User talk:Verbcatcher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edits on List of Largest Mosque[edit]

Hey Verbcatcher, for your kind information, I was not threatening someone. I am just trying to make point that Al-Alsa is not considered as mosque in the country where it is situated. And portraying the worshipping place of Ahmeddiya community as mosque considered as blasphemy in the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Wikipedia is the first information source, so incorrect information may lead to confusion. Hope you get my point. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakarmy4923 (talkcontribs) 11:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


Hello, Verbcatcher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I like your additions with precision around Gardiner! - If you have questions, feel free to ask here, I will watch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Estorick[edit]

I posted a request at Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Estorick. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have corrected a typo in your nomination.Verbcatcher (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Eric Estorick[edit]

Given that this article is an example of what you can do now, I'd love to see your future efforts. The only comment that I'd make is probably pulling some of the information that is on separate lines into paragraph form, but that's pretty minor. Welcome!Naraht (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree about the short paragraphs, but I like to keep each paragraph on a separate topic. I hope to get more material to flesh out the existing paragraphs - I have more references to explore. I have also recently written the article on Frances Richards (artist) Verbcatcher (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Eric Estorick[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Hermann Nonnenmacher[edit]

Thanks for assistance and comments. dnw (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You have made a signification improvement: it looks and reads like a good quality article. Much better than I could do on my own.

dnw (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Query regarding images[edit]

The Nonnenmarcker article caused a chain of thought about a print I own, by Iain Macnab. I have improved the existing article.

Could you give your view on illustrating the article on Macnab with my own picture on a print we have. The only justification would be that it is a photo I have taken (no other rights issue), and 'fair use' which seems to be rather frowned upon but tolerated in certain cases? It always seems a great pity to discuss an artist but not show an image. the image is available here:

Also if you know your way about UK online newspapers would be able you find out what years was Macnab the president of 'The Royal Institute of Oil Painters' dnw (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the desirability of illustrations. I was pleased to be able to add images to James Dickson Innes and to Malacara. I found both these images on Wikimedia Commons, where someone else had taken the responsibility for posting. I have replied to your question on Talk:Iain Macnab, which seems the best place to discuss it.
I'll look in the UK newspaper archives to which I have access, but I'm not hopeful. I hadn't heard of 'The Royal Institute of Oil Painters', so it's probably not a high-profile organisation. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I found obituaries in The Times and The Glasgow Herald, and updated the article with material from them. They both said he was President of the Royal Institute of Oil Painters, which I take to mean that he was president when he died. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Members of 56 Group Wales[edit]

Category:Members of 56 Group Wales, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Wales listed buildings[edit]

See commons:Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2013_in_the_United_Kingdom/planning#Wales. -- Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Church near Talgarth[edit]

Good to meet yesterday. The church you mentioned is St Ellyw's Church, Llanelieu, and the article mentions the rood screen! Robevans123 (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. I took some photos there recently - I'll see whether they are worth posting. Verbcatcher (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of École Gratuite de Dessin[edit]

Hello Verbcatcher,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged École Gratuite de Dessin for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. WMartin74 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

See my comments in User talk:WMartin74. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

More YouTube moaning[edit]

Hi Verbcatcher. What's your view on videos at the BBC's own dedicated YouTube channel? Do links to these still break Wiki copyright policy? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert. If in doubt post a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. However, I think it's ok to link to videos on the BBC's YouTube channel. Similarly, I recently posted a link to photos posted on Flickr by the National Library of Wales. If we have good reason to believe that the person or organisation posting holds the rights then its ok to link. We should be able to assume that reputable organisations such as these would not post copyright violations. Be aware that some sites only allow access to users from a limited list of countries. Linking to these is fine for citations, but probably not for External Links. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks. Yes, that's an interesting point about different countries having different access. Presumably in all cases the YouTube link would work but, depending on which country you are in, you might or might not hear/see something as a result. My particular bugbear is music companies who globally block material from their label, or of a given artist on their label, regardless of whether or not the company has deleted the work from their catalogue. I'm sure it's a much bigger problem for the artist concerned. Of course, that isn't a Wikipedia problem. It's just a YouTube/record company problem. But YouTube seems to be generally much more permissive now than it used to be - discounting the totalitarian pariah state that is Warner Bros, of course (.. oh dear that probably counts as defamation, had better stop now....) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I have thoughts along some of the same lines. I'd like there to be some form of right of access to copyrighted material, along the lines of the right to roam on uncultivated land. However, we should try to achieve this by mainstream political means, and not by actions that might undermine the good guys such as Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Except that in my case it's called the right to moan. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Default sort[edit]

Just a reminder that DEFAULTSORT is not a template, but a magic word, and uses a slightly different markup, involving a colon: eg. {{DEFAULTSORT:Penrice, Illtyd, Saint, Church}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Penrice, Illtyd, Saint, Church}}. — Paul A (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Paul A. The confusion isn't helped by title of the the article Template:DEFAULTSORT. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The Template:DEFAULTSORT page was created because a large number of people were already getting confused, in the hope that they'd read it before trying to use the "template". Of course, there will always be people who apply templates without stopping to read the instruction page, but we like to think it's helped. — Paul A (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Castell Coch[edit]

