→edits: fix |
m →edits |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
::*HK as I have stated numerous times I wont get into discussions of content with you (or anyone else) in this subject area, I am only reviewing edits in so far as the probation requires it. <br>You were not justified (under the terms of [[WP:GS/BI|the British Isles topic probation]]) in removing the term 'British Isles' at [[1727]]. Its use is indeed sourced & the information is different from other sources. Furthermore nowhere in WP:NPOV does that allow for removal - in fact quite the reverse. As I stated above it is entirely possible for Janet Horne to be the last Witch executed in Scotland, Britain, & the British Isles (and if it were the case Europe and/or the world). HK you need to be clear that attempting to justify such removals as you have above will be treated as wikilawyering. <br>Your points about the above about the general issue are beginning to worry me that you still aren't hearing the point. Rewriting articles all through this site around the use of a term (any term) is contrary to site policy and frankly borders on using wikipedia to make a point. We write articles here using the best sourcing ''for the article subjects'' not in regard to whether they use one term or another. <br>Look HK you're reading a meaning into my above post that is not there. My tone above is appropriate - the edit to [[1727]] has breached teh probation but if I or any other sysop had found these edits sufficient for sanction you'd have heard about it already. You're not. As regards these particular edits ''vis-a-vis'' sanction: if in a hypothetical situation they formed part of a future pattern of edits then yes of course they will be considered, but as it stands now I'd be happy that if you learn from this to let it go. But I'll expect that same mistake wont be made again--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 20:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
::*HK as I have stated numerous times I wont get into discussions of content with you (or anyone else) in this subject area, I am only reviewing edits in so far as the probation requires it. <br>You were not justified (under the terms of [[WP:GS/BI|the British Isles topic probation]]) in removing the term 'British Isles' at [[1727]]. Its use is indeed sourced & the information is different from other sources. Furthermore nowhere in WP:NPOV does that allow for removal - in fact quite the reverse. As I stated above it is entirely possible for Janet Horne to be the last Witch executed in Scotland, Britain, & the British Isles (and if it were the case Europe and/or the world). HK you need to be clear that attempting to justify such removals as you have above will be treated as wikilawyering. <br>Your points about the above about the general issue are beginning to worry me that you still aren't hearing the point. Rewriting articles all through this site around the use of a term (any term) is contrary to site policy and frankly borders on using wikipedia to make a point. We write articles here using the best sourcing ''for the article subjects'' not in regard to whether they use one term or another. <br>Look HK you're reading a meaning into my above post that is not there. My tone above is appropriate - the edit to [[1727]] has breached teh probation but if I or any other sysop had found these edits sufficient for sanction you'd have heard about it already. You're not. As regards these particular edits ''vis-a-vis'' sanction: if in a hypothetical situation they formed part of a future pattern of edits then yes of course they will be considered, but as it stands now I'd be happy that if you learn from this to let it go. But I'll expect that same mistake wont be made again--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 20:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::*Don't get me wrong here. I'm genuinely trying to understand. Above, I'm simply trying to explain and justify my edits. You say you're not going to get into discussions of content, fair enough. But on the other hand (if I understand you correctly) this implies that content has no bearing on applying [[WP:GS/BI]]? In effect, if you don't get into content, it implies that *I* can't/shouldn't evaluate the quality of content/sources when editing as this is not taken into consideration in terms of applying [[WP:GS/BI]]. To put it in simple terms - in effect, *any* source is ... a source. Please don't take this as wikilawyering - it's difficult to understand. But I can without a shadow of doubt say that I *get* the point that it's plain wrong to rewrite articles around the use of a term. And I also *get* the point that you can't cherry pick sources. And I *get* the point that I have to provide references if I'm making a change. And I'm worried that I've a different idea of what is considered a "good" edit, and what might be considered sanctionable (even in terms of a long-term pattern). Or realistically - is there really any such thing as a "good" edit if it's seen that there's a pattern of editing around a term (such as British Isles) in lots of different articles regardless of whether it is "good" or not. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing#top|talk]]) 22:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
