and complicate things a bit. I understand the desire of organizations to try to depict ground realities, but there was a reason SIGAR stopped recording it some years ago. Trying to paint an accurate picture of a very fluid conflict is next to impossible. This becomes especially apparent when it involves a very visible and static government force against a largely mobile insurgency. It becomes less about what the insurgency controls, and more along the lines of where the government appears to be physically. Its an interesting dilemma, and I believe its the wrong way to study this sort of conflict. Its why there are SO MANY different claims as to who controls what. In the end it becomes less about reality, and more about who makes the most claims, and who gets the most press. Njofallofall (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)