User talk:Red-tailed hawk/Archive 1

Nomination of Notre Dame Club Coordination Council for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Notre Dame Club Coordination Council is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Notre Dame Club Coordination Council until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH
Be careful with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH on the 1776 Commission article (if a RS says X but you personally disagree with the RS, don't weaken the language sourced to the RS), as well as making sure the cited sources are WP:RS rather than op-eds or non-RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans, the issue with the RS in this particular case is that one can reasonably construe an appearance of an editorial conflict of interest within the New York Times, as its magazine published the 1619 project, to which the 1776 Commission was formed as a reaction. I would try to move to other sources if possible, and as users had pointed out on the talk page, the NY Times is imprecise with its language in the article. Perhaps the AHA statement would be a better (and certainly more authoritative) source for the more narrow of the two claims the article makes.


 * As for the list of members, I am unsure why some of the members have fuller descriptions than others. If we are to include a brief list of (potentially) relevant affiliations for some, why not do it for all of them? Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Notre Dame Invite
I see you are new here. Sometimes Wikipedia editing can de daunting, but reach out for anything. If you have time, Draft:South Dining Hall this definitely could ue help. Eccekevin (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 16:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Question...
You just placed a prod on Uyghur guest houses suspected of ties to Islamist militancy.

The last time I looked articles aren't eligible for prod if they have previously been the target of a WP:CSD of AFD. Please see Talk:Uyghur_guest_houses_suspected_of_ties_to_Islamist_militancy.

So, when you placed the tag, were you merely doing so because it had been in place for a long time? Or did you give the article and its references a thorough read? Did you comply with your obligations under WP:BEFORE, and do a web search on the topic, and independently conclude the article's underlying topic did not measure up to our current inclusion standards? Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oops. I checked.  In fact prod can't be used on article that have undergone an AFD, or if they have been restored following a contested speedy deletion.  I was wrong that speedy tag that was declined precluded placing a prod.  My apologies.


 * I'd still like to know whether you actually gave the article a meaningful review, and concluded its underlying topic didn't meet our inclusion criteria. Geo Swan (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

A concern about your username
There's an old joke playing on the double entendre that occurs in many dialects of English between "Mike Hawk" and "my cock". May I politely ask whether your username is a reference to that? If so, I worry that it may run afoul of our policy on disruptive usernames. If it's unintentional, you might still want to be aware that people may make that association, and that the username might thus prove disruptive even if that's not your intention. If you're interested in changing your username, please see Changing username.

All the best. -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 10:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * To be honest with you, I chose this name because there was a hawk that nested in my yard when I was younger that my parents named “Mike”. It had not occurred to me until now that my parents were possible making a joke in the naming.


 * That being said, I’ve had the username for over a year and this is the first I am hearing of it. As a result, I don’t think the name makes “harmonious editing difficult or impossible”, as is the relevant criterion stated in the guideline. For that reason, I don’t plan to change the name. Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Just figured I'd give you a heads-up. -- Tamzin (they/she) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 18:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uyghur genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

AfDs
Hi Mike! I've noticed you've recently nominated several student newspapers for deletion. A few of these may end up being deleted, but for several others, editors have identified a bunch of sources that make them highly likely to be kept. I'd advise you to withdraw these nominations. Additionally, please note the advice at WP:BEFORE—articles should not be AfDed just because existing sources have not yet been added to them. Best, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I admittedly don't have access to newspapers.com, so I was unable to find any of these sources prior to nominating them for deletion. I'm in agreement that I should withdraw the AFD for the pages where a bunch of sources have been found from that site. How do I close the AFDs for the ones I choose to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehawk10 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uyghur genocide
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uyghur genocide you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Extraordinary Writ -- Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uyghur genocide
The article Uyghur genocide you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Uyghur genocide for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Extraordinary Writ -- Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

About revision sentence regarding American Rescue Plan
Hi Mikehawk10, I noticed that there is a WP:NPOV problem regarding a sentence, as you mentioned on the article’s talk page. Do you think this would be a good sentence to solve the WP:NPOV problem (which I just added to the article): Biden also criticized the GOP for not showing compromise or bipartisanship in proposals between the vastly different plans from him and the GOP, as well as accusing Republicans for their efforts to obstruct. Furthermore, I also created a peer review for the article as I plan to nominate it for GA status in the future. AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi ! I think it's close in the idea, though I'd propose an alternative How does "Biden also criticized the GOP for what he described as a lack of will amongst the GOP to seek a bipartisan compromise on a final aid bill, arguing that the GOP is engaging in willful obstruction of his proposal" sound? I also think we'd need to include a GOP response to Biden's criticism, since we need to maintain partisan neutrality in the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Mikehawk10, the Biden also criticized the GOP for what he described as a lack of will amongst the GOP to seek a bipartisan compromise on a final aid bill, arguing that the GOP is engaging in willful obstruction of his proposal sentence is a good idea. As for criticism regarding the relief package, this source is a good example to use. This poll shows 60% of Republicans back Biden’s stimulus check plan. Do you think my suggestions address your concerns regarding the neutrality in the article section? AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey ! I'm thinking more along the lines of a GOP response to Biden's criticism, though it would also be fine to include Rep. Brady's response that is in the USA Today article (he's relatively important on budgetary issues). I am having trouble finding a source that contains a GOP member directly responding to the exact statement that Biden provided, and I think that would be best in terms of balance. But, including a substantive GOP criticism would also solve the NPOV issue in my mind. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Mikehawk10, I just added a paragraph regarding criticism and support about his plan. I also added Kevin Brady’s statement regarding it along with a CNBC source (rather than the USA Today source) criticizing it for not fulfilling a promise to deliver $2,000. Do you think the neutrality in the article looks better? —AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! I think it could be improved to include more balance, but feel free to remove the NPOV tag. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Will remove the tag. Thank you for your help regarding the article. AmericanRescuePlan2021 (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse the un-collapse
Hi Mike, I uncollapsed the thread at Talk:Uyghur genocide to give other a chance to comment. I agree with you, but ANI will want to see that a discussion took place on the talk page before going there.