:::*Don't get me wrong here. I'm genuinely trying to understand. Above, I'm simply trying to explain and justify my edits. You say you're not going to get into discussions of content, fair enough. But on the other hand (if I understand you correctly) this implies that content has no bearing on applying [[WP:GS/BI]]? In effect, if you don't get into content, it implies that *I* can't/shouldn't evaluate the quality of content/sources when editing as this is not taken into consideration in terms of applying [[WP:GS/BI]]. To put it in simple terms - in effect, *any* source is ... a source. Please don't take this as wikilawyering - it's difficult to understand. But I can without a shadow of doubt say that I *get* the point that it's plain wrong to rewrite articles around the use of a term. And I also *get* the point that you can't cherry pick sources. And I *get* the point that I have to provide references if I'm making a change. And I'm worried that I've a different idea of what is considered a "good" edit, and what might be considered sanctionable (even in terms of a long-term pattern). Or realistically - is there really any such thing as a "good" edit if it's seen that there's a pattern of editing around a term (such as British Isles) in lots of different articles regardless of whether it is "good" or not. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing#top|talk]]) 22:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::*HK, as an uninvolved sysop '''I''' am precluded from getting involved in content issues - I did not say that "''content has no bearing on applying [[WP:GS/BI]]''" - that is a total misreading of my post. My posts do not imply anything of the sort re you evaluating sources. <br>Look this is very simple, in an area under probation policy is enforced more rigorously than elsewhere due to persistent problems etc etc. In the case of WP:GS/BI the probation is there to prevent unjustified insertions or removals of the term 'British Isles'; edit-warring about it; and other tendentious or disruptive behaviour. In this case your removal of the term British Isles in [[1727]] has on examination seen to have breached the above probation. <br>HK I have to say, at times in this thread you seem to be looking at editing in this area through the lens of old [[WP:CONLIMITED|practices generated by a small group of editors in this topic]], rather than from an objective stand point. For the most part over th last 10 months you've shown that you understand that these old practices are at odds with site policy and appropriate encyclopedic writing, but your insistence here in justifying what are mistakes, or what is not justifiable, is what worries me. If a total outsider was coming to the [[Janet Horne]] subject they would after proper research include *both* Scotland and the British Isles (and again if appropriate the Europe etc) because that's what the sources say. Removing one or the other would always be controversial where both are sourced or sourcable. <br>Going forward, take this as a rule of thumb, when in doubt either leave it alone or (where there are sources for both) as I advised above attribute sources that say different things. The simplest policy on WP is [[WP:Preserve]], which advises: "''Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage''". In some cases under WP:GS/BI that would mean finding sources for the use of the term British Isles rather than simply removing it (I listed the 3 cases above where you were correct in altering/removing the term in my first post). The matter requires both discretion and [[wp:competence|competence]] to differentiate between these situations and I know you have both. Again see my suggested rule of thumb when in doubt. <br>On the matter of mass changes or long standing patterns of behaviour, it would fair to say the community's opinion is well expressed in the the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#Principles|ruling on the GoodDay RFAR]]--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 00:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:53, 28 June 2012
You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. Do not leave a template to say you've responded on your Talk page. I said I'm watching. If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them and may even delete them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email.
Counties of Ireland
Come on HK, really? Are you going to join the discussion on talk or is this the extent of your contribution here? Please leave the page at its stable version for now. — JonCॐ 11:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- And they're all referenced on the respective county pages. — JonCॐ 11:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've read the arguments on the Talk page. Not much more I can add, but I can join in if you insist. --HighKing (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not insisting, but I think your revert was inappropriate. At the moment there are two editors trying to remove the Scots column (and I've still yet to see a convincing, non-just don't like it reason for doing so) and two arguing for its retention, and as the one trying to remove content from the stable version of the article the onus is on you to build consensus, which you've failed to do. — JonCॐ 11:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, there's also a very nasty undercurrent developing on this discussion - not picking you out in particular but this comment - I'd support the deletion of both tables detailing foreign names - really caught my eye and looks like it is solely designed to inflame other editors. You're familiar with the "sides" of the argument, so you're smart enough to know when you're deliberately provoking and insulting other editors. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- What is it you're objecting to, "foreign"? I meant it solely in the sense of a non-English language – by definition a foreign language on the English W'pedia – although maybe it wasn't the best choice of words. Or something else? — JonCॐ 11:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Aye, as if you didn't already know... And no, it's not a "foreign language" on English W'pedia - there's no such thing - that's a very xenophobic way of viewing the world. The terms are actually classified as "local names" (for a reason). --HighKing (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- So "Munchen" or "Espana" or "Milano" or other local names aren't words in a foreign language? "Xenophobic"? Oh, please. — JonCॐ 15:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:ENGLISH. --HighKing (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- So "Munchen" or "Espana" or "Milano" or other local names aren't words in a foreign language? "Xenophobic"? Oh, please. — JonCॐ 15:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Aye, as if you didn't already know... And no, it's not a "foreign language" on English W'pedia - there's no such thing - that's a very xenophobic way of viewing the world. The terms are actually classified as "local names" (for a reason). --HighKing (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- And are you going to self-revert? — JonCॐ 11:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Eh...no. This is on the edge of WP:FRINGE to me. If we add a dialect of English, next we'll start adding Shelta names and probably even Hiberno English and we'll see Stab city and Big Smoke and stuff. I don't think so. --HighKing (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't know Shelta or Hiberno-English were an official language/dialect/whatever anywhere in Ireland. Anyway, regardless of your personal feelings, you're still edit-warring. You've been here long enough and know how these things are supposed to work, so I won't bother linking to BRD or the rest. Poor form. — JonCॐ 15:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Eh...no. This is on the edge of WP:FRINGE to me. If we add a dialect of English, next we'll start adding Shelta names and probably even Hiberno English and we'll see Stab city and Big Smoke and stuff. I don't think so. --HighKing (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- What is it you're objecting to, "foreign"? I meant it solely in the sense of a non-English language – by definition a foreign language on the English W'pedia – although maybe it wasn't the best choice of words. Or something else? — JonCॐ 11:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, there's also a very nasty undercurrent developing on this discussion - not picking you out in particular but this comment - I'd support the deletion of both tables detailing foreign names - really caught my eye and looks like it is solely designed to inflame other editors. You're familiar with the "sides" of the argument, so you're smart enough to know when you're deliberately provoking and insulting other editors. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not insisting, but I think your revert was inappropriate. At the moment there are two editors trying to remove the Scots column (and I've still yet to see a convincing, non-just don't like it reason for doing so) and two arguing for its retention, and as the one trying to remove content from the stable version of the article the onus is on you to build consensus, which you've failed to do. — JonCॐ 11:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've read the arguments on the Talk page. Not much more I can add, but I can join in if you insist. --HighKing (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
edits
Hi HK, you asked me about a series of edits, I'll answer as best I can. For the benefit of anyone else reading this, let me be clear I don't have a position on content but due to the terms of the probation I need to assess whether changes are in fact source based.
First, re the 1727 and Janet Horne articles - a cursory googling contradicts your removal of the term. A book search too upholds the use of "British Isles"[1]. HK, it is NOT appropriate to cherry pick sources. That Horne was the last witch executed *both* in Scotland and the British Isles is entirely possible. In such instances one should attribute both sources, NOT delete ones that one may disagree with (because that would be original research by exclusion and/or could be seen by some as civil pov pushing).
On the matter of William Annyas while yes I see a lot of webistes using the British Isles I only see Ireland in the book search. However again it is absolutely possible both should be listed (the historical period was 1555). Ask yourself the question does such information aid the reader. From the outside position I can say, yes it does.
As regards your edits to The Lizard Lifeboat Station, Lloydia serotina and Franck Cammas these look like straight forward and appropriate changes to unsourced text or misrepresented sources.
HK there is no problem fixing these latter instances where any term is unsourced or any source misrepresented - the problem is with edits where one is either leaving out a term that sources DO use, or that is obvious.
Again it is entirely more encyclopedic to include two reliable sources (for example, Janet Horne is both the last Witch executed in Scotalnd , according to soure A and in the British Isles, acording to source B). Excluding one or the other is bad for the reader and frankly borders on the tendentious. This type of edit falls into a whole seperate category to fixing misrepresentations or mis-transcriptions.
I do see the IP stalking these edits too and will look into it when I can--Cailil talk 13:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reviews Cailil.
- Regarding Janet Horne - it's unclear from your comments above and it can be read that I changed this article. Note that I did not change the main subject article "Janet Horne" or change any of the sources. The main article already had two sources. The 1727 article had a single (common) source too. The sources used either quoted "Britain" or "Great Britain". The 1727 article used "British Isles" but no referenced source used that term. I performed a reasonable search mainly in Google books as these usually turn out to be the most authoritative, but also websites and especially ones like the BBC, etc.
