Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→Fourth statements by editors (Lithuania): round five |
|||
| Line 185: | Line 185: | ||
===Fifth statements by editors (Lithuania)=== |
===Fifth statements by editors (Lithuania)=== |
||
@[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] but isn't that your role? We listed the changes we want to make in the article. I can list things that '''I think''' all three of us agree on, but I'm a party to the argument, it can only generate more discussion and controversy. |
|||
And as I said in my earlier comments, [[User:Pofka|Pofka]]'s proposal is unacceptable because it contains all the shortcomings of the current version of the section, only shorter. The length of the section is secondary here. [[User:Marcelus/sandbox6|Here]] I addressed Pofka's proposal, removing parts that seem unnecessary to me, and adding things that were missing. I've taken them from my [[User:Marcelus/sandbox5|original proposal]] to modify the section, which I proposed back on the article's talk page.[[User:Marcelus|Marcelus]] ([[User talk:Marcelus|talk]]) 08:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Muhammad Ali Jinnah == |
== Muhammad Ali Jinnah == |
||
Revision as of 08:04, 24 February 2023
 |
|
| Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
| ||||||||||||
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 00:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
 | If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputes
Coat of arms of Lithuania
– Discussion in progress.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Pofka (talk · contribs)
- Marcelus (talk · contribs)
- Piotrus (talk · contribs)
- Cukrakalnis (talk · contribs)
- GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is a content dispute regarding subsection Coat of arms of Lithuania#Belarus (what should be kept/removed in it). Short context below.
Previously the Belarusian territories were part of Lithuania (see: Grand Duchy of Lithuania), therefore the Belarusians used the Coat of arms of Lithuania until 1795. In 1918 Lithuania was restored and part of Belarusians once again sought to restore pre-1795 Lithuanian territory, therefore institutions such as Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, Grodno Military Command and multiple Lithuanian-Belarusian units were formed (most notably, the 1st Belarusian Regiment which sought to preserve capital Vilnius and Grodno within Lithuanian territory). All of them extensively used the coat of arms of Lithuania as official symbol. Grodno was the third largest city (after Vilnius, Kaunas) where the Lithuanian Army was active and an important stronghold of pro-Lithuanian Belarusians.
However, post-WW1 Poland pursued expansionist aims in the former territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, thus invaded Vilnius, Grodno (and other minor cities). It resulted in repressions against pro-Lithuanian soldiers and Lithuanian symbolism used by them (e.g. on uniforms, flags) and removals of the coat of arms of Lithuania from buildings, etc. Eventually, in 1921 Belarus was partitioned into two parts (Western and Eastern). This is an important part of history of the coat of arms of Lithuania in the interwar period.
All this is currently described in this subsection and with WP:RS references, but Polish users (Marcelus, Piotrus) demand to nearly completely remove content from this subsection and accuses that it is allegedly anti-Polish. However, Lithuanians (I and Cukrakalnis) disagree with such removals and say that it is a well-referenced content and censorship of the Polish repressions against the coat of arms of Lithuania and soldiers using it would be a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NPOV.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
- Resulted in remove/insert warring.
- Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania#RfC: content of the section on Belarus gave very little result and we were unable to reach a WP:CONS.
- GizzyCatBella and Piotrus in RFC said that it is WP:UNDUEly long, so I proposed a nearly two times shorter version of it (see: User:Pofka/sandbox/CoA of Lithuania: Belarus) by keeping the main information, references, but removing a bit of context. It was still rejected by Marcelus, Piotrus as anti-Polish.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
This subsection should be evaluated by a neutral person (administrator?) who is familiar with WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. I think other subsections in section "Similar coats of arms" should be expanded instead of nearly completely erasing the most comprehensive one about Belarus. Maybe some content from subsection "Belarus" should be moved (if it is WP:UNDUE) to subsection "Republic of Lithuania in the interwar period" as it is important for describing the interwar history of this symbol.
Summary of dispute by Marcelus
Contrary to what the submitter says, "anti-Polishness" is not the main reason why the content of the "Belarus" section is disputed. Although undoubtedly the text is written in a style that suggests that the reluctant to Poland author wanted to prove something, it describes in specific detail the alleged "insulting" of Belarusian/Lithuanian symbols by the Polish military, or one-sidedly describes the "Polish imperialism" mentioned by Pofka. First of all, however, the section that is supposed to describe CoAs occurring in Belarus that are similar to the Lithuanian CoA devotes almost half the space to describing one of the Belarusian units in the Lithuanian army (which has a separate article 1st Belarusian Regiment). It devotes a lot of space to other Lithuanian institutions (Grodno Military Command, Lithuanian Ministry of Belarusian Affairs), making it more about Lithuania than Belarus, and more about politics than heraldry. In addition, the section's narrative is that Belarus came into being only because of Lithuania's influence and "domination." Pofka's proposal has a similar problem.
@Pofka also forgot to mention that the dispute began with my proposal, in which I tried to eliminate the above-mentioned flaws (User:Marcelus/sandbox5). In it I tried to describe in the first paragraph why Pahonia/Vytis became the national symbol of Belarus and how it took root in the country, after which I listed the Belarusian institutions that used this symbol in chronological order. This was only a proposal, which may be subject to change.