I hope you like the re-wording. And my sincere apologies if I seemed a little possessive. A bad Wikipedia flaw. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No apology is needed. It might read better with a one- or two-word description of Charles Handley-Read, such as "the architectural writer Charles Handley-Read wrote:".
On another topic, I'm thinking of improving Neath Abbey, but I can't find any evidence of the abbey ruins being a listed building. Where would you look? Verbcatcher (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's not quite as easy as one might hope. This site, British Listed Buildings Online (BLBO) [[1]] is invaluable, but it is now out of date, and is not being updated. For England, it has been superseded by the English Heritage database. But this only covers England. The BLBO page for Neath, which I've attached, does not appear to show any part of the Abbey as being listed. However, I'm almost certain it must be a Scheduled Ancient Monument, which is not the same as a listed building. And indeed it does appear on the Coflein site, which is the on-line database for the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, here [[2]]. But this doesn't explicitly say it is Scheduled. I shall keep looking for you. P.S. Shall also contextualise Handley-Read - but doesn't everyone know who he was? KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
This [[3]], linked to this, [[4]] tells us it is a SAM. Do you have access to John Newman's Glamorgan in the Pevsner Buildings of Wales series? Pages 463 to 471 inclusive comprise a long article on Neath Abbey. I could certainly add some information if you don't have a copy, or access to one, yourself. His article on Castell Coch in the same volume is also excellent, by the way. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
After I wrote my note I decided that Neath Abbey was probably a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Does this preclude it also being a listed building? I have found useful details of Neath Abbey here, which confirms SAM status. There is also useful material in Vol 2 of Stewart Williams' Glamorgan Historian. I hope to expand the article based on these sources and on Newman. I used Newman to expand Castell Coch#Early history; I was pleased to find the old engraving to illustrate this. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi Verbcatcher.

I don't agree with all of one of your edits (Article after the edit). One person's "unnecessary and over-technical detail" may be of real interest to someone else (like me) and add some colour to an article. I would like to put some of the detail back in, but I might create a new article for the detail regarding Tomen yr Allt. What do you think?

Emerald (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Emerald-wiki: I removed (Tomen yr Allt, the caput of the commote of Mechain Uwch Coed in the cantref of Mechain) because I had to look up most of these terms to make sense of the phrase, and caput does not mention Wales. Presumably the meaning is equivalent to The central settlement in an Anglo-Saxon multiple estate. The reference I deleted probably justifies a change to caput to include Wales. We could have the central settlement of the commote of Mechain Uwch Coed in the cantref of Mechain, and maybe explain commote and cantref, but I still think this is too much detail.
I removed (or Cynfyn; Madog's fuller name would be Madog ap Maredudd ap Bleddyn ap Cynfyn) and Bell Lloyd inherited the house in 1758, but the work he had carried out resulted in huge debts, he died in the King's Bench debtors' prison in London in 1793 because I think these give too much detail in the context of an article on the town.
On reflection I would restore the name Tomen yr Allt, particularly if a new article is forthcoming. I will change the text to It is likely that a house was built on the site after the destruction in 1256 of Tomen yr Allt, a motte and bailey castle which stood on the hill above. I don't think we need wooden.
I encourage you to write a new article on Tomen yr Allt or on Bodfach Hall. Thanks for your work on this article. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Emerald-wiki: Of course this is just my opinion. We could continue this discussion at Talk:Llanfyllin. Is Mechain Uwch Coed an old name for Llanfyllin? If we can find a good reference this should go in the history section. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: The cantref of Mechain became the hundred of Llanfyllin. Infact 'cantref' means hundred in the sense of a hundred settlements. So, no, Mechain Uwch Coed wasn't the old name for Llanfyllin it was the name of an area which would have included several parishes, Llanfyllin being one of them. Emerald (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

RE: Arthur Giardelli[edit]

Hi. "Disease-related deaths, would not be significant for death aged 98". Of course at age 98 that is no surprise. However, the Deaths from disease category is often used as a catchall -- especially so the place of death can be categorised -- where there is no evidence of a non-disease-related or "unnatural death" (i.e. road accident, airplane crash, homicide, suicide, terrorism, et al), because everyone dies of something, but when no specific cause of death is provided publicly.

It's a case by case thing -- if no cause of death is given but the decedent is, say, 40 years old, obviously no way. But at 98, sure, especially as there is, understandably, no category for Deaths from old age. It can always be removed or updated later if further info becomes public.

Yours, Quis separabit? 00:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC) I removed the Category:Disease-related deaths in Wales because the cause of death is not given in the two cited obituaries. Also, this is not a defining characteristic of Giardelli, which is a guideline for categorisation. WP:NON-DEFINING says "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining".Verbcatcher (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
We will have to agree to disagree. I did not revert your edit. Quis separabit? 01:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC) What are you disagreeing with? I am saying:
  1. Cause of death is not a defining characteristic for this article
  2. Defining characteristics is a key Wikipedia guideline for avoiding over-categorisation
Are you disagreeing with one of these statements, or are you saying that this Wikipedia guideline is foolish? Do you favour having a cause of death category in all biographical articles? Verbcatcher (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that cause of death is often not a defining characteristic in biographies. But that doesn't mean we ignore it. As far as the categories go, the deaths in ... are usefui for categorising the place and year of death, as simple biographical info, when such info is available. If a category exists there is no reason not to use it if one is willing to make the extra effort. I am not going to discuss it anymore. Quis separabit? 02:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC) BTW: listen no hard feelings. You and I just have different mindsets. There are categories which exist and are used but which I suspect (let me know if I am wrong here) you would have little or no use for, such as Category:Year of birth missing, Category:Place of birth missing, Category:Year of birth unknown, Category:Place of birth unknown, Category:Year of birth uncertain, Category:Date of birth missing, Category:Date of birth unknown, etc. If you want to get rid of them as flawed methodology via CFD, go for it. Less work for me, anyway. Yours, Quis separabit? 02:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The missing categories are useful for Wikipedia editors but not for the general user. They should probably be subcategories of Category:Wikipedia cleanup, and be hidden categories. We should try to avoid overcategorization. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Twm o'r Nant[edit]