Thank you for the work you are doing on that article.  // Timothy :: talk  20:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know and for the kind words! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  // Timothy :: talk  18:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uyghur genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Raw Story
Thanks for closing the Raw Story RfC and for updating RSP. The backlog at WP:ANC can certainly use more skilled non-admin closers such as yourself :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Thank you so much for the kind comment! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC closure
Hello, thank you for your RfC closure here, which mostly adhered to the consensus in the discussion. However, there's a large problem by including Turkey as a Belligerent. There was little to no consensus for this except mostly from users with known biases (and who had almost no proper WP:RS sources backing this other than an involved country's government's claim). This is more problematic as Turkey is already included as Support and we're including an undersourced Alleged party in the infobox. Therefore I'm asking you to review this part of your closure. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  13:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree, this one needs to be reviewed. The source literally states what Armenia "said", nothing solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.135.156.161 (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I've taken another look. My review is as follows:

"Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" per WP:CONSENSUS. Regarding whether or not there was consensus to include Turkey as an "alleged belligerent," I looked at the arguments posed by both sides as to whether they constituted a belligerent. I'll try to summarize the arguments below (from how I read them) and to provide a summary the sources used associated with each. I'll also provide my assessment on the reliability of these sources, which matters in terms WP:V for the quality of arguments on each side.

Arguments to include Turkey as a belligerent
The typical argument boiled down to an argument along the lines of presenting a source, stating that tha RS, and then claiming that the RS backed the claim that Turkey is a belligerent. Other arguments posed included arguments that Turkey (or Turkish organizations) paid mercenaries to fight in the conflict, making Turkey a party to the claim. I will address consensus on the sourcing in this section, and I will address consensus on whether Turkey paid mercenaries (and if this would qualify as Turkey being a belligerent) in the Determining Consensus section below.

Those that put forward that Turkey is, in fact a belligerent, include that several links that they hold are RS that back their claims. The sources they list include RIA Novosti, Greek City Times, Kommersant, Reuters, The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, 1 Lurer, Stratfor, and Atalayar. An editor also included a primary source statement from the European Parliament in support of placing Turkey as a belligerent.

An evaluation of all of these sources was undertaken. Several of these are perennial reliable sources, but many sources are of questionable reliability. RIA Novosti is Russian state-owned media, and is likely not reliable on the issue, while previous discussions regarding the discussion of Kommersant have been mixed regarding its reliability. (Kommersant's reliability itself may be a worthy RfC candidate, due to the scattered nature of these previous discussions, but it appears to be a lower quality source than some other sources provided). I cannot speak to the quality of 1 Lurer's Armenian-language reporting, but its English language reporting does not appear to be very detailed whatsoever. Regarding Atalayar, I could not find discussion on its reliability on the English Wikipedia's WP:RSN archives, and there is no local consensus regarding its reliability. It looks like the site may use syndicated content without labeling it native advertising, which gives strong pause towards considering it a reliable source. The Greek City Times appears to have a strong anti-Turkish bias that may influence the reliability of its reporting on the topic. Previous discussions indicate that some editors have generally found Stratfor reliable (1 2 3 4), though these discussions are old. Reuters, The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times are generally reliable per WP:RSP.

Arguments against including Turkey as a belligerent
There were two main sorts of arguments against including Turkey as a belligerent.

The first such argument was that Turkey provided only diplomatic support, which was articulated by a party whose signature is not present, and it provides no sources. This was clearly not in line with consensus.

The second such argument was that Turkey only provided support to Azerbaijan, but was not a belligerent. There is strong consensus that Turkey at least supported Azerbaijan in the war. No sources were provided by those opposing the inclusion of Turkey as a belligerent to affirmatively state that Turkish troops did not engage in fighting.

Instead, the argument against the inclusion of Turkey as a belligerent follows along a similar vein to WP:PROVEIT, in that these editors challenged those who aimed to include Turkey as a belligerent to provide reliable sources to back their claims:
 * , articulatd that "direct involvement means regular Turkish army fighting, and second, the majority of reliable sources do not support this claim".
 * stated that "there are many sources for their support but no good neutral sources for their active fighting".
 * stated that "it's not a belligerent as there were no confirmed cases of Turkish troops fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh".

There was also a consensus among those who opposed inclusion of Turkey as a belligerent that Turkey's alleged employment of Syrian Mercenaries would not qualify as Turkey being a "belligerent" in the war. This was perhaps most clearly articulated by, who wrote that "Syrian mercenaries are not Turkish army, and 'provision of Syrian fighters' is certainly not direct involvement. Direct involvement means direct involvement, and not via someone else".

Consensus on specific sub-points made by editors
As I noted above, WP:CONSENSUS states that "[c]onsensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." My discerning of consensus regarding this particular topic relies upon answering the following questions:

Did Turkey employ Syrian Mercenaries, and, if Turkey did, does this make Turkey a belligerent?
There is strong consensus that Syrian Mercenaries constitute belligerents in the conflict, which is not being challenged in this review. There appears to be a moderately strong consensus that Turkey's transfer of mercenaries from Syria into this conflict in fact occurred and is supported by RS. At the same time, there appears to be a weak consensus among editors in the discussion that the fighting of these Syrian Mercenaries with logistical support from Turkey and payments from Turkish companies does not constitute the Turkish state's direct involvement in the conflict as a belligerent. I do not discern that there is a community consensus that is different from the local consensus regarding the sufficient conditions of being deemed a belligerent, so this will not change.

Did Turkey directly involve its military in the war?
In determining consensus, I weighed arguments that relied only upon the lower quality or challenged sources (RIA Novosti, Kommersant, Atalayar, Greek City Times, and 1 Lurer) less, as there is not a community consensus that any of them constitute WP:RS and Wikipedia policy (notably WP:V) requires RS to back up claims. Per community consensus, Stratfor, Reuters, The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times constitute reliable sources. These sources were read and evaluated for their claims by parties to the discussion. It is uncontested by all parties that a direct involvement of the Turkish military would qualify Turkey as a belligerent.

The Stratfor piece states that the company has "confirmation of Turkish F-16 fighter aircraft operating out of Azerbaijan amid conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh." Reuters reports that "Ankara denies its troops are involved in fighting but Aliyev has acknowledged some Turkish F-16 fighter jets remained in Azerbaijan after a military drill this summer." The NYT piece reports direct Turkish military involvement as allegations, but it does find them notable enough to report. WSJ and The Guardian do not make reference to alleged Turkish direct involvement. As many who oppose the inclusion of Turkey as a belligerent note, the majority of RS are not reporting that Turkey directly involved itself in the war as a belligerent. That being said, it also appears to be the case that multiple RS are reporting allegations of involvement. WP:DUE states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." There appears to be an implied consensus that inclusion of these allegations is due, as multiple RS are reporting about these allegations.