Apart from anything else, I don't understand why Pofka decided to devote two paragraphs of his report to a description of Belarusian-Lithuanian relations and Polish expansionism, I don't know what it brings to our dispute (it is otherwise full of simplifications and misrepresentations). Since it is out of the scope of the section, which is intended to describe "Similiar coats of arms" to "Lithuanian Coat of Arms" in "Belarus", not all the things Pofka mentions. To much politics and military history, not enough heraldry.Marcelus (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Piotrus
Belated reply - I was AFK for a while. When this popped up on my watchlist, I indeed decided to significantly trim the section in question for reasons explained in edit summary and my comment on talk. Briefly - the very lenghty subsection on "Belarus" was very UNDUE to the topic at hand (namely, "Coat of arms of Lithuania"). Most of the content I removed did not even mention said coat of arms - just look at my diff and CTRL+F for "coat". Frankly, it looked to me like some Belarusian POV pushing of content that is irrelevant to Lithuania onto this article. There was also some rather non-neutral and minute detail about an incident in which allegedly, some Poles defaced the symbol when worn by some Belarusian volunteers in the Lithuanian army. I moved that to the newly created article on 1st Belarusian Regiment, where it could may be kept (after some neutral rewriting), but to mention this in the article on the "Coat of arms of Lithuania" seems both UNDUE and POVed - it's like mentioning one of many US flag burning incidents in an article about American flag, etc. Having read the discussion in this RfC I stand by my initial judegement: 90% of the content in this section is off topic, some of it arguably fails NPOV, and should be removed or moved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Cukrakalnis
Marcelus kept removing ([1], [2], [3]) a section claiming that it was "irrelevant", "unrelated" and "off-topic" on 29-30 December 2022. The section in question is obviously relevant to the topic of Coat of arms of Lithuania because it is about how the Lithuanian coat of arms was used by pro-Lithuanian Belarusian civilian institutions and military units in an area that Poland invaded after the Lithuanian government established itself there via military units. During the Polish takeover, the Polish mistreated the coat of arms of Lithuania and replaced them with Polish signs. The mention of this fact attracted the attention of Marcelus in early October 2021 when his reaction to these facts was:
Based on this, it is clear that Marcelus wants to remove the section because he considers it "anti-Polish propaganda" etc. Still, because this argument was insufficiently convincing for the removal of text based on WP:RS more than a year ago, then Marcelus has now re-opened the question and shifted the argument to emphasize how text concerning military and civilian institutions using the Coat of arms of Lithuania is somehow irrelevant to an article about that same coat of arms.
After the discussion inconclusively stalled (which is what generally happens in discussions between anyone and Marcelus within the topic of Lithuania), Piotrus after writing briefly on the talk page swooped in to remove the section on January 20 during a still active RfC. I frankly gave up on this issue and only raised some questions about the correctness of such a removal on the talk page that same day and since then was on a brief holiday away from Wikipedia (since January 25 until today, Febuary 5), partly in order to WP:DEESCALATE.
Notably, Piotrus previously had not edited the article at all since 14 October 2005 and his last message on the talk page before his edits on 20 January 2023 was on 15 September 2020. I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but Piotrus has involved himself more than once in places ([4], [5]) where Marcelus was extensively involved before Piotrus came along. This exchange on Marcelus' wiki.pl talk page between Marcelus and Piotrus definitely indicates that they have each other's emails.
Meanwhile, while I was away, Pofka decided to involve himself into this. Unsurprisingly so, because he had been a very active contributor to the article, with his last contribution to it being on 3 March 2022, just twelve days before he was temporarily topic banned since 15 March 2022 due to a report by Marcelus. Pofka successfully appealed the ban and it was lifted on January 12. Then, he became involved on January 29 and the new reignited discussion resulted in the talk page size growing from 133,749 bytes on January 20 to 174,703 bytes on February 2 (no one edited the talk page since then, as of now).
Overall, after some thought, I agree to Pofka's proposals because they seem reasonable.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by GizzyCatBella
Coat of arms of Lithuania discussion
Zeroth statement by moderator (Lithuania)
I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute if moderated discussion is still wanted. Please read the rules and indicate whether you are willing to comply with the rules and want moderated discussion. Also, if you are ready for moderated discussion, please indicate in one paragraph what you either want changed in the article, or left the same that another editor wants changed. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do you want moderated discussion subject to my usual rules? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Lithuania)
@Robert McClenon: Yes I want moderated discussion according to the rules. I believe no changes should be made to this well-referenced (with WP:RS) and extensive but at the same time quite short subsection-summary of the coat of arms of Lithuania usage in Belarus and by Lithuanian-Belarusian units, institutions. However, if neutral moderator decision will be that it is WP:UNDUE, then I agree to replace it with my shortened version (see here: User:Pofka/sandbox/CoA of Lithuania: Belarus). Nevertheless, what I strictly oppose is to replace statements based on WP:NPOV WP:RSes (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica) with Marcelus' suggested version which replaces Britannica's WP:NPOV evaluation of the history of Lithuania and its coat of arms with statements based not on Lithuanian, not on WP:NPOV sources but on "Belarusian national movement" sources (point of view) because such content is not WP:NPOV (especially in an article about Lithuania) and belongs to article Belarusian nationalism (and maybe to articles National emblem of Belarus, Litvinism). The current version already mention that "Belarusian nationalists claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state, which is why they adopted its symbol" and that is absolutely enough because it is WP:NATIONALISM type of content. I think that extensive presentation of the history of Lithuania and its coat of arms as Belarusian (so not as Lithuanian, according to the Belarusian national movement point of view) would be a WP:POVPUSH of Litvinist (WP:FRINGE, WP:NATIONALISM) content and point of view, thus it certainly would not improve WP:NPOV situation of the disputed subsection. Moreover, I disagree that facts about the 1st Belarusian Regiment, Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, Grodno Military Command and Polish Army's atrocities, repressions against Lithuanian-Belarusian units and their Lithuanian-Belarusian symbolism in Grodno should be removed because they are inextricably related with the coat of arms of Lithuania and I think their removal would be a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED (maybe some content could be moved to subsection "Republic of Lithuania in the interwar period"). -- Pofka (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Moderated discussion is a good idea. Basically, my postulate is that the section we are talking about should be on WP:TOPIC. In this case, it is the occurrence of Lithuanian or similar coat of arms (Vytis/Pahonia) in Belarus. Since the section should not be long, and at the same time summarized more than 500 years of history it should include only the basic information. Devoting some 4,000 characters to considering the ethnogenesis of the Belarusians, their cultural subordination to the Lithuanians, a description of several Lithuanian military institutions and formations, and how they were disbanded by the Polish army, certainly seems excessive. I postulate, therefore, the removal of superfluous elements and a concise description of the subject within the scope of the article.Marcelus (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I want the section Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania#In_the_Lithuanian_Army (which Marcelus wants removed) to stay in the article. That is because the section, which details how the Lithuanian coat of arms was used by civilian ministries and military units (including pictures of that), is relevant to the article.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Lithuania)
One editor has joined us, and has not said that they have read the rules and that they will comply with them. I assume that they will, but I would like all the editors to say that they agree to moderated discussion and that they will comply with the rules.