I really like what you have added. Do you know of any translations? My grandfather had a tatty old copy of the "Gwaith.." but I never read it (and I don't know what happened to it anyway) and now I would definitely need a translation, my limited kitchen-Welsh isn't up to poetic prose! Notice you live near Cambridge - me too, practically neighbours! Emerald (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Emerald. I have not found any translations, but I have just found a English language play by Dedwydd Jones that I have now mentioned in the article. This probably includes translated quotations from Twm. I guessed that you had a Cambridge connection from your edit history (only low-grade stalking!). Perhaps we could meet at a Wikipedia meetup. I attended one last year. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Emerald, George Borrow has a translation from Riches and Poverty in Wild Wales chapter 60, available here. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Verbcatcher, I do have my grandfather's old copy of 'Wild Wales' and just read the translation. I like Borrow's name for Twm - Tom o' the Dingle - quaint! Emerald (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Báthory[edit]

It's somewhat difficult to define the book of the French writer/poetess Valentine Penrose. It is both a historical essay and a "smuggled novel" ("L'infidèle biographe de la Bathory, Valentine Boué-Penrose, avait su se départir de la modération française pour offrir au lecteur dans son roman de contrebande quelques belles pages convulsives.", to quote the French essayist Michel Meurger, who has written furthermore a short study about the iron maiden myth).
That is why the French Wiki rightly classifies this book in the bibliographic section "Literature".
Regards. Guise (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Guise: I was guided by the novel article which says "A novel is a long narrative, normally in prose, which describes fictional characters and events, usually in the form of a sequential story." Báthory was not a fictional character. However, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. My dictionary (Collins English Dictionary, 2nd ed.) has an extended work in prose, either fictitious or partly so, dealing with character, action, thought, etc. esp. in the form of a story. I don't know how much of Valentine Penrose's book is fictitious but it is probably more significant whether she believed it to be fictional. Penrose was a surrealist poet so I would expect her writing to be imaginative and symbolic. I'm not sure where this book should be placed in the continuum between scholarly history and speculative historical fiction. In view of this uncertainty I felt "novel" could be misleading, and preferred the neutral "book". Does Littérature in French imply fiction? It does not necessarily do so in English.
It's difficult to know where to place this book in the article. As far as such distinctions are valid, this book is probably high culture rather than popular culture, so it doesn't fit in the Folklore and popular culture section or in the Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture article. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Welsh-speaking people[edit]

Unfortunately, as I am sure you will appreciate, it is particularly difficult to find a web-page that states "This person speaks Welsh" for every Welsh-speaking person on Wikipedia. Indeed, in most cases, it is impossible. Whilst you now appear to acknowledge that Rhodri Jones is a Welsh speaker, (a fact that I had attempted to note by the addition of that particular page to the Welsh-speaking people category), it is disappointing that you seemed to assume that he was not a Welsh speaker and hastily removed this page from the Welsh-speaking people category, rather than attempting to find a reference for this prior to deletion of this addition to the Welsh-speaking people category. It is even more disappointing that you felt the need to delete all of my other contributions to the Welsh-speaking people category. Whilst I acknowledge that to be able to reference this would be useful, as mentioned above, this is not always possible. Even so, the fact remains that these people are able to speak Welsh! Please note that numerous other pages exist that state that a person can speak a particular language without providing a direct reference in support, for example Brian Wilson (Labour politician). Without being able to refer to a web-page, can you please suggest how this matter may be resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haul~cywiki (talkcontribs) 22:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Haul~cywiki, I did not "assume that he was not a Welsh speaker", I merely removed unsourced material about living people. I am not questioning whether these people speak Welsh, they probably do.
Providing reliable references is central to Wikepedia. See Help:Introduction to referencing/1, which says

One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that a reliable source must be able to support the material.

– and –

If you are adding such new content, it is your responsibility to add source information along with it. Material provided without a source may be removed from an article. Sometimes such material will be tagged first with the {{citation needed}} template to give editors time to find and add sources.

Basically, you shouldn't add facts to a Wikipedia article just because you know them to be accurate; you should cite a reliable source. This is particularly important for biographies of living persons. I know that thousands of Wikipedia articles have uncited facts, but we should try to improve Wikipiedia.
Even though it was your responsibility to provide a source, I had a quick look at the existing sources cited in these articles and found no support for your edits.
Incidentally, it is not always desirable to add an article to a category, even if it meets the criteria. See Wikipedia:Categorization, which says:

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc.