- Google books returns approx 137 to 180 results for "Janet Horne" and "witch". After the first 25 results, we start getting works of fiction. Of those (trivial or incidental mentions in brackets):
- Fiction: 3 (Scotland) 4 (Unknown No Preview)
- Scotland: 15 (2)
- Britain/Great Britain: 2
- United Kingdom 1
- British Isles: (1)*
- Unknown (no preview): 2
- Google books returns approx 137 to 180 results for "Janet Horne" and "witch". After the first 25 results, we start getting works of fiction. Of those (trivial or incidental mentions in brackets):
- The most numerous claim is that she was the last witch burned in Scotland. But there's also reliable sources for "Britain" and "Great Britain". There's none for "British Isles" (see below). Therefore I saw no reason to change to "Scotland" and merely fixed the transcription error using the sources already in use.
- As you've pointed out - there is one source for "British Isles" - it's a book entitled Llewellyn's Complete Book of Names: For Pagans, Wiccans, Druids, Heathens, Mages, Shamans & Independent Thinkers of All Sorts Who Are Curious about Names. This isn't a reference that deals directly with the subject matter (unlike the books dealing with "Witches Trials" and various Witch-related Enclopedia). It mentions Janet Horne in passing and doesn't deal directly with the subject matter.
- I looked at this and took it into consideration along with the first thirty or so books returned by Google Books. I don't consider it "cherry picking" to disregard a book on a tangential subject that uses a term none of the "expert" books used (as per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS).
- It occurs to me that there's a simple test to weigh the edit. Putting the shoe on the other foot - if I had inserted "British Isles" into an article based on the reference that included "British Isles", would that be seen as a reasonable interpretation of a good source, or I would expect to be sanctioned/warned under WP:GS/BI? Also, be aware that I won't edit war over these edits. If someone reverts and can provide reasonable rationale on the Talk page, no problem.
- On the matter of William Annyas - I thought the sources I found were pretty authoritative. There are some websites that make the claim for the "British Isles" but none that disclosed their source or that could be considered authoritative in their own right, and some that acknowledge they copied the facts from Wikipedia. If you found one that you feel I missed, let me know, but I looked and didn't. As for the historical period being 1555 - I don't understand the point. The phrase "British Isles" hadn't even been invented yet (another 20 years later) and even then took a while to catch on. The kingdoms were all separate - the Kingdom of Ireland, Kingdom of Scotland, etc. Also, you ask that I should consider "Does the information help the reader". I've learned the hard way that the only way to ensure that policy is being followed is to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and to pay attention to what sources say and the quality of those sources. If even a single quality source uses "British Isles", I won't make any changes although I might query the usage on the Talk page. If we apply the same test and I inserted "British Isles" based on what you've said above, I would expect to fall foul of the sanctions for inserting the term without being reliably sourced as per WP:GS/BI.
- I know that there's an extra onus on me to me extra diligent if I'm going to make any changes. I am not going to embark on making wholesale changes. I believe my edits were reasonable - by that I mean within all policies and not cherrypicking sources or tendentious. So I'm very concerned at the tone above, and reading between the lines it sounds as if you were considering these edits as grounds for some future action relating to WP:GS/BI.
- Question: Do I have reason to fear that the edits we're discussing could be used against me in any way for a future action relating to [[WP:GS/BI]? Saying that my edits in the instance of 1727 bordered on the tendentious because I didn't include a book on witches names doesn't sit right with me. Similarly, saying that William Annyas should be mentioned as the first mayor in the British Isles as it is "informative".
- I'd appreciate if you could clarify whether my understanding and reasoning above is correct and reasonable, or if I'm in danger of once again falling foul of WP:GS/BI with (specifically) those edits. --HighKing (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- HK as I have stated numerous times I wont get into discussions of content with you (or anyone else) in this subject area, I am only reviewing edits in so far as the probation requires it.