It appears that the main issue is that various editors think that various parts of the article are undue or off-topic. So I am asking each editor either to make a list of what they want removed from the article, in list or point-by-point style, or to make a brief statement that they want to remove a lot of content, with a brief explanation. If there is anything in particular that you want kept that another editor wants removed, please state what it is. I realize that some of you have already said what you want removed, and that I am asking you to repeat your statement, because I would like to have as many of the issues as possible in one place.
By the way, it is important to be concise. Sometimes moderately short statements are more effective than long ones.
If any of you have any issues other than wanting anything removed, please state concisely what you want. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Lithuania)
I already explained in my previous statements why this subsection does not require large removals. However, if it is really necessary then I would accept a two times shortened version suggested by myself (see here: User:Pofka/sandbox/CoA of Lithuania: Belarus) which keep the main content of this subsection which is inextricably related with the coat of arms of Lithuania and further explains how it is related, but some context and post 1990+ history of Belarus is removed because probably it belongs more to the National emblem of Belarus. Moreover, as I already said, maybe some content could be moved to subsection "Republic of Lithuania in the interwar period".
It is interesting when some contributors here continue to pretend that the Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, Grodno Military Command, 1st Belarusian Regiment and other Lithuanian-Belarusian military units who used Lithuanian symbolism (Vytis) are not related with the coat of arms of Lithuania when I already provided quotes stating otherwise at RFC which might also be interesting to a moderator (the shortened version suggested by myself includes paraphrased version of them):
- I) "Vasario 10 d. pulko vadas, vykdydamas Gudų karinio sekretoriato nurodymą, visiems karininkams ir kareiviams įsakė nešioti prie uniformų pritvirtintus tik Lietuvos kariuomenės ženklus. 1919 m. kovo 7 d. patvirtinta gudų dalinių uniforma: apsiaustas, frenčius ir kelnės buvo tokie pat kaip lietuvių karinių dalinių uniformos, pėstininkų ir artilerijos karių kepurių, antpečių, apykaklių, rankovių ir kelnių apvadai buvo balti, raitelių – raudoni. Visos kitos detalės taip pat turėjo būti pagal patvirtintus Lietuvos kariuomenės uniformos reikalavimus" (English: On February 10, the commander of the 1st Belarusian Regiment, following the instructions of the Belarusian Military Secretariat ordered all officers and soldiers to wear only the insignia of the Lithuanian Army attached to their uniforms. On 7 March 1919, the uniform of the Belarusian units was approved: the cloak, fringes and trousers were the same as the uniforms of the Lithuanian military units, the caps, epaulets, collars, sleeves and trousers of the infantry and artillery soldiers were white, and the borders of the horsemen were red. All other details also had to be in accordance with the approved requirements of the uniform of the Lithuanian Army"; see: HERE, pages 30-31);
- II) "Gardine, nuo 1919 m. vasario 1 d. šalia Pirmojo baltgudžių pėstininkų pulko įkūrus ir komendantūrą, vasario 13 d. Krašto apsaugos ministerijos štabo viršininko sprendimu buvo suformuota Gardino karinė įgula, o jos viršininku paskirtas Pirmojo baltgudžių pėstininkų pulko vadas krn. M. Lavrentjevas" (English: Since 1 February 1919 in Grodno, near the 1st Belarusian Regiment a commandant's office was established on 13 February. According to the decision of the Chief of Staff of the Ministry of National Defense, Grodno's military crew was formed, and the commander of the 1st Belarusian Regiment was appointed as its chief - officer M. Lavrentyev; see: HERE, page 27).
The relation with the coat of arms of Lithuania is also illustrated by photos accompanying the text (which Piotrus and Marcelus also request to be removed). By glancing at edit history of this article, I see that user Cukrakalnis attempted to improve this subsection and to explain the relation of the content with the coat of arms of Lithuania in a positive way (1), but his edits were reverted (2) because the discussion at article's talk page was still going. We should not pretend that the Lithuanian-Belarusian military units with Lithuanian symbolism did not exist and that Lithuanian symbolism used by them and on buildings was not repressed, removed by Poles who invaded territories where these units operated as it would be a straight-forward violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV.