Although I feel this "defining characteristic" guideline may be be too restrictive, I'm clear that an article should not be included in a category if the characteristic is not important enough to mention in the main text. For example, I think that being Welsh-speaking is not a defining characteristic of Jamie Jones (DJ) (unless he performs in Welsh), so I would not add him to the category even if I had a good source (but I probably wouldn't revert it if someone else had added it).
You refer to the inclusion of Brian Wilson (Labour politician) in Category:Scottish Gaelic-speaking people. While the article does not specifically say that Wilson speaks Gaelic it says that "He was Scotland's first designated Minister for Gaelic", which sort of implies that he speaks the language. It I had a source I would add "A native Gaelic speaker," at the start of that sentence. However, I am not defending that article, which another editor has already tagged with {{More footnotes}}.
However, I'm nobody special and you don't have to take my advice. If you are unhappy with my actions or you want an independent view then you could ask a question at Wikipedia:Help desk. I am sorry if I seem heavy-handed or didactic, I am aware that you are a new editor and I do not want to put you off. Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

John Thomas (photographer)[edit]

I can thoroughly recommend the 1977 book by Woollen and Crawford. Many bargain copies are available the net - mine cost 64p. Among the most notable images is this one of David Lloyd George. Might be a good addition to the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Martinevans123, : Do Woollen and Crawford support the identification of Thomas in File:A group of walkers (?) NLW3366276.jpg, as discussed in Talk:John Thomas (photographer)? The Lloyd George picture is already in Commons at File:David Lloyd George NLW3362532.jpg. We should add a few photos to the article. Here is my suggested selection. What do you think?
A woman knitting in a black hat)
A woman in traditional dress
A man of about twenty
An old woman sitting in a doorway
A woman who saw Twm o'r Nant installing a grate
Portraits by John Thomas
Men standing on a quay with a sailing ship in the background
Aberdyfi regatta
Cattle in a river with houses in the background
Cattle by the river, Llandysul
A donkey-cart and several people in front of an inn
The Ship Inn, Aberdaron
Photogtaphs John Thomas
Verbcatcher (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think a gallery containing all of these would be a fine addition. Curiously neither the "My mother (sitting)" nor the "group of walkers" appear in the book. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Just for future reference, the plates which do appear in the book are as follows:
  1. W. Evans' Boat, Llanddulas F3
  2. Cemaes R78
  3. Angels TT9
  4. Drawing Room Scene TT10
  5. Independent Ministers BB31
  6. Group of Ministers, Liverpool 1867 BB11
  7. Dr. Owen Thomas, Liverpool LL19
  8. Rev. L. W. Hughes HH80
  9. Little Jones the Poet, Llanboidy JJ71
  10. Lloyd George K45
  11. Welsh Costume KK35
  12. Pegi Llwyd W3
  13. Woman in Shawl EE11
  14. Cadi'r Big y Ro-wen, Denbighshire U78
  15. Two Girls with Cups KK15
  16. Mrs. James W Cost, Old Lady KK15
  17. Bet Foxhall (Whitland) KK44
  18. The mother of John Davis, Nerquis c.1865 Bb53
  19. Cellan Factory DD38
  20. Cilgerran Fair B64
  21. Llanwrst Bards 1876 J85
  22. Shearing Sheep J54
  23. Carno Mill R52
  24. Robert, Clysyblaidd, Cerrigydrudion CC30
  25. Penllechog Mill, Llanaelhaiarn DD68
  26. Gwaith Sets, Llanaelhaiarn A12
  27. Dick Pugh KK83
  28. Davis, the Joiner KK52
  29. The Tailor Bryndu KK57
  30. Lord Penmachno, father of all the quarrymen BB17
  31. Joiners, Carwen KK50
  32. Business Bob, Llanwrst Q36
  33. Morris 'Baboon' Kk73
  34. Mr. Roberts, Harpist BB28
  35. Drovers, Montgomery KK56
  36. Sleeping Beauties Q72
  37. Morax Workers, Aberffraw S5
  38. Llanfair Post Office R66
  39. Capel Garmon Natives EE7
  40. Six men in fancy costumes 02
  41. Group of Cricketers, Newcastle Emlyn C53
  42. Old Women of Ysbyty (Ifan) Alms House FF7
  43. Cerrigydrudion Alms Houses CC27
  44. A Starved Boy JJ82

Cambridge meet-up[edit]

Hi, Thanks for the "heads-up" about this meeting. I am a bit snowed under with work (in my retirement!!!), but I have put myself down as possibly attending. It will be interesting and I would like to meet you too, so I will try very hard! Emerald (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Wandlebury Hill Fort[edit]

Just to let you know that I agree wholly about not tampering with text (however bad) where it is a direct quotation. In this instance, I debated with myself whether or not to make my alteration, but decided it would be in order as the text in the reference source is merely a translation of the true underlying source, which is in Latin; hence I saw my change as being a difference of translation rather than interference with a source quotation. However, I accept you can argue it either way and I'm not too fussed one way or the other. Meantime, I have been trying to lay my hands on the Latin text, but it seems too obscure to be readily available online, and the asking price for it in book form is extortionate! The Sage of Stamford (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:The Sage of Stamford, I take your point about it being a translation. However, I feel that "of which" reads better, albeit maybe a little old-fashioned. There is also a potential issue of the copyright status of the translation. If you can get the original Latin text and you have the necessary skills then a fresh translation would be good. A list of available editions is here, which leads here and here. This pdf file has what appears to be an extended extract of Otia Imperialia (page 419, pdf page 460). However, it's not searchable, and I haven't found the paragraph we need. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