(I should note that if there is community consensus that Kommersant is a reliable source, then this analysis is deficient because it does not weight Kommersant as highly as it should in the case it is reliable. I see no evidence, however, of such a consensus regarding Kommersant's reliability existing, as I could not find an RfC in the WP:RSN archives that was closed one way or the other and there appears to be no local consensus on the use of the source.)

Short summary
It is unclear whether or not Turkey directly involved itself in the conflict by using its military, and editors find no consensus among RS as to whether or not Turkey did do so. There is weak consensus to not include Turkey as a belligerent, without any qualification. However, there also appears to be weak consensus, in line with reporting from RS, that Turkey is allegedly a belligerent party. Per MOS:ALLEGED, alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined... when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. I did not do that in my closure and the subsequent edits, so I will modify it to ensure that any mention is accompanied by an attribution. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Just realized
I just realized you were the original creator of Uyghur genocide. Kudos, not many editors can say they created an article with ~150,000 views every month on a major international issue. Nice work and much respect. Best wishes from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  16:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words! I really did not expect to see the developments over the course of the following year regarding the page and its topic and it is humbling to see the amount of reach that the page gets. I didn't realize the reach the page gets, so I'm a bit in awe of the stat. Also, thank you so much for your work on the article! I know that it can be a bit of a time stressor but you have helped to make the article better and I appreciate the work that you do. :) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you go to Preferences > Gadgets, you can click the option for xTools and it will show the page statistics just below the page title, along with the author name and other info for the page you're on.  // Timothy :: talk  01:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the tip! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur Genocide
Please refrain from reverting any of my changed without discussion. If you disagree with any of my statements, please open a discussion on the talk page. I will also open a discussion to rename the article to "Uyghur Genocide Allegations", because there plainly is no evidence to support allegations of genocide. Please also elaborate on your reasoning for reverting my edit. Why shouldn't we use the word "claim", considering that these are allegations not supported by evidence?AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion on the relevant talk page that partly involved an editor making changes to the status of the lead. In that discussion (and the follow-on at WP:ANI), it was concluded that the user,, was engaging in prohibited POV pushing by removing relevant information from the article and by altering the lead so as to remove the current first sentence. The current status of the article has received consensus support, and a single editor cannot simply wipe away by making an edit.
 * My reasoning for reverting your edit follows from the fact that the current lead has consensus backing. If you believe consensus has changed since then, or you have significant additional information that you believe should be considered in determining a new consensus, I'm happy to engage with you within the section of the article talk page that you recently created. I don't see either of those things being the case at this time, and I believe that the lead that was on the page prior to your revert followed all relevant policies, which is why I have reverted your edit. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Closing and archiving
Hi Mike and, I did some closing and archiving on the talk page for Uyghur genocide. The threads I archived were all either dormant or finished. I did so BOLDLY without discussion, so I wanted to notify a couple of frequent participants; if you see any threads you would like reopened and restored, just let me know.  // Timothy :: talk  04:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Your non-admin closure of Emanuel Cleaver
Hello. Regarding your closure of this RfC at Emanuel_Cleaver: I believe that your closure was in error. You wrote that there is a "weak but present consensus" for conclusion, but a "weak" consensus is usually not sufficient for new, challenged materials relating to biographies of living persons. Moreover, the editors who participated were fairly evenly split, and the editors who opposed inclusion articulated specific grounds based on the sourcing and on Wikipedia policy. When editors are evenly split, the default should be exclusion.

Most importantly, however, WP:BADNAC says that a "non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: ... The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." I don't believe you are an admin (correct me if I'm wrong).

Will you please revert your close, and allow an uninvolved administrator to close this discussion? I'm also tagging, an admin who participated in this discussion. Neutralitytalk 18:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Rationale regarding close

 * Thank you for your note. You seem to have concerns regarding the way the close went, and it appears that you are providing an argument that the content should be excluded due to the absence of consensus. I'll provide a more thorough rationale behind how I discerned what the consensus was, for the sake of full transparency.


 * Per the relevant policy page, "consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Put another way, ascertaining consensus is not simply the counting of heads, but a process by which the quality of arguments given on each side are presented in light of relevant policies.


 * There were essentially two camps in the discussion; one camp appears to favor exclusion of the content altogether, while the other favors inclusion of the content in some form.

Opposition to Inclusion

 * During the discussion, editors offered various arguments in opposition to the inclusion of the content. One of these arguments, which was well articulated by, was that the comments would not have a WP:LASTING impact. Along these lines, several editors point to the WP:10YEARTEST as a reason to exclude the event. Some editors simply referred to the event as "trivia" or "trivial". Another editor commented to say that if the content were to be included, that it should be presented as a "wholly bonkers over-reactive response to the incident."

Support for Inclusion

 * During the discussion, other editors offered various arguments in favor of the inclusion of the content. The primary argument in favor is that the event received "drew extensive media coverage" that satisfied criteria for notability. The body of with evidence to support this argument was largely provided by and.

Determining Consensus

 * The policy question that is up for discussion, both implicitly and explicit, is whether the inclusion of the content is in line with WP:CONPOL. These specific disagreements (and my understanding of responses to them) are listed below:
 * has brought up concerns about WP:DUE. In a comment prior to the RfC, the editor stated that their reasoning for this was that the quotation would not be WP:LASTING, which preceded a decently long exchange with that elucidated each of their views on the issue and led to 's calling of the RfC. Put shortly, the dispute between these two could be boiled down to whether or not the content was notable. Editors later offered specific examples of news stories and op-eds that were published after the date, though some disputed whether or not each of these articles and op-eds were evidence of lasting coverage.
 * noted that any inclusion of content that states that Cleaver was "misconstruing" something in issuing his utterance was undue. It does not appear that anybody specifically contested this claim.

The local discussion does reveal that there was division among editors on the issue, but a careful examination of the discussion between editors as time went on led me to conclude that there was a rough consensus for inclusion of information about the utterance itself based upon the quality of the relevant arguments. Evidence that editors (including and ) appear to have changed their minds from opposing to supporting inclusion in response to the large number of sources provided by other editors party to the discussion serves to further confirm that there is consensus that the utterance is noteworthy for inclusion owing to its received significant coverage (even though the majority of editors might find it a bit odd that the media covered it in the way that it did).

Concluding thoughts

 * In your message on my talk page, you seem to be bringing up points along the lines of WP:ONUS, which states that "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. ... The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content," and WP:NOCON, which states that "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." (Please correct me if I am misrepresenting you here).