By the way, I repeat once again: Grodno was the third largest city (after Vilnius and Kaunas) where the Lithuanian Armed Forces operated during the Lithuanian Wars of Independence by trying to secure the city within restored Lithuania's territory before the Polish Army invaded it, so it was not an insignificant, minor provincial town and events there are very notable (e.g. similar like it would be about events in the New York City in United States's case). For example, I would not see a problem to describe removals and repressions of the USA's symbolism in the New York City if it was performed en masse by invading Mexico's forces. Sorry for my long statement, but I kept original Lithuanian language text in quotes for the sake of verifiability. -- Pofka (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Remove all information that is not directly related to the topic of the section and is beyond its scope, e.g. the sentence
Based on the data of archaeology, ethnography, anthropology, and linguistics, professor Leszek Bednarczuk makes an assumption that the Belarusian ethnos and language were formed due to the dependence on the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and during this epoch of Lithuanian domination, the Belarusian language and nationality began to take shape
, is completely redundant, and is also an example of WP:PUFFERY. There is also no room here to contemplate the ethnogenesis of the Belarusians - Passages that are described in detail in other articles should be shortened to the bare minimum, e.g., the extensive passage on the Belarusian 1st Regiment can essentially be reduced to stating that Pahonia was used by Belarusian units formed by Belarusians as part of the Lithuanian and Polish armies, this is literally the maximum information needed here. Reflections on the 1995 referendum also seem superfluous, it is enough to state that in 1995 the Pahonia was replaced by an emblem reminiscent of the one from the Soviet era
- Similarly, information about the fact that the Lithuanian coat of arms was used by Lithuanian institutions (such as the Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, for example) seems to be misplaced (why even mention something that is rather obvious - Lithuanian institutions use Lithuanian symbols)
- In general, the section should also be brief and concise, since there are articles: National emblem of Belarus and National symbols of Belarus
Marcelus (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Lithuania)
When I said that the editors should be concise, I meant that the editors should be concise. Sometimes overly long statement have little effect except to give the poster a false sense of confidence that they have explained their case. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
One of the statements is too long. If they want to try again, they may try again.
One editor has made a concise statement listing parts of the article that he says are too long and should be trimmed. Will the other editor please state clearly how much they agree to?
I will try to explain why it is in the interests of an editor to be concise. If lengthy posts have not yet convinced other editors, and if lengthy posts have not persuaded the moderator to rule in your favor (and I don't make rulings), then we may have to publish an RFC. An RFC should summarize what is being considered, so that editors with little knowledge of the subject will be able to express a reasonable opinion. The editors who respond to an RFC are more likely to agree with a concisely stated position that they understand than with an overly lengthy statement. So when I ask to be concise, I am not just asking because I am a lazy reader and do not want to review your long post. I am asking also because an RFC will be voted on by lazy readers who do not want to review something that is too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Lithuania)
@Robert McClenon: My concise summarized statement (based on everything I wrote here, so if you are going to start another RFC and move users statements please use it as my evaluation of this dispute and justification why content is necessary):
I think that this subsection does not require major trimming because it is well-referenced and not too long, and instead of that other subsections about other countries should be expanded to make the section "Similar coats of arms" balanced. Long story short:
- From the ~13th century (rule of King Mindaugas) until Partition of 1795 the Belarusian (Ruthenian, formerly Kievan Rus') territories were absorbed by Lithuania, thus the Belarusians had no statehood, no unique national symbols and extensively used the coat of arms of Lithuania. This over ~500 years period led to a formation of distinctive Ruthenian identity (Belarusians). This period is inextricably related with the coat of arms of Lithuania and is described by WP:RS WP:NPOV articles of Encyclopædia Britannica and professor Leszek Bednarczuk.
- On 25 March 1918 the first independent Belarusian state entity was created and it adopted a modified variant of the coat of arms of Lithuania. However, since 16 February 1918 there already was a restored independent Lithuania with non-final state borders, thus part of the Belarusians desired to again be part of Lithuania and again used the coat of arms of Lithuania (e.g. Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, Grodno Military Command, 1st Belarusian Regiment, etc.). Nevertheless, Poland also sought to expand eastward and repressed Belarusians who were loyal to Lithuania and Lithuanian symbolism used by them (e.g. in Grodno, the third largest city after Vilnius and Kaunas where the Lithuanian Army operated). I think removal of repressions part would violate WP:NOTCENSORED. This period is also inextricably related with the coat of arms of Lithuania and described with WP:RS.
- The third Belarusian period is since 1990-1991 when the Belarusians once again adopted a similar coat of arms with a horse rider. This period does not require detailed description in this article as it is not related with the coat of arms of Lithuania and there are dedicated articles National emblem of Belarus, National symbols of Belarus for that. So part of this type of content can be removed.
- We need to include some context in this subsection to understand all this. But if it is WP:UNDUEly long then I propose a nearly two times shorter version (see: HERE) based on these points. The final evaluation should be done by a neutral administrator because this dispute involve users (Polish?) who want to remove Polish repressions and to expand with "Belarusian national movement" type of content (Litvinist, so WP:NATIONALISM, WP:FRINGE) which is clearly not necessary in an article about Lithuania per WP:NPOV. -- Pofka (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Lithuania)
It appears that the major disagreement is that some editors wish to remove some of the historical information that has to do with other similar coats of arms, and others wish to retain that information. First, I will explain that one policy is being quoted that has no bearing on this dispute. That is Wikipedia is not censored. This policy is more often misunderstood than understood. The removal of information that is marginal to the topic or would be undue weight is not censorship. Censorship refers to the removal of content that is considered immoral or risqué. Read that policy again. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Does any editor either have a proposal for a compromise on the amount of background and marginal material? Does any editor have a revised view after rereading Not Censored, which is not applicable? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Lithuania)
As far as I understood, the resulting conflict is a consequence of content merge after Talk:Pahonia#RFC:_Pahonia. As a result, the section about Belarus started looking rather large. In particular, some rather lengthy "backgroundish" paragraphs seemed natural in "Pahonia, but look bloated in the article on Lithuanian subject and rise the suspicion in WP:SYNTH. Assuming that the merged state stays, I suggest:
- Unreferenced paragraphs must be removed. They sat here for quite some time, hence snip-snip.
- The section "In the Lithuanian Army" is redundant because yes of course Lithuanian Army used the Lithuanian emblem, no big surprize. Unless there are some sources why 1st Belarusian Regiment selected Pahonia for reasons other than the regiment was partt of Lithuanian armed forces, the section must be removed.