...for all your cleanups on Rosalind Franklin. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Coleg Trefeca[edit]

Hello, Thank you for identifying this problem but after 7 years I would not remember the reason for the edit. This editor abandoned the name "Felix Folio Secundus" a while ago and adopted his present name. It would not be directly copied from the website to which you refer; I think "text from other article" would mean that it had been created on Wikipedia by an earlier editor but that I decided to move it into this article (Trefeca) leaving a redirect behind.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Johnsoniensis, thanks for replying. The same text is in Calvinistic Methodists, so you probably copied it from there. When you copy between articles you should specify the source article in the edit summary, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
FFS did edit the Calvinistic Methodists article:see here; whether it did come from there I really do not know. (I do not like many other editors' habits of using uninformative abbreviations like "ce" which only insiders would understand.)--Johnsoniensis (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Lists of teachers and students[edit]

The discussion in Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students also applies here. However, the case for moving the lists from this article to a separate List of faculty and alumni of the Académie de la Grande Chaumière is less strong, because these lists are shorter and the rest of this article is smaller. However, we should not include any names that are red-linked and unreferenced. I propose to delete these names from the article, and move them to this talk page. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Obsession? Repeat Obsession, "should! would !" By the way who is this we?;) --DDupard (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
We are the community of editors of English Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Then please do show that you are an editor who can contribute positively --DDupard (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I stand by my record of creating new articles and adding new material to others. Removing unreliable information is also a positive contribution. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Please see Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Roles limited to that of gate keepers, fact checkers or "guidelines" pushers are indeed limited in that they are missing the essence of the project--DDupard (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Please do not try to insult me. What justification do you have for characterising me as a gate keeper, a fact checker or a "guidelines" pusher? Most of my contributions are adding new, properly-sourced material. As with many editors I also keep an eye on a selection of articles, and when I see something undesirable in one of them I try to resolve it. Adding unsourced material is missing the essence of the project. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add references to a few articles, particularly: École Gratuite de Dessin--DDupard (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
And citations to section alumni Howardian High School and section students William Grant Murray--DDupard (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
École Gratuite de Dessin is a stub, if I had usable references I would add them. I will comment on your merge proposal. I have commented on your other requests in Talk:Howardian High School#William Grant Murray and Howardian High School. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
A stub still has to contain minimal source(s)--DDupard (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
See my comments in Talk:École Gratuite de Dessin#Merge. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Sources please? Or is it original/personal research?--DDupard (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
May be you want to decipher, translate, and write something with this [5] or that [6] and then possibly, thank me--DDupard (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Those appear to be good sources, thank you. However, my French is not adequate to extract much useful information. I indicated the source of my material in my check-in comment on 22 May 2014: Stub based on École nationale supérieure des arts décoratifs. I should probably have added a tag to the talk page to indicate this. Unfortunately there are no citations in École nationale supérieure des arts décoratifs, so I can't cite them here. Please redirect your fire on that article, you appear to be waging a vendetta on articles with which I have been involved. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Charming!--DDupard (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
There cannot be a double standard, remember; If you tag an article for lack of sources, others can do it as well.--DDupard (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not objecting to your tag of École Gratuite de Dessin. However, your criteria for tagging should not include the identity of previous editors of the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Was there any source? Guidelines apply to all articles --DDupard (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Princes of Wales[edit]

Hi, Verbcatcher. I'm a little confused by your recent edit with the accompanying edit summary which seems to indicate that the category Category:Princes of Wales is a subcategory of Category:Princes of the United Kingdom. Neither of those two categories should be a subcategory of the other: Not all Princes of the United Kingdom are Princes of Wales; not all Princes of Wales have been Princes of the United Kingdom. Can you help me understand what's going on? - Nunh-huh 05:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nunh-huh. Category:Princes of Wales is a subcategory of Category:Princes of the United Kingdom. My understanding is that an article should not be a member of a category and of one of its parent categories, and that the categories should be organised accordingly. I agree with your point, some Princes of Wales lived before the United Kingdom was established. On the same basis, Category:Princes of Wales should also be removed from the following categories: Princes of England, Princes of Great Britain, English royal titles and Heirs apparent. Feel free to make these changes yourself. However, I'm not 100% confident of the rules here, and I want to look at the guidelines again before I change this. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The category system here is to me a confusing mess, so I am not the person to straighten it out. But this particular issue may be fixable. I encourage you to try. Like you, I think the rules are rather complicated, and I'm also not convinced that categorization is useful as we've implemented it. It should be a system of boolean categories that you could search in combinations, instead of a nested collection of categories (so you have to imagine what category a French-born naturalized American female actor who died in 1913 of tuberculosis might belong in.) - Nunh-huh 02:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Nunh-huh, my interpretation is that Category:Princes of Wales is for Princes of Wales from the English, British and United Kingdom royal family. Category:Welsh princes is for Welsh princes before the Statute of Rhuddlan (1384). I have edited the category descriptions to clarify this. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for making sense of it! - Nunh-huh 17:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Italic Ship Names[edit]