 * What you're saying is true; if no policy is violated, then the question of inclusion is up to consensus (and an absence of consensus should be read as leaving the article as it was previously stable).


 * When I stated that there was, "weak but present consensus," I was attempting to convey that there looked like there was rough consensus that the information was notable enough to include on the basis that it received broad, international coverage from reliable sources. Rough consensus is generally the standard that is used on Wikipedia regarding these sorts of discussions and I don't see any apparent policy violations regarding the fact that it is specifically a WP:BLP.


 * On a separate note, there is a deletion guideline also says that controversial closes should best be handled by an admin. That being said, this was not a deletion discussion and I cannot find any policies or guidelines that would preclude me from making a closure on the basis that I am not an admin, nor is the basis that I am not an admin a reason for overturning the closure of the discussion without other cause. (WP:BADNAC is an essay).


 * You're obviously well within your rights to request a formal closure review. In part due to reasons I have outlined above, I believe that the close was correctly made and that, as an uninvolved editor, it was kosher for me to do so. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I've requested a closure review at AN. I am candidly disappointed that you've not agreed to allow an uninvolved administrator to perform the close. It seems very clear to me that there was no consensus for inclusion of this content. Non-admin closure says specifically that non-admins should not close discussions in exactly the same circumstances present here (and that guidance is not limited to deletion discussions). But we'll let the community decide. Neutralitytalk 01:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment:, I didn't look at the details of any of this, but a good rule to follow is if any editor asks any closer (even an admin closer) to revert a close for any reason so a formal request for closure can be processed by an uninvolved admin, the closer should reopen and allow that process to proceed. I follow this rule for normal threads and questions I close and formal RfCs (which I've rarely closed), the individual facts and circumstances don't matter to me, if a request is made the process should be allowed to take place. has made a very reasonable request and is more experienced than either of us, so I urge you to reopen the thread and the AN thread can be closed. You know I offer you this advice with nothing but good will.  // Timothy :: talk  03:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I’ve vacated my closure. It looks like there is a snowball-ish consensus among admins at WP:AN that a neutral admin should review it. I have my qualms about an essay on who should close being a large part of the justification, but ultimately consensus at WP:AN is more important for the particular case and previous RfC have ruled that consensus at that noticeboard is sufficient to overturn a closure.

For the general case, I do believe that it might be productive to have a more expanded upon discussion regarding non-admin closures, so that they could be incorporated into guidelines following community consensus. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Yeah, Mike. Don't worry too much about this individual case. I literally went through the same type of thing before (like almost to the letter to what's happened to you). Just try to learn from it and focus on less contentious closures in the meantime. { &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't feel dismayed over this, . Non-admins receive a lot of scrutiny over their closures. You seem to have a solid grasp over policy, but if you ever want some advice, just message --they received a fair share of crap over the hundreds of contentious RfCs they closed over the years. But that certainly hasn't stopped them! :-) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping.

Thank you for these words. I'll try to handle less-contentious closes until I gain a bit more experience.

Sourcing
Since you are part of the WikiProject:Notre Dame, would you help me source some pages that risk being deleted/redirected, like Alumni Hall, Badin Hall, Carroll Hall, and Keenan Hall. I am trying to improve them to make sure they pass GNG. Thank you.Eccekevin (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Eccekevin, this clearly violates canvasing for votes at AfD. You are free to post to Wikiproject talk pages, but canvasing individual editors you feel will support your position is a significant violation.  // Timothy :: talk  10:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this is probably fine, since it isn’t asking for me to help improve sourcing rather than to come in and vote. We're allowed to neutrally post at the WikiProject to let people know of the AfD and also separately to ask people for help with sourcing. I'm part of the WikiProject but I do not see a reason to believe I would be particularly sympathetic to the dorms or would pull a WP:ILIKEIT sort of argument one way or the other.
 * I am a bit busy immediately but I will look more into it. Generally, student media coverage is not going to be enough to gain notability, though if there's significant coverage from reliable sources independent of ND it may be worthwhile to look. Newspapers.com is a website that might be helpful if you are looking to find old news clips from independent sources, if they exist. We have to look at the dorms case-by-case to determine which ones are notable and which are not. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy St. Patrick's Day
To you as well, ! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

China Daily RfC
Hi Mikehawk10, I have closed the above mentioned RfC as requested at ANRFC. I leave it to you to amend WP:RSP. All the best—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you for letting me know. I've been looking over the close, and I noticed that you wrote that if there were better sources for China, then the China Daily would be deprecated entirely; but a narrow majority of the community, just about amounting to a rough consensus, feels that there are so few good sources for China that it's needful for us to lower our bar and that the facts should be separated from the China Daily's view about those facts. I've put down the marking as WP:GUNREL for political topics and WP:MREL for non-political topics. I also noted that attribution should be used and that the source is a WP:BIASED source that should not be used to establish WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims, among other things. Am I reading your closure correctly? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

South Dining Hall
Just a quick opinion: I am working on Draft:South Dining Hall, soon gonna submit for review. Should be accepted, not concerned. But I was wondering if the page should rather be "University of Notre Dame dining halls", with then two sections (and two infoboxes), one for each DH. This because South def is notable (NHRP and so), but North probably might not, hence putting them together might be a good idea (it might be a good idea regardless of notability). Thoughts? Eccekevin (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess my question in return would be whether or not the dining halls, taken together, are notable as a subject. If most of the relevant coverage is about SDH, and there isn’t really any third-party coverage of NDH, I would hesitate create an article differently so we could lump in information on NDH (if that information is largely composed of self-published sources or trivial mentions in independent sources). If there is reliable, in-depth independent coverage of SDH and not NDH, then I would probably recommend that the SDH article be submitted as such. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

National Institute of Design,
I see you have reverted my change for National Institute of Design (NIT). NID is not one institute but set of institute (Similar to Indian Institutes of Technology, National Institutes of Technology etc) Please check type column in Table Institutes of National Importance. I had corrected paged to represent it as it is today. Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. If it's sourced that way then it makes sense. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * shall i revert back? Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Go for it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Controversial and uncontroversial deletions
Hey, Mikehawk10. I noticed you prodded Cao Xian (scholar) immediately after I removed the CSD with a note that this deletion won't be uncontroversial. I haven't removed the PROD myself, because I do know how it feels to have the same person reverting all your changes (especially in the heated sphere of page deletion), but I'd like to explain a bit further the situation there and why PROD (which is for uncontroversial deletions only) is likely to be inappropriate for this article.