- The USSR section must be rewritten. "Lukashenka" part must be trimmed, but the role of Belarusian Popular Front instrumental in promoting these symbols may be added. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
My comments following Robert McClenon's and Lokys dar Vienas's statements:
- Pahonia is one of the names of the coat of arms of Lithuania (same as Vytis or Pogonia) and there is a valid WP:CONS quite recently confirmed by an administrator that it should be a redirect page to the coat of arms of Lithuania (see: HERE), so per WP:LISTEN it should not be reconsidered again.
- I agree that unreferenced (especially 1990+) content should be removed from this disputed subsection because it is not related with the coat of arms of Lithuania and actually is WP:UNDUE weight. As far as I noticed, it was mostly added step-by-step by Belarusian users who placed them in this subsection instead of National emblem of Belarus. So I agree that the majority of the 1990+ content should be deleted or moved to articles like National emblem of Belarus where they would fit much better.
- 1st Belarusian Regiment was an ethnically Belarusian military unit which used the coat of arms of Lithuania. That's why it is important for this subsection. There were more such units later, but it was the first and the most important one because it also was the Grodno Military Command and before disbanding by Poles it operated in Belarus' territory.
- @Robert McClenon: Unlike the 1990+ history of Belarus, I don't think that Polish Army's repressions of the coat of arms of Lithuania is "marginal to the topic or would be undue weight". I created a two times shortened version User:Pofka/sandbox/CoA of Lithuania: Belarus which is centered around the coat of arms of Lithuania (Vytis). It has context and 1990+ history reduced to the minimum. Robert, what major issues you see in it? Maybe it could be trimmed even further a bit. I think by reading it you will feel very little that you are sliding outside of the topic of the coat of arms of Lithuania. However, facts like: 1) Lithuanian President Antanas Smetona explanation is important to understand why such Belarusian units with the coat of arms of Lithuania appeared in the early 20th century; 2) short description of the Peace of Riga is important to understand what happened to Belarus and why its symbols usage was Polonized/Sovietized (replaced) and why horse rider had to be started to be used again in 1990+. -- Pofka (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Approaching compromise:
- I generally agree with the proposals of Lokys dar Vienas.
- I also believe that we should limit ourselves to dry facts as much as possible, so there is no room for the presidents' opinions, for example. There is also no room for a description of Lithuanian institutions (not this section, besides, what is the point of writing out that the institutions of a country use the symbolism of that country) or repeating what is desribed in detail in other articles (1st Belarusian Regiment).
- This section is not strictly about "the coat of arms of Lithuania" but about "coats of arms similar to the coat of arms of Lithuania," so, for example, the national coat of arms of Belarus. Which, although similar and having common roots, is not identical to the coat of arms of Lithuania. So the argument
content should be removed from this disputed subsection because it is not related with the coat of arms of Lithuania
should be rejected as incorrect. It is precisely this section that exists to describe phenomena not directly related to the coat of arms of Lithuania, but to coats of arms similar to it, such as the national coat of arms of Belarus. - I agree that the problem of the section is an improperly conducted merger and duplication of content from the national emblem of Belarus, we should limit ourselves to basic facts Marcelus (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Lithuania)
Pofka has created a sandbox containing a proposed draft of the Belarus section. Do other editors agree with the changes? If not, what is the disagreement?
Are there any other sections that editors want rewritten?
Will each editor please make a bullet-point list of sections that should be deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Lithuania)
@Robert McClenon what's the purpose of doing the same thing once again? We already said like 2 or 3 times what do we want to be changed about the article, repeating it once again doesn't make much sense.Marcelus (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Lithuania)
It appears that there are some changes that two editors want to make, and that one editor does not want to make. If so, we need to identify as clearly and concisely as possible what those changes are. If there are any changes that all three editors are in agreement on, please list them, and we will make them, and then decide whether further discussion is needed.
Who agrees or disagrees with the proposed Belarus section?
Are there any other sections for which we should create sandbox drafts? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Lithuania)
@Robert McClenon but isn't that your role? We listed the changes we want to make in the article. I can list things that I think all three of us agree on, but I'm a party to the argument, it can only generate more discussion and controversy.
And as I said in my earlier comments, Pofka's proposal is unacceptable because it contains all the shortcomings of the current version of the section, only shorter. The length of the section is secondary here. Here I addressed Pofka's proposal, removing parts that seem unnecessary to me, and adding things that were missing. I've taken them from my original proposal to modify the section, which I proposed back on the article's talk page.Marcelus (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Muhammad Ali Jinnah
– Discussion in progress.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
The issue is regarding the ethnicity of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. It is already mentioned he has Gujarati origins but another editor put in that he is also an "ethnic Muhajir" (immigrant) since his parents migrated before partition of Pakistan to Pakistani territory.
To sum it up, a Muhajir is a person who is a Muslim who immigrated to Pakistan from Indian territory AFTER the India-Pakistan partition. Jinnah was born in Karachi and was raised there,so he is not in anyway classified as a "Muhajir". The editor insists so only because his parents migrated BEFORE partition and forcing this identity on him by claiming he left Karachi and spent his political career in Bombay (Indian territory) which he left in the 1947 partition, though he also owned property in the future Pakistani territory of Karachi before partition. Plus this identity evolved over time as an "ethnic group" in a specific region (Sindh) because of politics. It's status as an "ethnic identity" didn't exist in the first decade of partition.
Lastly, his first language was Gujarati and the "Muhajir" ethnic identity in Pakistan is used as an alternative for the "Urdu-speaking" community since they were the predominant group that came. Many other migrants like Bengalis, Afghans, etc who immigrated are not grouped into this identity. This identity is therefore not fixed and very flexible.
