User talk:Uness232/Archives/2023/May
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
CS1 error on Nedîm
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Nedîm, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)
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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello Uness232. I notice you asked for protection of this article but it was declined. If you want to follow up on this, I might have suggestions for how you could improve the discussion. Notice that there is nothing at all on the article talk page about the items that have been reverted recently. Another thing that seemed puzling to me is that in the infobox it states that the party has a military wing called the Kurdish Hezbollah. This is rather a shocking claim, and we would like to see the article present the arguments for and against this assertion. At present the only thing backing up this claim is a single reference to a news article from 2012 in a Turkish-language publication. If you know or someone else knows Turkish, somebody could improve this. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston; the issue about lacking discussions are due to 1) A discussion that took place in Talk: 2023 Turkish presidential election that ended in silence after a back-and-forth. 2) Numerous IPs deleting or adding something without providing any edit summary. Obviously it isn't possible for me to respond to arguments that do not exist.
- About the "military wing" issue, it's actually the other way around. This party is a non-militant civilian splinter group from the militant Hezbollah that has claimed to separate itself from it. Third-party sources do not accept this 'distancing', claiming pretty unanimously that the organizations are still closely connected. So, I suppose military wing isn't exactly true, but the sources in the article itself, not just that one source, pretty clearly state these connections. I was actually the one that edited the text so it was attributed to 'numerous sources', and not just stated in an overtly factual manner. I could still delete it, but I'd expect pushback.
- There has been a lot of stuff during this election cycle verging on tendentious editing that Wikipedia doesn't have a name for yet I think. I like to call it 'exposé-style', but the point is, by rummaging through sources, the most offending names about a party or person is found without reading the nuance of the source, and then plopped into the article with no context. The content is sourced, but the text no longer reads as an encyclopedia, but an exposé on how bad the leader/party is. For example, Justice and Development Party (Turkey) and Erdoğan have been cesspools for this. I've tried to find more measured ways to handle these, and have made plenty of missteps along the way, but there seems to not be a very good environment around these articles. Uness232 (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- It should be possible to put more information in the party's article without having to decide their connection to terror groups. One way to proceed is to say more about the party's declared positions. See this article in Al-Monitor for example: [1], "Turkey's ruling alliance welcomes islamist parties with misogynist agendas". The article is by a freelance journalist named Andrew Wilks, as documented here. If you consider Al-Monitor a reliable source, is there any reason why the Free Cause Party's position on women couldn't be added to the article? EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: That can be added, of course. However, I think either I misunderstand what you're saying right now; or you misunderstand the predicament the article's in. Check out this recent edit. It has no edit summary, and keeps adding back material previously discussed. My request for semi-protection comes from this. I'm in no way the one trying to decide the party's connection to terror groups. I am in fact trying to oppose edits that 1) Delete sourced material by simply calling it "fake" or a "smear campaign", 2) Oppose edits that violate source balance and create an article that reads less like an encyclopedia and more like an exposé (the above edit falls into the latter category). If anyone wants to add your suggestion, they can. If anyone wants to challenge the sources connecting Hezbollah and Free Cause, they can. They can not just remove sourced material by saying it's fake and give no other reason. And Wikipedia is not a place where one exposes how bad X political party is by rummaging through sources. That has been the total extent of my engagement with this article. I can also remove the "military wing" description if you'd like, but when there are multiple editors trying to shoehorn 'Islamic extremism' into the infobox (which obviously can not attribute sources), I doubt that'll get a lot of praise. Uness232 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- It should be possible to put more information in the party's article without having to decide their connection to terror groups. One way to proceed is to say more about the party's declared positions. See this article in Al-Monitor for example: [1], "Turkey's ruling alliance welcomes islamist parties with misogynist agendas". The article is by a freelance journalist named Andrew Wilks, as documented here. If you consider Al-Monitor a reliable source, is there any reason why the Free Cause Party's position on women couldn't be added to the article? EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)