You were not justified (under the terms of the British Isles topic probation) in removing the term 'British Isles' at 1727. Its use is indeed sourced & the information is different from other sources. Furthermore nowhere in WP:NPOV does that allow for removal - in fact quite the reverse. As I stated above it is entirely possible for Janet Horne to be the last Witch executed in Scotland, Britain, & the British Isles (and if it were the case Europe and/or the world). HK you need to be clear that attempting to justify such removals as you have above will be treated as wikilawyering.
Your points about the above about the general issue are beginning to worry me that you still aren't hearing the point. Rewriting articles all through this site around the use of a term (any term) is contrary to site policy and frankly borders on using wikipedia to make a point. We write articles here using the best sourcing for the article subjects not in regard to whether they use one term or another.
Look HK you're reading a meaning into my above post that is not there. My tone above is appropriate - the edit to 1727 has breached teh probation but if I or any other sysop had found these edits sufficient for sanction you'd have heard about it already. You're not. As regards these particular edits vis-a-vis sanction: if in a hypothetical situation they formed part of a future pattern of edits then yes of course they will be considered, but as it stands now I'd be happy that if you learn from this to let it go. But I'll expect that same mistake wont be made again--Cailil talk 20:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong here. I'm genuinely trying to understand. Above, I'm simply trying to explain and justify my edits. You say you're not going to get into discussions of content, fair enough. But on the other hand (if I understand you correctly) this implies that content has no bearing on applying WP:GS/BI? In effect, if you don't get into content, it implies that *I* can't/shouldn't evaluate the quality of content/sources when editing as this is not taken into consideration in terms of applying WP:GS/BI. To put it in simple terms - in effect, *any* source is ... a source. Please don't take this as wikilawyering - it's difficult to understand. But I can without a shadow of doubt say that I *get* the point that it's plain wrong to rewrite articles around the use of a term. And I also *get* the point that you can't cherry pick sources. And I *get* the point that I have to provide references if I'm making a change. And I'm worried that I've a different idea of what is considered a "good" edit, and what might be considered sanctionable (even in terms of a long-term pattern). Or realistically - is there really any such thing as a "good" edit if it's seen that there's a pattern of editing around a term (such as British Isles) in lots of different articles regardless of whether it is "good" or not. --HighKing (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- HK, as an uninvolved sysop I am precluded from getting involved in content issues - I did not say that "content has no bearing on applying WP:GS/BI" - that is a total misreading of my post. My posts do not imply anything of the sort re you evaluating sources.
Look this is very simple, in an area under probation policy is enforced more rigorously than elsewhere due to persistent problems etc etc. In the case of WP:GS/BI the probation is there to prevent unjustified insertions or removals of the term 'British Isles'; edit-warring about it; and other tendentious or disruptive behaviour. In this case your removal of the term British Isles in 1727 has on examination seen to have breached the above probation.
HK I have to say, at times in this thread you seem to be looking at editing in this area through the lens of old practices generated by a small group of editors in this topic, rather than from an objective stand point. For the most part over th last 10 months you've shown that you understand that these old practices are at odds with site policy and appropriate encyclopedic writing, but your insistence here in justifying what are mistakes, or what is not justifiable, is what worries me. If a total outsider was coming to the Janet Horne subject they would after proper research include *both* Scotland and the British Isles (and again if appropriate the Europe etc) because that's what the sources say. Removing one or the other would always be controversial where both are sourced or sourcable.
Going forward, take this as a rule of thumb, when in doubt either leave it alone or (where there are sources for both) as I advised above attribute sources that say different things. The simplest policy on WP is WP:Preserve, which advises: "Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage". In some cases under WP:GS/BI that would mean finding sources for the use of the term British Isles rather than simply removing it (I listed the 3 cases above where you were correct in altering/removing the term in my first post). The matter requires both discretion and competence to differentiate between these situations and I know you have both. Again see my suggested rule of thumb when in doubt.
On the matter of mass changes or long standing patterns of behaviour, it would fair to say the community's opinion is well expressed in the the ruling on the GoodDay RFAR--Cailil talk 00:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- HK, as an uninvolved sysop I am precluded from getting involved in content issues - I did not say that "content has no bearing on applying WP:GS/BI" - that is a total misreading of my post. My posts do not imply anything of the sort re you evaluating sources.
- HK as I have stated numerous times I wont get into discussions of content with you (or anyone else) in this subject area, I am only reviewing edits in so far as the probation requires it.