The editor has provided a source which calls Jinnah a "Muhajir" in an article where the politics of ethnicities in Pakistan is discussed, which categorised Jinnah to be one since no other term for him probably came to mind. But this categorization is a rare opinion.
I've provided sources on the talk page to back my claims and how many sources contradict the need for this categorization.
I've also asked the editor I'm in conflict with to counter the 3 points I have raised, to which they didnot respond and asked to bring in a third opinion instead.
Will be thankful for your cooperation.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah#Ethnic_Muhajir
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
By helping decide if the mention of him being "ethnic Muhajir" should be kept or not since the history of his parent's migration + his Gujarati origins is mentioned in the article hence unnecessary to stuff in this newly evolved term.
Summary of dispute by Flamealpha123
Firstly, I want to clear some misunderstanding regarding this dispute and that is the importance of the place of settlement of Jinnah's parents and his birhtplace. Being a muhajir, as I will discuss later, has nothing to do with where your parents lived or where you were born, but what matters is your ethnicity and location at the time around the Partition.
I called Jinnah an ethnic muhajir because he exactly fits into the widely used muhajir definition which is:
- Migrated to Pakistan from Muslim minority provinces of the subcontinent around the time of partition,
- Is not considered as belonging to any of the nationalities of Pakistan, neither Punjabi, nor Pashtun, nor Sindhi, nor Baloch,
Migrated from those areas of East Punjab whose language and culture were not Punjabi.(He did not migrate from Punjab)
My sources proving Jinnah fits into the definition:
- Clause 1 of definition:(On 7 August, Jinnah, with his sister and close staff, flew from Delhi to Karachi in Mountbatten's plane, and as the plane taxied, he was heard to murmur, "That's the end of that.") sources:[6][7][8] (Jinnah stayed in the House (in Bombay, India) till partition of India in 1947, after which he moved to Karachi in Pakistan.)source:[9]
- Clause 2 of definition: (In 1913, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the son of an affluent Gujarati merchant from Kathiawad, joined the League) source:[10]
- Clause 3 of definition: This clause is only for people who migrated from Punjab, to avoid classifying ethnic Punjabi migrants as muhajirs. Jinnah migrated from Delhi (see clause 1).
Anyone who believes Jinnah is not an muhajir should try to prove that he does not fit this definition.
Uzek claims jinnah can not be considered a muhajir because:
- Jinnah was born in Karachi and was raised there. I have discussed this above, that birthplace has nothing to do with being a muhajir only ethnicity and location at the time around the Partition matter. Jinnah was a Gujarat, so not a native Pakistani, and his permanent residence was in Bombay at the time of Partition (see sources for clause 1 of definition and the passport photo).
- He owned property in the future Pakistani territory of Karachi before partition. To counter that I will say that owning property is not a sign of permanent residence. Many people own property in several different countries, so why are they not considered permanent resident of that country? And also Jinnah's Domicile (a person's fixed, permanent, and principal home) is of mumbai not karachi.
- his first language was Gujarati and the "Muhajir" ethnic identity in Pakistan is used as an alternative for the "Urdu-speaking" community since they were the predominant group that came. Many other migrants like Bengalis, Afghans, etc who immigrated are not grouped into this identity. This identity is therefore not fixed and very flexible Well, Jinnah was a gujarati and gujaratis in Pakistan are considered muhajirs. [11][12][13] The term “Urdu Speaking” was coined because most of the people who migrated from the minority provinces of India and settled in Sindh spoke Urdu or some dialect of it as their mother tongue, though there were muhajirs in good number from Gujrat and Bombay whose mother tongue was not Urdu.[14] Anatol Lieven clearly states in his book Pakistan: A Hard Country: In Karachi, they (muhajirs) were 48 per cent, with around another 8 per cent made up of Gujarati, who also left India after 1947 and so come under the same heading of Mohajir. also The balance was largely made up of Muslim emigrants from Gujarat in India, who speak their own languages but as Urdu-speakers tend to identify with the Mohajirs and the MQM. This case of urdu-speakers and muhajirs is the same as russia which is called by this name because it is dominated by ethnic Russians, but that does not mean that tatars or chechens are not russians.
- Also he brings up the issue of bengalis and afghans, they did not migrate from India and therefore are not considered muhajirs (this has nothing to do with Jinnah).
I also have reliable sources clearly stating Jinnah was a muhajir:
There are many sources that indirectly state that Jinnah was a muhajir but to keep this short I will not include them.
First statement by moderator (Jinnah)
I am willing to moderate this dispute. It appears that there is discussion taking place here, and the discussion may be useful, so we will use a set of rules that permit back-and-forth discussion. Be civil and concise. Please read the rules and acknowledge that you agree to them. It appears that the issue is whether Jinnah, who is regarded as the founder of Pakistan, can be referred to as a Muhajir, which refers to Muslims who migrated from what is now India to Pakistan. Is that the primary issue? Are there any other content issues? Please answer those questions in the area for first statements, and you may continue discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Jinnah)
Yes, that the only issue. Besides the summaries, detailed discussion is present on the article talk page and the second statement. Would add to it if further questions asked or if Flamealpha likes to comment on it.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah discussion (Back-and-forth)
Hey there,
We can't call Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, a "Muhajir" throughout his article. I'm sorry. It doesn't matter "where he was" during the Partition of India, because he is the one who partitioned India in the first place.
We can have a neutral sentence that discusses why he may be considered a Muhajir for "certain analyses", e.g. since he is an ethnic Gujarati (on both sides) and spent much of his political life in India. We can even consider him a "Muslim migrant" during the Partition of India. For these reasons, calling him "Muhajir" is not inaccurate.
It's just not entirely accurate either. Generally "Muhajir" refers to refugees affected by the Partition and their descendants -- Muhammad can't be considered a "Muslim refugee" when he instigated the cause for the immigrations in the first place.
