Overleg:Ghaznaviden

Uit Wikipedia, de vrije encyclopedie
Naar navigatie springen Naar zoeken springen

Titelwijzing[bewerken]

Waarom is Rijk der Ghaznaviden een betere titel dan Ghaznaviden? Mvg JRB (overleg) 17 nov 2012 17:11 (CET)

In afwachting van een antwoord teruggedraaid, ook ivm met andere problemen met de implementatie. — Zanaq (?) 17 nov 2012 17:32 (CET)

sorry voor de late reactie. Ik ben vaak niet actief op wiki ,vandaar. De reden voor mijn wijziging is dat de artikel over de ghaznaviden meer een indruk geeft dat het een volk is. In de Engelse wikipedia spreekt men ook van ghaznaviden(engels :Ghaznavids) maar ook in andere talen ,misschien vandaar dat het in het nederlandse wiki zo wordt benoemd, afijn ik hoop snel een reactie terug te ontvangen.- Oghuz (overleg) 5 dec 2012 19:11 (CET)

Hallo Oghuz, de titel Ghaznaviden klinkt alsof het om een dynastie binnen een rijk gaat, niet om een volk. Als ik het artikel zo eens door lees kom ik tot de conclusie dat ik Ghaznaviden toch beter de lading vind dekken dan Rijk der Ghaznaviden. Het lijkt hier om een dynastie te gaan. Mvg JRB (overleg) 6 dec 2012 20:08 (CET)

Vlag[bewerken]

Inmiddels is er op de artikelpagina (zie de geschiedenis ervan) enig rumoer ontstaan over de correctheid van de aldaar weergegeven vlag. Ik zie dat de betreffende figuur is aangemaakt door Oghuz. Wellicht heeft hij bronnen ter onderbouwing hiervan. Bob.v.R (overleg) 9 jun 2013 00:11 (CEST)

Hier kun je meer lezen over deze vlag en het rumoer. Dit is de vierde verwijdernomimatie op Commons van de file. Jcb - Amar es servir 9 jun 2013 00:21 (CEST)
Separate issues. The Commons discussion is about copyright. This discussion here is about historical authenticity. Do you have a source for the authenticity of this flag, yes or no? Future Perfect at Sunrise (overleg) 9 jun 2013 01:01 (CEST)
De meeste nominaties van deze vlaggen, door dezelfde nominator, gingen wel om scope. Nadat hij ze eerst overal uit de artikelen verwijderde, betoogde hij dan dat ze nergens werden gebruikt. Jcb - Amar es servir 9 jun 2013 01:19 (CEST)
How about answering my question instead of evading it? Future Perfect at Sunrise (overleg) 9 jun 2013 01:21 (CEST)
E.g. here - Jcb - Amar es servir 9 jun 2013 01:34 (CEST)
And you seriously think that is a reliable source? You must be joking. Actually, the page itself warns that "To the best of our knowledge, the historical existence of most of these flags is not proven and we are not aware of their origin and designer." Future Perfect at Sunrise (overleg) 9 jun 2013 01:35 (CEST)

Bron-sjabloon[bewerken]

Wij nemen daar normaal meer dan 3 dagen voor, voordat we de zogenaamd niet geverifieerde informatie dan maar wissen. Jcb - Amar es servir 14 jun 2013 11:39 (CEST)

It's been challenged for almost a week on this project, and for much longer on others. So far, there is strong prima facie evidence that the information is false (as pointed out above, the only source that was ever brought forward to support it actually pretty much says as much), and no editor has even indicated a willingness to try to investigate further in search of better sources. Are you going to go to the library and read a book on the Ghaznavids after all? Per WP:Verifieerbaarheid#Bewijslast, you, as the person who reinstated the contested claim, have the responsibility to provide these sources now. Reinserting dubious material without at least being willing to do your homework about the sourcing is irresponsible and disruptive.
In the meantime, nothing is lost and nothing is damaged in the article if the dubious claim remains out of it for a few days – even in the unlikely case that you later do come up with a reliable source supporting its reinsertion. On the other hand, the article is damaged if it continues to prominently display a claim and it later turns out to be false.
I'll give you another 24 hours, then I'm removing it again. Reinsert if and when you have the sources, not earlier. Future Perfect at Sunrise (overleg) 14 jun 2013 12:15 (CEST)
Till now, no NL speaker has responded to your template or to the source I gave. At NL wiki we are not in a hurry. You will have to wait at least a few weeks before removing may be an option again. Jcb - Amar es servir 14 jun 2013 14:20 (CEST)
What does being an NL speaker have to do with anything? As I said elsewhere, stop this ridiculous game of hiding behind the alleged language barrier to avoid dealing with the content. I showed you that the source you tried to bring forward the other day was unsuitable, did I or did I not? Do you accept that per WP:V it is now up to you to provide a better source, yes or no? Future Perfect at Sunrise (overleg) 14 jun 2013 14:48 (CEST)
The DR at Commons will probably be closed within a few days. Let's see what happens there first. I'm not going to dive in it if it may be for a few days only. We are not in a hurry. Please refrain from removing the inclusion at least until the DR has been closed. Jcb - Amar es servir 14 jun 2013 14:53 (CEST)
Will you finally explain to me why you think it would be bad for the article if the image was missing for a few days? If the image is in fact wrong (as all the evidence seems to indicate), then every further day of it staying in the article is actively doing harm, because it serves to perpetuate a Wikipedia-created disinformation meme that creates the perpetual risk of it getting propagated further elsewhere and carried back into other Wikimedia projects by gullible editors. Wikipedia has already damaged the topic and its own reputation for a long time about this and this needs to stop, so I reject your claim that we are "not in a hurry". If, on the other hand, it turns out that you actually do find a reliable source some time in the future (but do you seriously consider that likely, at this point?), then still nothing has been lost an no damage has been done to the article just because it didn't have a flag in its box for a short while. Future Perfect at Sunrise (overleg) 14 jun 2013 15:03 (CEST)
The claims and links provided by various user at Commons in the several DRs on this image (current DR is the fourth) suggest the contrary. Your 'evidence' doesn't seem to count on a lot of support. Jcb - Amar es servir 14 jun 2013 15:24 (CEST)
What links on Commons, and what 'evidence' of mine? I didn't provide any evidence so far, because I don't have to. You do. What links provided on Commons do you think point in the direction that this flag is authentic? The only source links I see on Commons are related to the question of how and with what intentions it was made up by some Turkish authors in the 1960s. I have seen not the slightest hint at any source that actually points to an authentic historic usage earlier than that. Future Perfect at Sunrise (overleg) 14 jun 2013 15:28 (CEST)
The file got deleted at Commons in the meantime. Case closed for me, I don't see any reason to waste more time on this. Jcb - Amar es servir 14 jun 2013 15:36 (CEST)
That's convenient. You could certainly have avoided wasting time on this since a lot earlier though, if that's what you're concerned about. Future Perfect at Sunrise (overleg) 14 jun 2013 15:48 (CEST)