Hiya, I'm a little confused by this edit, especially as the guideline you refer to says the complete opposite of what you claim. Ship names should be italicised, just as the guideline says: "Italics should be used for the following types of names and titles, or abbreviations thereof:... Ships, with ship prefixes, classification symbols, pennant numbers, and types in normal font: USS Baltimore (CA-68)." Note that it says prefixes pennant numbers and types are in normal font and, in the example, the ship name is italicised. Ranger Steve Talk 21:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I misunderstood this phrase in the guidelines: "Ships, with ship prefixes, classification symbols, pennant numbers, and types in normal font". I have self-reverted.
I looked into this when "Warrior's" struck me as ugly (with the s not in italics), it seems more natural to italicise the whole word: "Warrior's". I couldn't find any guidance on this. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
No problem, and good catch on the rename date. I do have to agree on the pluralisation/italic thing, it does look quite odd. But it does seem to be the correct standard, not just on wiki, but in the wider world. I work in maritime, and I still think it looks strange! Ranger Steve Talk 10:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for absence..[edit]

Hi, just to apologise for not responding at Talk:Académie de la Grande Chaumière, but travel commitments for work over the last two weeks meant I have had limited time for Wikipedia, and indeed for several days little net access. For what it's worth I think you have done the right thing with your recent edits on that article and obviously done the research required to back up the edits. Thanks for the good work.14GTR (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Please continue to watch the page. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Verbcatcher. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: RCAHMW[edit]

Dear Verbcatcher, thank you for making me aware of this! Following a recent talk by the Wikimedian in Residence for National Library of Wales, I thought it was time to update the Commission's page and on doing so noticed a multitude of different spelling for the Commission within Wikipedia. I am not an expert on the way Wikipedia works, so, sorry for any misconceptions on what I was trying to do. Best regards, Charles.rcahmw (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Al Azhar University[edit]

Hi Verbcatcher,

I think I'm ignorant of Wikipedia policy and the change I've done was beacuse I'm working for Al Azhar University, so I thought it's my responsibility to upgrade the humble content at the Wikipedia page of Al Azhar University.

Al Azhar University-Gaza is not to Al Azhar University in Cairo.

Hence, I'm kndly asking for a way to upgrade the content? Ghadasal (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghadasal (talkcontribs) 06:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"Fixing" redirects[edit]

Please read WP:NOTBROKEN. There is no need for you to waste your time, and server resources, by "fixing" redirects. DuncanHill (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Sant Jordi Awards) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Sant Jordi Awards, Verbcatcher!

Wikipedia editor Ajpolino just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

hopefully you can find more sources to expand the page! See Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb

To reply, leave a comment on Ajpolino's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Ajpolino (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

references for medical school staff and LMI presidents[edit]

Hi, thanks for your feedback.I'm new to wiki editing, so I'm grateful for being pointed in the right direction. My copy of Kelly's History of Liverpool University arrived in the post today, so I should be able to reference the first chairs of anatomy, physiology, Medicine and surgery from there. The LMI presidents list, including Thelwall Thomas, were from T. Bickerton's History of Liverpool from the earliest days until 1920. I supposed these men to be notable by being LMI presidents, but I'm still learning the criteria for what is meant by notable. My research at the moment is looking at connections between C 19th medical networks e.g. medical school and LMI. I'll try to get some references tomorrow and will probably make a more thoughtful selection of notable alumni/staff during the course of my research. EstherCole (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC) EstherCole (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Islam in the UK[edit]

A 12% increase in 3 years looks to me a very strong (explosive) growth, when comparing it to the 2-3% increase for non-muslims in UK, while white brits does not have it all... –TLA93 (talk) 14:10, March 25 2017 (EET)

It is a significant increase, but in my view "soared" and "explosive" suggest a more substantial increase and reflect the style of the Daily Mail to which they are sourced. Wikipedia should aim for more neutral language, particularly on sensitive subjects. The figures are estimates, not census figures. I was also concerned that I could not find the figures on the ONS website mentioned in the Daily Mail article, but decided not to tag the figures as {{dubious}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Images for Newman and Hando[edit]

I have no idea whether photographs I have taken of books that I own are breaches of Wikipedia copyright policy. We shall now find out and, if they are, the articles will be diminished by their removal. If you have copyright-free images of Newman and Hando, do please use them. While on the topic, I would suggest your having approached me to discuss the issues would have been a rather more collaborative action, and a better use of your time. KJP1 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@KJP1: I am sorry that you are upset by my nominating these pictures for deletion. In my view they are clear copyright violations. If so this is not an issue of editorial judgement, and discussing the issue did not appear to be productive. However, I am happy to discuss my reasons and to advise you as best as I can.
The copyright rules for Wikimedia Commons are summarised in c:Commons:Copyright rules. Specific guidelines for book covers are given in c:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Book covers, which says:
Book covers

Book covers, unless they are very old, usually carry copyright-protected designs, and photographs of them may not normally be uploaded to Commons. The fact that you are the physical owner of a book does not mean that you are authorised to replicate the cover design by uploading a copy here. A rare exception to this rule would be a book cover which is simple enough to not exceed the Threshold of originality.