My vote is that there be a single reference to him being considered Muhajir, maybe like this:
"Muhammad Ali Jinnah has been considered a Muhajir in certain analyses because of his Gujarati ethnicity and the fact much of his political life was spent in India before the Partition.(your refs here) However, labelling him a "Muhajir" is equivocal due to the definition of that term being related to the Partition of India that Muhammad himself caused.(more refs here)"
And just leave it at that? Let me know what you two think. Thanks :) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by editor
Thankyou for your response! I agree that this info should be included only if it paints both sides of the picture of why or why not he may be "considered a Muhajir".
But the problem with words like "in certain analysis" or similar such wordings would be, to my knowledge, no analysis of him being "considered" a Muhajir is published yet, because this topic holds no relevance in public discourse in Pakistan. The consideration of him being one based on much of his political life being spent in Bombay is not published either, it's just this editor's (Flamealpha123) personal opinion.
The editor has provided only TWO sources which they claim to call Jinnah a "Muhajir". I think the editor mistakenly included the Jaffrelot source ( https://www.worldcat.org/title/949668196 ), since I read the whole shortbook on ethnic politics in Pakistan today and no where does Jaffrelot call Jinnah a Muhajir? Requesting the editor to go through it and cite the paragraph where it claims so (it is not there).
The second and only source which categorises Jinnah to be a Muhajir (rare opinion) is the one I have a problem with.
This is the paragraph: "WHICH ethnicity and class has ruled us the most? Each era has a ruling clan with a top honcho and kitchen cabinet. But for ease, I focus on the former (ignoring dummy prime ministers). Jinnah (middle-class Mohajir); Liaquat Ali (landowner Mohajir), Bhuttos/Zardari (landowner Sindhis) and Sharif (industrialist Punjabi) were political and/or elected rulers." ( https://www.dawn.com/news/1357045 )
Besides the writer calling Jinnah a Muhajir (unnecessary categorization), he also goes on to call former prime minister Nawaz Sharif a Punjabi (misinformation) when he in fact was a Kashmiri (mentioned in his wikipedia biography). This writer's article hence needs to be discarded as a source of how ill-informed he is of existence of other minority ethnicities in Pakistan and grouped them all into the majority known ones.
Many reliable sources exist which do not categorise Jinnah as a Muhajir in such published articles, rather just mention his Gujrati origins. For example, this one from Britannica:
"Jinnah had worked hard to mollify competing and ambitious provincial leaders, and Liaquat Ali Khan, himself a refugee (muhajir) from India, simply did not have the stature to pick up where Jinnah had left off."
https://www.britannica.com/place/Pakistan/Birth-of-the-new-state
See the contradiction? One source calls both Muhammad Ali Jinnah AND Liaquat Ali Khan the first leaders of the newly formed state of Pakistan Muhajir while the other (also reliable) source doesn't. (Because Liaquat fits in perfectly with the definition of a Muhajir, while Jinnah doesn't).
- You're right. I should've just taken that source out the first time. I was being neutral about it, but by "certain analyses" I did mean the source where they were comparing ethnicities of prime ministers or whatever it was. I suppose I was trying to not be judgmental about this source? Now I'm judging it as not appropriate for Wikipedia and can be excluded. Thanks for taking the time to make a second statement. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @LightProof1995 Thanks alot for taking out your time to resolve your dispute. I am perfectly on board with your judgement although I think it will be better if we merge the two sentences you added with a comma 😂
- @Uzek for the question about https://www.worldcat.org/title/949668196 (pg.10 section:Introduction)
- The disappearance of these two muhajirs politicians (Jinnah and Liaquat) left the democratically inclined Bengalis in a face off with the Punjabi elites
- I am not saying the muhajir term should be used throughout the article, It should be used only once in the way you did (have a neutral sentence that discusses why he may be considered a Muhajir for because some researchers such as jaffrelot).
- So if you are writing about the causes for 1971 civil war or any other thing about Pakistani politics you can't say Pakistani establishment was dominated by Urdu-speakers, gujaratis, rajisthanis, etc. You have to use the term muhajirs as Jaffrelot uses in his book. So we can say (as @LightProof1995 did) for some researches and analyses jinnah is a muhajir. And the rest can be left up to the reader to decide if he was a muhajir or gujarati. Should we close this dicussion now? FLA-ALP-1 (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- And I think He was of a Gujarati Khoja Nizari Isma'ili Shi’a Muslim background, though Jinnah later followed the Twelver Shi'a teachings. should be moved after the sentences about the muhajir stuff because it seems weird to have a sentence about his ethnic origins, then one about his religion, then again about his ethnicity, and another one about his religion. FLA-ALP-1 (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I see. But the pattern of both these sources is "Ethnic politics in Pakistan" and "which majority ethnic group rules" to create a narrative of who dominates Pakistan. Hence the bias towards grouping them all into major known categories. Mentioning any outlier (minority ethnic group with sparse numbers) that has ruled Pakistan doesn't get a mention in both. While the Britannica I mentioned which is contradictory to these sources or many similar sources on general history always use the clear cut definition of the term Muhajir, hence no mention of Jinnah being one in most. Now it's up to the moderator to decide who must know better regarding the policies of inclusion of such terms which have no consensus/aren't black and white.
Third statement by moderator (Jinnah)
I see that one editor has made a second statement, so I will skip making a second statement and make a third statement. Do not reply to each other in your third statements. Address them to the moderator, who represents the community. I see that an editor who is not yet listed as one of the parties, User:Uzek, has joined the discussion. Do you, Uzek, agree to abide by the rules? Are there any other issues besides whether Jinnah can be referred to as a Mujahir? Will each editor please list all of the specific places in the article that they either want changed or left the same because of the question of whether that characterization applies to Jinnah? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Jinnah)
Yes, I have read the rules and agree to abide by them. This was the first version of the sentence. "He is considered to be an ethnic Muhajir" over which the dispute had started.
