User talk:Aciram/Archives/2022/November

A small suggestion
Greetings @Aciram

I came here after reading one of your WP:ANI post which is long but seems sincere in approach. Since I also had habit of long replies (though very logical and to the point) but over a period of time I learned some lessons and wish to share with you. Though not a solicited advice by you but see if it helps you in some way.


 * Usually we content writers are used to read long texts from books and refs and pick up relevant points very quick. Same we expect same skill from others encyclopedia (WP) users too. But unfortunately that does not happen
 * I have realized most WP talk page participants have very short attention time and not only complaint against long answers of others but use opportunity to smear against long answer giving users.
 * I would recommend to get used to giving short cut links to policy pages and edit difs when putting up your argument. Try to finish in 150 to 500 words on talk page, any extra details/lengths required write in your own user page and include the link.
 * If in any talk page discussion after arguing case for  three times max discuss the possible RfC question and RfC.
 * I have experienced many users use argument against length of answers and not going for RfC  in time like a favorable opportunity to smear and take advantage of other side, so take care.

Cheers &#32;Bookku   (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank your the advice. I see the sense in it. I have already decided to try to be shorter in my posts when possible, even if it is sometimes a challenge when one wish to be thorough. --Aciram (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Aciram If you are overwhelmed with the discussions uptil now then I suggest take a break of some days or weeks. But I do not suggest to quit your legitimate points. Since I am not aware of history of the content dispute it becomes difficult to take position.  But RfCs usually help when you come back or with help of some other users we can go ahead to RfCs. Cheers. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand you wish to help and are not aware of the history of the content dispute, but I suggest you read the article talk page and then you will perhaps sunderstand why I see no point in participating in further discussion: most of the article talk page is about this ueser questioning the Hazara content. I believe this user's critic is not legitimate, but only caused by his bias in the subject. He has been blocked from editing the article because of this and I support that ban. I believe he will simply continue to question everything and anything about Hazara in the article for any pretext possible, because he considers Hazara slavery to blacken the honor of the Hazara people. If this particular content issue is resolved, then it will simply be another. I believe it will never end, since I can't view him as having any good faith in anything relating to this subject. That is why I do not belive he should be encouraged, and that is why I do not wish to participate. --Aciram (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * One of their confusion is seem to be coming from linguistic misunderstanding. In sentence word begar used meaning bonded or compulsory labour : ".. in 1923, there were about 700 enslaved people in Kabul, called begar or impressed labor .." comes actually from Persian from Persian بیگار‎ (bigâr). See :begar  & List of English words of Persian origin . But read their statement @ article talk ".. Although some of the Hazara groups lived in difficult conditions, but they never indulged in begging and .. ..".   It seems they got confused Persian origin word bigâr / bigâri with English word of 'begging' which has different origins from 12 th century.
 * Then they seem to have some other misunderstandings too shared by many others too, that is different and more complex. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That may very well be, but I can do nothing more than to quote the references, which are in the English language. If the User is not sufficient enough in the English language to avoid hampering editing, misunderstand the meaning of words, and question and remove relevant information because of linguistic misunderstandings, then maybe they should not edit in this language version of Wikipedia. I am myself not a native English speaker, but I quote English language references, and this is English language wikipedia. It is not my responsbilibity to explain this to him and to consider his emotions caused by linguistic misunderstandings; it is his responsibility to be aware if he is not capable enough in the English language to avoid acting dispruptive. That is the responsibility I take myself as a non-native English speaker. --Aciram (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Review and feedback report