That directly addresses these two images. However, it is not my decision and an administrator who specialises in these issues will decide whether they should be deleted. You can ask questions at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, and if the images are deleted you can ask on the deleter's talk page.
I added the links to the nominations to assist the administrators by confirming that these are book covers and to establish when the books were published. This is particularly relevant for the Hando book as the design is somewhat retro and it might have be old enough to be public domain.
In this case there might be a way around the problem: post the images to Wikipedia as non-free files (Wikipedia and Commons are different things and have different rules), and add a fair use justification, see Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. When I was last involved in this I used File:Nicholas Monsarrat - The Cruel Sea book cover.jpg as a model, or you could look in the subcategories of Category:Fair use images of book covers.
Book covers are typically used to illustrate articles on the book. I have not found an example of book cover to illustrate an article on an author and such use might not meet this rule in Wikipedia:Non-free content:
8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
You can ask about non-free content at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
On another topic, I noticed that these image pages include a camera location. This was probably derived from the metadata attached to the image by your iPhone. This may reveal where you live, which you might want to keep private.
Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

why i began scratch orchestra article[edit]

hi, verbcatcher. i started the scratch orchestra (type of orchestra) article because another article in Wikipedia mentioned a scratch orchestra (it was an article about some aspect of ballet, but I can't find it at the moment), and I thought it would be powerful to have the mention in the ballet article link to an article that described a "scratch orchestra" in some detail?

Is there a way to find which articles in wikipedia link to the scratch orchestra (type of orchestra) article? Greg Dahlen (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Greg Dahlen, my main concern is that the article does little more than define the term. There appears to be little scope to extend the article. Almost by definition, there are unlikely to be examples of 'notable' scratch orchestras, and I am not aware of an substantial "scratch orchestra movement".
You can find which articles link to another by clicking on the "what links here" link under Tools on the left of the page. The only article that links to Scratch orchestra (type of orchestra) is Ballet company.
There is a dictionary definition of 'scratch orchestra' here. You might add a definition to Wiktionary, which includes this definition in its scratch page:
6. Made, done, or happening by chance; arranged with little or no preparation; determined by circumstances; haphazard.
a scratch team; a scratch crew for a boat race; a scratch shot in billiards
a scratch race: one without restrictions regarding the entry of competitors
You might add
a scratch orchestra: one put together for a particular concert or project
However, I am unfamiliar with the rules and conventions that apply to Wiktionary.
Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

---Thanks, Verbcatcher. Well, the article I started on Wikipedia includes examples of situations under which a scratch orchestra would be put together. It seems to me that describing these various situations goes beyond what a dictionary would do. On that basis I would think it qualifies for an article? Do you agree? I would think the article has some capacity for expansion. For example, it may be that information has been published, or will be published in the future, about different details of how a scratch orchestra is put together, or problems encountered in putting a scratch orchestra together. Someone may have published, or will publish, specific experiences in putting together a scratch orchestra. On that basis, too, it would qualify as an article, perhaps a stub? Greg Dahlen (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It still seems too thin, and there may be a problem with identifying acceptable sources. The article currently only cites one source, which is a blog posting that does not qualify as reliable.
I think it would be best to convert the article into a paragraph to the Orchestra article, and to convert Scratch orchestra (type of orchestra) into a redirect to this paragraph. The redirect could be tagged {{R with possibilities}} and at some stage replaced with an article if adequate material and sources can be procured to justify a separate article.
I envisage a expanding the Amateur ensembles section of Orchestra using the following outline:
  • Types of orchestra
  • Symphony orchestras
May also be called 'Philharmonic' or 'Philharmonia'
  • Opera and ballet orchestras
May also play orchestral concerts
  • Chamber orchestras
  • Scratch orchestras
  • Amateur ensembles
(using the existing text)
Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

---hi, Verbcatcher. Why are you thinking "amateur" ensembles since I believe "scratch orchestras" in most cases are paid? Btw, for me to get a note that you replied do you have to tag me in the reply? If so, and you reply, please tag me in the reply so I'll know you replied. I actually didn't know you had replied here, I came looking for how to markup certain edits and then noticed you'd replied. Greg Dahlen (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Greg Dahlen:, I am sorry if I was unclear, my proposed change to orchestra was to rename the Amateur ensembles section to Types of orchestra with a short subsection on the main types of orchestra, as outlined above. Scratch orchestras can comprise professional, semi-professional or amateur musicians, or a mixture. Btw, 'professional' is not the same as 'paid': amateurs are sometimes paid and professionals sometimes play for free. I apologise for not pinging you with my earlier response – I usually add pages that I have edited to my watchlist. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

---Verbcatcher, I am sorry, when I read your proposal I heard the phrase "amateur ensembles" and missed the detail and scope of what you were proposing. You do realize that the introductory section of gives a little detail on some of those categories you thought to include in the expanded section? Would the subsections within the newly expanded section over-repeat what's already contained in the introduction to the article? As an example, the introductory section says, in the third paragraph from the top of the article: "A full-size orchestra may sometimes be called a symphony orchestra or philharmonic orchestra. The actual number of musicians employed in a given performance may vary from seventy to over one hundred musicians, depending on the work being played and the size of the venue." Would you more or less repeat this information in the proposed newly expanded section? Greg Dahlen (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Greg Dahlen, I admit I have not studied the orchestra article in detail, I was looking for a place where a paragraph on scratch orchestras could usefully be added. The lead section of an article should be an introduction and summary (see MOS:LEAD), so some repetition between the lead and the rest of the article is to be expected. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
hello Verbcatcher. Well, I'm not sure either. Not being very knowledgeable about orchestras, i don't know how much there is to say about each kind of orchestra. Until we decide, what about simply giving "scratch orchestras" their own section after "amateur ensembles" in the orchestra article? Although scratch orchestras might not be assembled that often, still I would think it is an important enough phenomenon within the orchestra world to warrant its own section within the article. After all, amateur ensembles got their own section. Greg Dahlen (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Greg Dahlen, that makes sense. I would be inclined to put it before the "Amateur ensembles" section, because some would place a scratch orchestra above an amateur ensemble in the pecking order. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
hmm, Verbcatcher, sorry I don't reply so fast, I don't have a computer at home but only use them in public libraries. I'm a bit inclined to put it after because i think "scratch orchestras" are probably assembled far more rarely than amateur ensembles? Altho not an orchestra expert, I kind of guess they're assembled quite infrequently. But I'm going to ask on that quora blog where I got the original info on "scratch orchestras." I'll get back to you. Greg Dahlen (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Greg Dahlen, I don't think they are infrequent. Many amateur choirs (and possibly amateur musical theatre companies) assemble an ad-hoc orchestra of professional players for each concert. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