Now it has been modified to "Muhammad Ali Jinnah has been called a Muhajir by some writers because of his Gujarati ethnicity and the fact much of his political life was spent in pre-modern-day India before the Partition. However, labelling him a "Muhajir" is equivocal due to that definition generally referring to Muslim refugees of the partition Jinnah himself instigated." by a volunteer editor.
The issue is over if the term "Muhajir" should even be included to begin with, since there is clear proof as stated in above discussions that the term has no consensus. And detailed analysis of him being one or not has not been published in writing in reliable sources, which makes it difficult to include it since wikipedia doesn't use opinionated text outside of reliable sources. (Per: WP: SYNTHESIS) Uzek (talk)
Onimai: I'm Now Your Sister!
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as resolved by discussion between the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Applied behavior analysis
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Oolong (talk · contribs)
- Barbarbarty (talk · contribs)
- ATC (talk · contribs)
- HaiFire3344 (talk · contribs)
- Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
This page has been a perennial source of controversy on Wikipedia, reflecting the controversial nature of the subject.
The current dispute has a few dimensions to it:
- What should be included in an article lead? For example, is it ever correct to include a list of thirteen purported applications of a thing, if none of those applications are described in the body of the entry?
- What counts as a biomedical claim, requiring MEDRS-level sourcing? In particular, is a claim that X is used for Y always a biomedical claim, where X is something that medical insurance might pay for and Y is generally considered a medical condition?
- What is the best way to characterise a controversy when there is one group that seems to be overwhelmingly opposed to a thing, but also a substantial number of people outside that group who object to it or make serious critiques of some aspects of it? How do we weigh up and summarise evidence of controversy in different groups?
- Relatedly, what sort of evidence might we admit for a claim that group Y is generally opposed to a thing, as opposed to (say) just some within that group having a problem with it?
Debate on these questions has been heavily polarised and somewhat circular in nature, involving a small number of participants on either side and a few onlookers who have largely felt unable to reach conclusions. A Request for Comments (recently expired) and an appeal to WikiProject:Medicine yielded some insights, but nothing approaching a resolution.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Applied_behavior_analysis#Request_for_Comment:_dealing_with_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Applied_behavior_analysis_-_assistance_requested
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
It would be useful to have outside opinions on the questions listed: how to describe controversies, what counts as a biomedical claim, whether it makes sense to name applications in a lead that are never described in the body, etc.
Summary of dispute by Barbarbarty
The main source of contention, in my view, is what belongs in the lead and what does not. Originally, there was a “long version” of a description of controversies about ABA that seemed in the view of some editors, including myself, as prejudicial or seemed to slant the article towards being overtly negative towards the subject, when ABA is actually still much debated and has many credible supporters, as well as detractors, who according to most sources mainly originate from the autistic rights movement. There is also the question of a list that User:ATC added that had a list of applications for ABA and a source along with it that I have been told does not support the information that was written, however it was behind a paywall so I am still unable to access it. There was also the concern that such a list would include biomedical claims and thus require a higher standard then a simple statement of fact. I eventually removed this list as multiple users corroborated the sentiment that the list was unsubstantiated, but I feel such a list of applications could be added in the future provided there is a quality source. My sentiment has been that controversies can be stated in the lead, but in a brief and concise mannee that does not violate WP:NPOV, and controversies major and minor can be elaborated on in length in the body of the article.
Summary of dispute by ATC
Summary of dispute by HaiFire3344
Multiple aspects of the lead have been involved in this dispute, namely the controversy section, the list of applications, and the first sentence. The length of the controversy section of the lead has varied over time, at one point being very long. I feel that Oolong found a good sweet spot with this edit, which I and at least one other user agreed had more neutral wording than a shortened version that came soon after. (However, concerns were later raised about the reliability of the Autistic Not Weird survey cited in the next edit and the Sandoval-Norton references; I cannot speak on how well those concerns hold up.) The shortest version of the controversy section came off as minimizing the controversy surrounding ABA, and edits were made to try and address this. Finding the best length, wording, and content for the controversy section with the most neutrality without minimizing the controversy is a priority. The list of biomedical applications of ABA was virtually entirely unsourced and should not have been in the lead given the lack of elaboration in the body. Another point of contention was that ATC insisted on describing ABA as a "(scientific) discipline" in the first sentence, which is not at all a precise description of ABA; I believe that it is better to describe ABA as a psychological intervention, as ABA is a part of applied psychology and fits the definition of interventions. HaiFire3344 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Sideswipe9th
Applied behavior analysis discussion
- Volunteer Note - Is the filing party asking for input from other editors, or for a mediator to conduct moderated discussion? If the filing party wants additional editors to provide input, they may ask at WikiProject Psychology. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Simple function
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
The section "Countably valued functions" is obvious in nature and should not have been added, per WP:ONUS. This section adds nothing of substance and only clutters up the article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Simple_function#Countably valued functions - why?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I am seeking independent opinions.
Summary of dispute by StrokeOfMidnight
Summary of dispute by Tensorproduct
Simple function discussion
- Procedural close The article has a list of books at the bottom, but not a single footnote, so that an independent wikipedian will have hard time verifying the statements of the article. In particular, I see no referenxe that says that countably valued functions is an extended definition, not to say this thingy is studied at all. (If there were such a ref as I described, than of course it belonngs here; I ve seen several math articles that discuss extensions of the concept / artcle subject. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note from volunteer: Is there a reason why Tensorproduct is not listed as an involved user, StrokeOfMidnight?— Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes both of them are listed. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Volunteer Note - If an independent opinion is requested, you may ask at WikiProject Mathematics. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)