@ User:Aciram,
 * Summary: There may be a little scope to improve contested sentence. Details below.
 * User:Minahatithan communicated contested article sentence @ Talk:Slavery in Afghanistan is ".. Hazara people were still living in slavery and sold in the slave market of Kabul as late as in the early 20th-century. .."
 * Reference list provided by User:Aciram : Revolution Unending: Afghanistan, 1979 to the Present p. 45-46, M. Nazif Shahrani: Modern Afghanistan: The Impact of 40 Years of War, Rebecca Stuh: Reading Khaled Hosseini, p 75, S. A. Mousavi: The Hazaras of Afghanistan, Hafizullah Emadi: Repression, Resistance, and Women in Afghanistan, Niamatullah Ibrahimi: The Hazaras and the Afghan State: Rebellion, Exclusion and the Struggle for ..., p 90, Raghav Sharma: Nation, Ethnicity and the Conflict in Afghanistan: Political Islam and the ..., p 80-81.
 * No doubt my review found cited refs are very good effort on part of User:Aciram . And other than Rebecca Stuh (Stuh is good for Afghan literature review) rest are very promising for further expansion of the article Slavery in Afghanistan and I would encourage further expansion of the related articles.
 * Preliminary notes/ quotes from the references cited by User:Aciram User:Bookku/Inputs (To the extent could be accessed easily) Please crosscheck details and let me know if any improvements needed.
 * S.A.Mousavi: only snippet views could become available to search for word slavery on google books. I shall try access through WP:Library/ resource exchange over next week or so. But if S.A.Mousavi supports above mentioned contested sentence then giving specific quote and page number can be more helpful.
 * I found 'Gilles Dorronsoro'  to be nearest match to the contested sentence. "..At the end of 19th century.. . .. The declaration of jihad by the Amir of Kabul and that of Shi'ite ulema in response, was to justify worst atrocities, and in particular the enslavement of a segment of the Hazara population; Hazaras were sold in the markets of the capital as late as the first years of 20th century. .."
 * IMO grammatically ".. and in particular the enslavement of a segment of the Hazara population; is a different clause which speaks about 19th century.
 * ".. Hazaras were sold in the markets of the capital as late as the first years of 20th century. .." seem to speaks about time till slavery was officially abolished.
 * It is quite possible slavery might have continued in practice for some duration after official abolition. But did not come across any cited source expressly stating so. If I missed on some thing please bring to the notice with quote and page number.
 * See contested sentence again and compare ".. Hazara people were still living in slavery and sold in the slave market of Kabul as late as in the early 20th-century. .."
 * If you see first clause and other refs properly it would be better to improve on line of ".. Segment of Hazara people were still living in slavery .." also ".. and sold in the slave market of Kabul as late as in the early 20th-century until abolition of slavery. ..". 'until abolition of slavery' can be dropped if we come across concrete refs saying in practice slavery continued for some more duration.
 * If we do not take difference in clauses and improve the sentence some other experienced user may raise point of WP:SYNTH in times to come. So my sincere advice is to revisit sentence and improve if possible.
 * User:Minahatithan and other users need to take note that most scholarly sources on Slavery in Afghanistan seem to be reaching to official chronicles of Faiz Muhammad Kateb who himself was a Hazara and supported by non Hazara regime and citations by other scholars incl.  Hazara scholar Niamatullah Ibrahimi; and latest 2022 Hazara historiography researcher Rabia Latif Khan. Makes it authentic. Mousavi also seem to refer to Faiz only so I think all the users study all these resources and expand related articles further.
 * User:Minahatithan seemed to have had difficulty in understanding wording ".. in the early 20th-century .." not understanding how the word 'early' works in the sentence. I shall strive to explain them that separately, if possible.