---Verbcatcher, if you think it should go before, I don't have strong feelings about it. I can move it if we're agreed? Or you can. I would think we have to keep the blog footnotes because those are the only place I could find anything substantial on "scratch orchestras."

One thing I would like is that if someone comes on Wikipedia to search for info about scratch orchestras, when they write scratch orchestra in the search box it would bring up the scratch orchestra section within the orchestra article. but i'm not sure, does the search box ever bring up sections, or only full articles?

Interestingly enough, I just attended a performance by a "conductorless" orchestra. They claimed to be one of the few in the world. That probably should become a section within the "orchestra" article as well. Oh wait, I see now there is a full article on conductorless orchestras.

By the way, would you give me your opinion on another article I wrote? It's I think with what I currently have sufficient notability has been established for the article to remain, but another editor put an "inadequate notability" tag on it. Greg Dahlen (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

NPRN number[edit]

Hi Verbcatcher,

That paragarph is fine, NPRN stands for: National Primary Record Number. Sorry can not think of a source that springs to mind.

As for the National Monuments Record of Wales, take a look at the following links:

Not every site on Coflein is a listed building or Schedualed Ancient Monument. Over the last one hundred years the Commission has amassed a huge amount of information from site visits and various other sources.

You may also be intrested in the Historic Wales website which can be explored via organisation data layers and overlays of current OS mapping and OS 1st Edition Mapping.

Thanks, Charles.rcahmw (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


I don't understand why you made this edit. Care to elaborate? --GHcool (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@GHcool: Based on the article, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is a movement that campaigns against the Israeli government's policies and actions concerning Palestine and related issues. In the BDS disambiguation page we need a short phrase that describes the topic of the linked article, which should be factual and non-contentious. I have reverted two of your recent changes to this:
I reverted this with the summary Possible POV edit: campaigning against the policies and actions of the Israeli government is not the same as "against Israel". By this I meant that the BDS movement was not campaigning against Israel in general. The article does not say that the campaign is against the existence of the state of Israel (although some of its supporters may be). "Possible POV edit" meant that I suspected that your edit might have been influenced by your personal views on the topic. This was not intended to question your good faith but to alert you other editors to this issue.
This is worse. I reverted it with the summary focuses on the Palestine issue. Israel's policies and culture are wider than this. The culture of the state of Israel is much wider than this, see the Culture of Israel article. Based on the article, the BDS campaign is not against Israeli culture, although it might oppose some manifestations of this to try to pressurise the Israeli government.
The current text (a pressure group in support of Palestine) is not ideal because the BDS campaign is also concerned with the Golan Heights, the rights of Arab-Israeli citizens and the right of return of refugees. However, the following sentence indicates that support of Palestine is the main objective:
  • On 9 July 2005, a broad spectrum of over 170 Palestinian non-governmental organizations initiated a campaign for a boycott, divestment and international sanctions against Israel in support of the Palestinian cause.
The current text does not mention Israel, but that connection would be assumed by most readers.
We could put A campaign against the government of Israel, but I prefer the existing text.
I am happy to discuss this. I do not have a special interest in Israeli or Palestinian politics, I originally came to BDS looking for the dental degree. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I would feel more comfortable with A campaign against the government of Israel. BDS's support for Palestine is much more suspect than its opposition to Israel. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's lack of support for BDS is the smoking gun for many suspicious of the campaign's pro-Palestinian bona fides, but there are other reasons to conclude that BDS is an oppositional force. --GHcool (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
You seem like a reasonable person. If you agree with this edit, I won't fight it. If you think my argument of 28 April makes sense to you, I'd appreciate it if the disambiguation page can say what we agreed to. --GHcool (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I have been away. The edit you have linked (this edit) restores the text to my version here, so I am ok with it. Have I misunderstood something? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The edit in question restored your wording despite your concession that A campaign against the government of Israel would be acceptable to you and my acceptance of that wording (see above). --GHcool (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
GHcool, I didn't actually say that I would accept A campaign against the government of Israel (if I implied this then I ave changed my mind). On reflection, the current wording is clearer and is accurate. It is usually preferable to say what an organisation or a campaign is favour of rather than what it opposes. The few examples I have found follow this format:
None of these are exact parallels to BDA, but they support my preferred wording. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, but I accept your judgment and will not fight it. Thank you for your time. --GHcool (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


If these are General references, then please cite them in the text, at least once. Just floating them on the page is neither nice nore acceptable, because no one can figure out what information is coming from them. Or just put them in a section called "General references". Thanks! Peteruetz (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)