There are a few things going on here, but the biggest is that this is a very old historical figure. If someone who lived in the sixth century has extant records, they're likely to be considered notable simply by virtue of those records -- or, at the very least, enough people will make the argument for it that the page has a fighting chance at AfD. The Articles for deletion/Catherine Lynch (2nd nomination) discussion may be of interest to you -- and that's talking about a much more recent figure. Records further back are even sparser, and people whose identities survived that long more remarkable. (It also may be worth asking some of the keep participants in that conversation, especially the article creator, and reading this accordant discussion.)

The second big thing is that this is a non-Anglophone/non-Western figure. Because sourcing for them is not easy to access for English speakers, it pays to be exceptionally cautious in seeking the deletion of their articles. In addition, this combines with the fact virtually all the coverage here will likely be offline (e.g. in history books) -- meaning you can't just easily search and find things. (Even something like Google Books probably won't work here, as it's biased towards both English and recent publications.)

The third point, which is less important than the other two but still worth noting, is that this has an article on Chinese Wikipedia. At AfD this doesn't matter much, because different projects have different notability guidelines. However, at PROD, this is enough of an indication that deletion may be controversial to decline the tag.

I hope this helps. Vaticidalprophet 05:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Thank you for posting this. The reason that I chose to go ahead with a PROD rather than an AfD is that even on the Chinese wikipedia, the entry is similarly brief and poorly sourced. It's not a heated area for me, so don't worry on that end, but it's just that the only source appears to be the Old Book of Tang, which is a Chinese historical book that was originally written in the 10th century AD. It's not the case that a person is notable if the only mention of the individual in one published reliable source that was made during medieval China, though I concede it's fully possible that there was another published source involving the person that simply has been lost to time. I'd ordinarily share your concern about proposing articles for deletion when the articles are on other wikipedias. The thing that drove me forward on this is that, between the two wikipedias, there is exactly one source on the person, and it is the same medieval source. I hope this addresses your concerns a bit and gives you a bit of insight into my thought process. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The other-Wikipedia aspect is a fairly minor one -- the age and language barriers are more significant. I don't think this will get deleted through PROD (which is quite heavily clerked by people with higher standards of PROD-appropriateness than me), though it could happen. It's in a few cross-sections where AfD is heavily indicated over PROD, even if the AfD winds up closing delete ('uncontroversial deletion' and 'likely deletion' are importantly different categories, and I'm not even sure this is in either). Vaticidal<b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 05:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

great job
Hi Mikehawk, I just wanted to say that I have a few pages on my watchlist where you're active—chief among them Uyghur genocide—and every time your name pops up, it is an eminently reasonable suggestion, an attempt to build consensus, or a firm assertion of the worth and dignity of a person or people. It's just so refreshing in controversial areas to have folks bringing all of that to the table, and I wanted to say thank you.  Go  Phightins  !  01:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 Jr8825  •  Talk  01:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Face-smile.svg Thank you !!!

Rollback granted
Hi Mikehawk10. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AMikehawk10 enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte </b> ( talk •  work ) 06:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

THANK YOU!!! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible Confusion at 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf
Hello, Mikehawk10. I hope that you are very well.

Recently, you reverted this edit of mine at 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf, in which I had undid revision 1017154595 by IP user 2600:1700:FD0:5D80:E86B:D311:E4A7:516B. You stated in your edit summary that what had been done in my revision was, "not typically something we include on wikipedia." It is my impression that what is not appropriate for Wikipedia is the content added in the previous revision by the IP user (who wrote, "Peace Be Upon Him," in the article), and that is why I reverted it. In an abundance of good faith, I just want to check with you; is it possible that you meant to undo the same edit that I undid? Thanks! TheLastClassicist1750 (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello ! Thank you for alerting me to that; I had intended to revert the IP edit, though I misread the diff and (clearly) undid the wrong edit. Thank you for catching that and sorry for any inconvenience that I caused. A is warranted here.— Mikehawk10 (talk)


 * No Problem! Thanks!  TheLastClassicist1750 (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:  Go  Phightins  !  21:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

!!!! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of COVID-19 pandemic at the University of Notre Dame for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article COVID-19 pandemic at the University of Notre Dame is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic at the University of Notre Dame until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Turkish War of Independence Revert
Which commentary of my own did I add to the article on turkish war of independence? All of the text I added was either from cited books or previous Wikipedia pages. Borab00 (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The response notice on your page was canned (via Huggle) and it was different than the notice I expected it to place, so I've removed that label. The issue I took was the removal of a bunch of sources and then the subsequent POV-changing of the article (for example stripping the term "genocide") as well as the both-sidesing on it. It looked like the previous framing relied on multiple independent reliable sources and was different than the source you chose to use, which may render the resulting article to have POV issues. Generally, removing a bunch of sources that are there and then replacing it with a single other source points to a POV shift towards the less commonly accepted viewpoint among scholars, which was a bit of a red flag for me.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

In removing the word 'genocide' I am simply being consistent with Wikipedia itself, I never denied any genocide. On the Armenian Genocide page, a long talk page discussion has already been conducted on the dates for which the genocide could be considered and the conclusion was 1915-1917. Much of those previous sources were simply opinionated in the first place, while I can do the same thing and just paste a bunch of sources just pandering to my supposed view of the issue. Also, what is wrong with "both sidesing"??? Did both sides not commit atrocities? I have pasted the Wikipedia link to the list of atrocities during the war, I don't understand the objection to this. Borab00 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Armenian genocide does not encompass actions taken by Turkey against other groups, including Greeks and Syriac Christians, during the following period. I've made a comment on the article talk page and I believe that it would be more accessible for everyone involved to respond there, seeing as another editor has made a revert. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh article
Hello, Mikehawk10. Thank you for your efforts concerning this RfC. Do you think this will be appropriate to include Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as an alleged belligerent to the infobox? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, about alleged by Armenia. On 6 November 2020, Sergey Naryshkin, the Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service, also confirmed the presence of Turkish intelligence service during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.  Kommersant also reported about this. To my opinion, this is not correct to say alleged by Armenia.
 * Hello. You're right; my shorthand fix was a bit too narrow in its description. The concluding logic is that all allegations that are included should be attributed and that reliable sources should be provided to back them. At the time of review, I noticed that only Armenia qualified for that, since there's not really a local consensus on the page that either of the sources you've provided are RS but there is community consensus regarding the Armenian allegations being notable. That being said, there is currently an RfC on the reliability of Kommersant, which could affect community consensus regarding the source's reliability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Mikehawk10, I also had some concerns about the consensus, pertaining to Turkey's role. Saying "Alleged by Armenia" uses a word to avoid (MOS:ALLEGED), and sources like the European Parliment, Stratfor, and Reuters are not affiliated with Armenia. Also, the strength of an argument seemed to have been lost under a vote, which the consensus is not. The article erroneously cites the Syrian mercenaries as being from Azerbaijan, while the citations are actually saying that they are from Turkey. And please review these particular quotes from the sources:


 * the transfer of foreign terrorist fighters by Turkey from Syria and elsewhere to Nagorno-Karabakh, as confirmed by international actors, including the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries - European Parliament


 * The presence of the Turkish fighter aircraft ... demonstrate[s] direct military involvement by Turkey that goes far beyond already-established support, such as its provision of Syrian fighters and military equipment to Azerbaijani forces. - Stratfor


 * Ankara denies its troops are involved in fighting but Aliyev has acknowledged some Turkish F-16 fighter jets remained in Azerbaijan after a military drill this summer - Reuters

Stratfor literally says military involvement goes beyond support. --Steverci (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, MOS:ALLEGED states that "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." It's certainly a word to watch, but I believe that the closure is in line with this guideline. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * And what about the sources saying it was Turkey, not Azerbaijan as the article currently portrays, that provided the mercenaries? Or the confirmed fighter jets? And the source saying Turkey's involvement goes far beyond support? --Steverci (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mercenaries fought for Azerbaijan, hence they're shown under Azerbaijan, showing it under Turkey (especially with the Alleged tag) would imply that precedence of mercenaries is disputed. About the jets, no RS states that Azerbaijan actually used those jets, all of them simply state that they stayed in Ganja during the war, which is quite irrelevant to everything. — <b style="color:#c29d25">Curious</b><b style="color:#c29d25">Golden</b> (T·C) </b> 05:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding the mercenaries, as I noted above on this talk page in my response to the initial request for me to review the closure, "there appears to be a weak consensus among editors in the discussion that the fighting of these Syrian Mercenaries with logistical support from Turkey and payments from Turkish companies does not constitute the Turkish state's direct involvement in the conflict as a belligerent. I do not discern that there is a community consensus that is different from the local consensus regarding the sufficient conditions of being deemed a belligerent." There was no aspect of the discussion that talked about whether the Turkish presence of F-16 jets in the region were sufficient to constitute Turkey's inclusion as a belligerent in the war, nor a comparative source reliability analysis regarding the purpose of the F-16s being there→. There was discussion about whether or not the Turkish government's use of transport planes constituted Turkey being a belligerent in the war, about which there was a consensus that the actions were not sufficient to qualify Turkey as a belligerent. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * About those "Turkish companies", this article reveals the truth about them: In a likely attempt to give the Turkish government deniability, mercenary logistics were handled by SADAT, a Turkish private defense contractor owned by Adnan Tanriverdi, President Erdogan’s former chief military counselor. (SADAT also handles the mercenary logistics for the thousands of SNA fighters Turkey has sent to Libya.). So these aren't actually "private" companies, in practice they are controlled by the Turkish government and the European Parliament accused just "Turkey" of deploying the mercenaries.
 * I'd also propose replacing ""alleged" with "claimed" because it sounds more neutral and removing the bullet point, because no one alleges Azerbaijan controls Turkey. --Steverci (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Should point out to Mikehawk10 that the article Steverci has linked above was written by the infamous Linsdey Snell, a journalist with a record of Anti-Turkish behaviour and definitely not a reliable source. — <b style="color:#c29d25">Curious</b><b style="color:#c29d25">Golden</b> (T·C) </b> 16:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any source for Snell being "infamous" or "Anti-Turkish"? The only record she seems to have is accurate coverage that isn't disputed by most mainstream sources. She has photographic evidence of the terrorist mercenaries that Turkey claims do not exist. Reporting things that Turkey doesn't like isn't "Anti-Turkish" for your information. --Steverci (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment was directed to Mikehawk, but scrolling through her Twitter account is enough to understand why she's biased. She married a member of a terrorist group and was later arrested by Turkey for illegally crossing the border, which all contribute to her Anti-Turkish agenda. But again, my comment was directed to Mikehawk10 because I'm sure you won't find anything she says biased, so it'd be best to not discuss this here. — <b style="color:#c29d25">Curious</b><b style="color:#c29d25">Golden</b> (T·C) </b> 17:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

A few things in response to the above discussion:
 * 1) The article linked by is from The Grayzone, which is listed as deprecated on WP:RSP. Any evaluation on the biased source allegations that  puts forward is secondary to the status that the source is deprecated, so I don't believe that I need to address the issue of bias here.
 * 2) This is beginning to rehash the discussion that was on the relevant talk page. I understand that this is a controversial topic and that the consensus on the page was rough, but consensus was achieved in the talk page discussion. I do not intend to become an active editor on the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war except inasmuch as it relates to any discussions that I may close as an uninvolved editor.
 * 3) It is fully appropriate to ask for a closure review. It appears that (and please correct me if I am wrong), there might be a perception that I was not aware of significant additional information or context was left out of the discussion that would have been relevant in the closure, which is appropriate grounds to seek a closure review. However, I don't see significant additional information regarding Turkey's involvement, at least as far as reliable sources are concerned. As a result, I don't see a need to further modify the closure at this time.
 * 4) Per MOS:ALLEGED, alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined provided the allegations are attributed. It's a better word in this case than claimed, owing to the insight provided at MOS:CLAIM.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll open a review soon; it's probably best because new information linking Turkey came about only in the past couple days. In the meantime though, will you remove the bullet point in front of Turkey because it implies that Turkey is a part of Azerbaijan? And wouldn't it be better to put "alleged by Armenia" in parenthesis after Turkey (such as in articles like Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, Eritrean–Ethiopian border conflict, and Insurgency in Paraguay) rather than in a bold title above it? In the article's current styling, a bold title means the country had a sub-role, so this styling doesn't make sense for a country that is being alleged to have been a full participant and looks confusing. --Steverci (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * that makes sense; feel free to fix the formatting. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for closing
Thank you for closing a contentious RFC, which followed contentious discussion, which followed contentious editing, which followed a contentious -- war, Some areas in Wikipedia have battleground editing because they have been battlegrounds, either in the recent past, or in the past. I conducted moderated discussion of the infobox dispute that was sent back to the community via the RFC. In other words, I tried briefly to resolve the dispute, and then made it be Someone Else's Problem. So it is back to the community yet again. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Mike. Since the closure review was your suggestion, would you be interested in taking a look at it and offering your opinion? No one else has reviewed it yet, and I believe the input of the original closer would be helpful. I have provided new sources that, at least in my opinion, leave little doubt Turkey should be considered a belligerent. I also want to point out that at least two users who were against adding Turkey are now banned and/or blocked, so the already weak consensus against listing Turkey as a belligerent is now even weaker. --Steverci (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, can you please explain me on what basis did you close the RFC listing Turkey as a support and separately as a alleged belligerent? I have just reviewed the answers and here is the actual result:

KHE&#39;O (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Include as support (8 signed users and 1 unsigned user)
 * Include as belligerent (5 signed users and 1 unsigned user)
 * Include as alleged belligerent (1 signed user)
 * Don't include as belligerent (1 signed user)
 * consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. I was asked this question at around the time of the closure, after which I posted a lengthy response a section above this one. In short, as I stated above, it is unclear whether or not Turkey directly involved itself in the conflict by using its military, and editors find no consensus among RS as to whether or not Turkey did do so. There is weak consensus to not include Turkey as a belligerent, without any qualification. However, there also appears to be weak consensus, in line with reporting from RS, that Turkey is allegedly a belligerent party. Per MOS:ALLEGED, alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined... when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.
 * To add on, the claim that Armenia has alleged that Turkey is involved in the war is verifiable, as established by sources presented that are reliable for that claim, and the fact that there was such an allegation was repeated by multiple editors even that did not state support for the inclusion of Turkey as an outright belligerent. It's not a vote, and I did not read an editor being in favor of listing them as support as necessarily being in opposition with them being listed as an alleged belligerent. As it turns out, this was correct; at least one editor who had written in favor of "support" backed the closure that had been made during a closure review, which petered out with a general vibe that the closure regarding the status of Turkey was fine. If you're interested in reading more in-depth, check out the section on this page titled "RfC Closure" or reading through the closure review archive from WP:AN. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Close of the ANI RfC at RSN
Hey! Thanks for taking the time to close the RfC at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 331 from the WP:RFCC request!

I wanted to bring up a few points about the close though and ask for a revision of the closing text. I'll number them for convenience of reference:
 * 1) "No consensus to do X" is not the same as "consensus to not do X". On the determination of consensus against the deprecation of the source, it appears to be much closer to "no consensus" than "consensus against".
 * 2) *For example, I would agree that there was not a consensus to deprecate the source in this particular discussion, but I do not really see a consensus against deprecation and definitely not a moderately strong consensus being achieved against the deprecation of the source. The two reasons that you cited were
 * 3) **One of the two reasons that you cited for your determination of consensus against deprecation was the lack of a numeric lean in favor of deprecation. By itself, the absence of a majority is an argument for "no consensus or consensus against", and does not distinguish between the two. Furthermore in this case, out of 21 total editors there were 9 editors who recommended deprecation and 12 editors (still including editors of the opinion that it should be avoided at all costs) who did not recommend deprecation. Such a close 9-12 numerical balance would typically be considered "no consensus" rather than "consensus against", let alone a moderately strong consensus.
 * 4) **The other reason that you cited for your determination of consensus against deprecation was the use of ANI by others. See item 2 below.
 * 5) **The deprecation consideration in the close does not mention the arguments by the 9 editors for deprecation (item 3 below)?
 * 6) I agree that the main argument advanced by those recommending the source as generally reliable was WP:USEBYOTHERS, but I do not see that its WP:USEBYOTHERS in regional Indian print and television media, as well as international broadcast media, has been demonstrated by editors to be real and meaningful.
 * 7) *The USEBYOTHERS argument about How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source was challenged by several editors during the discussion. The group that argued ANI's USEBYOTHERS only produced a few example sources, almost all of which were individually disputed by other editors as either being unreliable or, especially concerning international broadcast media, as only quoting ANI with attribution. While your close did not claim that there was a consensus that the USEBYOTHERS argument was valid, it was not the the result of the debate (WP:DISCARD) that this argument was demonstrated by editors to be real and meaningful.
 * 8) The arguments against the reliability of ANI on the basis of RS reporting ANI as a source misinformation were barely challenged during the discussion. As you noted in your close, the challenge, which came from one editor (rather than Some editors), was on the reliability of AltNews.in, which was in turn defended by one editor. However, several editors pointed towards the BBC and EU DisinfoLab reports that were also cited to Le Monde, Al Jazeera, and The Diplomat, all of which were unchallenged in the discussion.
 * 9) *The summary in the fourth paragraph of the close is not incorrect (other than the singular/plural noted above), but the weight given to its reliable sourcing and it largely being unchallenged in the discussion seems underweighted in the conclusion.
 * 10) On the determination of classificaiton, I see a stronger consensus for classification as a "generally unreliable source" than an "additional considerations apply" given
 * 11) *Numerically, there were 8.5 editors of the recommendation that the source is generally reliable (option 1), 1.5 editors of the recommendation that the source is of "additional considerations apply", and 11 editors of the recommendation that the source is generally unreliable or deprecatable (options 3-4).
 * 12) *The challenges against the argument for reliability (item 2 above).
 * 13) *The level of sourcing for arguments against reliability and the lack of challenges against the argument against reliability (item 3 above).