I hope my above report would help at least to some extent. Happy wp editing and cheers. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The references say that at the time of the abolition in 1923, most of the slaves were of Hazara origin. Because of this, it is not strange to say that slaves of Hazara origin were bought and sold and lived in slavery until the abolition in 1923. That slaves were sold after abolition is mentioned by the Swedish author Aurora Nilsson who visited Afghanistan in 1927 and saw a German woman being sold on public auction, and that is referenced, but she was not talking about Hazara slavery, so I assume that is not what User:Minahatithan was talkning about. The article already does not say that all Hazara were living as slaves: it already says, that only some of the Hazara were enslaved after the uprising, and so it is already clear that the entire Hazara people were not living in slavery in the early 20th-century, hence it should not be necessary to say that a only segment of them were being sold. But its a small matter, so I don't mind changing that. User:Minahatithan are overreacting because he is sensitive and bias about the subject.--Aciram (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ Robert McClenon @Cullen328 this (above discussed) issue had been @ ANI recently. My personal findings on content side indicate inadvertent partial linguistic abilities and partial borderline WP:SYNTH issues. Let the issue lie where it is or would you suggest to initiate RFC though both sides have not requested RFC on their own up til now.  Pl. do guide. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This does not appear to be a big issue? Or maybe I am misunderstanding something? I don't mind inserting the word "segment" to make even more clear in the article that only a segment of the Hazara were being sold, instead of all of them, since this appear to not be clear to User:Minahatithan. I can also have a look at the other things you mention again. I don't really have much time or energy for it at the moment, I have an assignment offline to work on as well. Anyone can look at the references and adjust the phrasing any time; it is just User:Minahatithan who have a problem, and he is blocked from the article. In my view, this has been a bit blown out of proportion, and I personally would like to take some rest from it. This has after all been going on for weeks on end by this point. I will likely return to editing and developing the article eventually. --Aciram (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry in the long read I missed last sentence of @Aciram ".. But its a small matter, so I don't mind changing that. ..". So am pinging @Minahatithan & @RPI2026F1 to  see if you can agree and help on improvement on the line I suggested. Or will go for RfC?
 * (Seems near resolution avoid personal accusations even in response emphasis added, we know admins are observing)  &#32;Bookku    (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * An Rfc seems uneccessary, and I don't have the energy for it. I would not mind changing that in the text at all when I have the time, but I do Not wish to have User:Minahatithan on my talk page, so please do not bring him to my talk page. I highly doubt this matter will ever reach resolution, which is why I support the ban on the other user, and which is why I have very little energy left for dealing with this matter. --Aciram (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay I request Minahatithan to stay away since any way it is getting resolved. May be @RPI2026F1 can help smooth and stress free working. Happy editing to all and cheers &#32;Bookku   (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey @Bookku, thank you for the mention. I've tried to read everything so far but I'm still confused what's being asked of me, could you provide a summary and maybe highlight the main thing you're trying to change? RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think - and Booku can correct me if I am wrong - that the meaning was simply that since you have shown an interest in the article, then you will be easier to work with if you should choose to work with the article in the future, now that User:Minahatithan is banned from editing it. As far as I have understood no big imediate attention is required, and I for one need some rest from the matter. I have already adjusted the text somewhat. As long as User:Minahatithan continue to be banned, the work with the article can continue in a normal calm manner by editors in the usual way. User:Minahatithan are currently repeatedly asking to be un-banned. I truly hope he will not be, if he has linguistic misunderstandings as well that makes him intepret the article as slandering of the Hazara. If he is un-banned, then the situation will change. --Aciram (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @RPI2026F1 ".. I think - and Booku can correct me if I am wrong - that the meaning was simply that since you have shown an interest in the article, then you will be easier to work with if you should choose to work with the article in the future. .." @Aciram is right. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My initial involvement with the article is that User:Minahatithan's edits looked like vandalism, so I reverted it on the pretext of being normal vandalism. I generally don't care too much about the history of Afghanistan, and so now that User:Minahatithan is banned from the article I have no more reason to actively follow it any more. I think the best way to put this matter to rest permanently is to host a Request for Comment, establish indisputable iron-clad consensus that cannot be attacked at all. RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, in the RfC, I think it would be best for the both of us to play only minor roles because User:Minahatithan's argument is in part that you have targeted him for harassment, and so by not "dominating" the RfC we can prove that the RfC was impartial. RPI2026F1 (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. I admit I do not know that much about RfC and how they work. I mainly write and edit and do not participate much in other things on Wikipedia, so my imediate response to the Rfc was simply that I saw no further reason to blow this thing up, now that he is banned. But maybe I was hasty, if you think an Rfc would be a good idea? I just don't know much about it. My impression is that this user will continue forever, but I did not see it as a problem as long as he is banned. But if there is an actual risk that he will be unbanned, perhaps there should actually be an RfC? If that will not require too much time and effort from me, then I suppose there is no reason for me to object to that. At least, if there really is a risk that he would be un-banned from editing the article? I would only be too happy to play a minor role in such an RfC, this has alreedy taken enough energy and I may not have been entirely patient myself in my conduct.--Aciram (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think need of RfC is greatly reduced as of now. Since I was doing imformal but semi formal style moderating I had to mention the same as one imp possibility.  &#32;Bookku    (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you, Bookku. And, of course; thank you for having given your time to this issue! It is appreciated.--Aciram (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I take this as a message that there is some sort of general ruling made that every editor interested in these subjects are advised to be careful because of recent problems with editors in these areas? That is, it has nothing to do with me specifically? That is how I understand it, and unless corrected, I will intpret it as such. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is what it means.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to be sure. Thanks!--Aciram (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, that was really thoughful. You also deserve a thank you for your effort in this matter. It would really be nice to put this thing to rest!--Aciram (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)