I hope that you can consider these comments and I appreciate your time & thought into closing this RfC which was more bimodal than any that I have seen recently! — MarkH21talk 16:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thoughtful and well-written reply. You bring up some good points here that I'll respond to below; you're correct in that I did not best write the summary in the close. In short, the discussion found no consensus on if it is generally unreliable vs marginally reliable, but there is a consensus that it is not the case that the source is generally reliable. However, if we look closer and break it up, it looks like there is a consensus that the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE for politics, but there isn't a consensus that it's generally unreliable in other fields. I'll update the close accordingly to make this more clear.
 * To respond to point 1, I'll elaborate upon my finding regarding deprecation, since I didn't do that in the close (though I probably should have). There were six editors who outright favored deprecation, three editors who showed a preference somewhere between deprecation and WP:GUNREL, two editors who preferred WP:GUNREL outright, one editor who preferred WP:MREL, one editor who equally preferred WP:MREL and WP:GREL, and 8 editors who preferred WP:GREL. Those who favored deprecation, as I said in my statement, stated that ANI had engaged in pro-government propaganda campaigns and that reliable sources noted that the agency has published false information. Out of those who were between option 3 and option 4, one of them noted that they were very unreliable for Indian politics but didn't express a lean between 3 and 4, one of them strongly leans towards deprecation so I counted them as essentially an option 4 for purposes of the close, and another individual stated that they were not reliable for news on Pakistan and that "appeals to authority" were the sorts of appeals used to back it. (Note: I read this as a criticism of the use of WP:USEBYOTHERS to justify backing a source, though I'll ping to make sure I did not misread them.) In general, it looked like there was a consensus on unreliability regarding Indian government-involved politics in particular, which was noted in the close. Of course, consensus is not a vote, and in this case it appears that the arguments laid out by editors both favoring and supporting were based in policy. However, it appears that the arguments against general deprecation had enough weight to them that, when taken in line with the numeric support, signified a rough consensus. Looking at this anew, I do still think that there was a rough consensus not to deprecate at this time given the responses provided by editors in the discussion.
 * I agree that we should ignore irrelevant arguments that are without a base in policy. However, in particular with respect to broadcast media, there didn't seem to be sources presented as evidence against a WP:USEBYOTHERS claim for footage shot by ANI, while there was evidence that ANI footage is used internationally in broadcast media. This is not equivalent to broadcast news reports produced by ANI, though this deserves to be more explicitly stated in the close so as to not convey concerns in that area. It also probably should be phrased as "some editors note" rather than "consensus". Also, as I state below, there is WP:USEBYOTHERS evidence that points towards some reliable sources having treated them as reliable, though the writings in other reliable sources lead to a consensus that the source is not WP:GREL.
 * I misread that chain; you are correct that there is one editor who opposed the use of AltNews. This should be updated. On a separate note, I did not totally write off references to The New Indian Express; the source has done investigative work (Express News Service is also used by the WP:GREL The Indian Express, though I cannot for the life of me figure out which one of the two papers runs the service or if it is a joint operation) in a way that seems like that of a relatively strong Indian WP:NEWSORG.. There isn't community consensus on the reliability of The New Indian Express, however, so this is not given the same weight as other players. Additionally, there is a book that seems to indicate widespread use of ANI in foreign media... but it was published in 2004 so it seems a bit out-of-date (and has a narrow scope of what it is used for). Editors also noted that The Indian Express does not use ANI as a newsfeed, which is currently true as users correctly point out. (I did just notice that if we actually click through the search results provided by editors a bit, we soon find that this also appears to be a recent development since 2018, though I am not sure how that would change the final result given that the TIE both has used it over 4650 times since 2002 and chose to stop using it in 2018, since this cuts at current reliability but might imply some sort of historical reliability, though this was not really discussed.) Given that the evidence presented by editors in the discussion describing inaccurate reporting and propaganda is more recent and more broad, they are weighed higher. None of this, of course, changes the consensus that it's still questionable regarding areas where the current government might have interests, so I'll change that to be more reflective, but it does suggest that there the source has historically been treated as reliable enough for use by RS in some way, though it appears to be less reliable now based upon the evidence that users presented. I don't think it's improperly weighted in light of this, though I could have been better with phrasing.
 * On the determination of classification, I still think that additional considerations apply is the most reflective of the discussion if we are to list it in one line, though I don't think that's optimal. As I noted in my edit summary for my close, I would recommend that it be put down at WP:RSP as generally unreliable for politics and additional considerations apply otherwise. It doesn't look like there's a rough consensus to mark the source as generally unreliable for all of its coverage, though there is certainly a consensus that editors should use caution when using the source. I also agree that "moderately strong" overstated the consensus RE deprecation, but I do believe that there was a rough consensus not to deprecate the use of the source generally that was established in the discussion.
 * I hope this helps to clarify some things. Let me know if you have any further comments/questions as I go to make changes to the close.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply!
 * I still see that case as much more of a "no consensus for deprecation" than a "rough consensus against deprecation", based on the strength of the sources & arguments for deprecation, but it's one of those cases that lies the grey area in-between. In the end, this doesn't really matter in practice since neither leads to deprecation, and isn't needed in the RSP blurb anyways unless it was actually deprecated.
 * Only a single editor even mentioned footage, and direct video footage would be a WP:PRIMARY source anyways. Besides being a rare reference type, the video footage was barely touched in the discussion, so it should (at most) be mentioned very briefly, proportional to its minimal weight in the discussion. If parts of the summary like Later in the discussion, editors provided evidence regarding the use of ANI in both domestic and international broadcast media, which appears to have been uncontested and However, its WP:USEBYOTHERS in regional Indian print and television media, as well as international broadcast media, has been demonstrated by editors to be real and meaningful are only referring to the video footage, then that needs to be clarified (if not trimmed out).
 * The New Indian Express was only mentioned in two comments in the discussion and the book was only mentioned in one comment. My point about Altnews.in (which would also apply to The New Indian Express) was that it and the challenge to its reliability appears to be represented in the closure summary as a larger part of the discussion than its actual small share of the discussion.
 * I think that "generally unreliable" for politics and government-related topics is a fair appraisal (I don't see that recommendation in your nor the original closure summary?). I slightly agree with the suggestion of a Fox/HuffPost type split recommendation given the nature of the reliability concerns. As a general note though, very few discussion participants actually made an explicit distinction between mundane/non-political reporting and political/government-related reporting here – much less than the 2020 Fox News RfC and also less than the 2020 HuffPost RfC. With many of the participants arguing for general unreliability and outright deprecation without making that distinction, I'm not sure it can really be summarized with editors do not appear to have found it unreliable for mundane and non-contentious facts. The usage of mundane facts reporting is essentially part of WP:GUNREL and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, rather than the discussion itself.
 * Otherwise, I'll wait for your revision of the closure summary. Thanks as always for your thoughtful engagement. — MarkH21talk 04:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just updated the close to reflect some of these suggestions and to clarify my original intent where it had been lacking. Please take a look and let me know what you think. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Asking for clarification on one thing: you said that you would recommend that it be put down at WP:RSP as generally unreliable for politics, and I agreed with you on that. It is still not in your revised closure summary, but is that what you mean by though there is a rough consensus that its coverage of events relating to and people involved in Indian politics was WP:QUESTIONABLE? — MarkH21talk 07:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I mean. Are the two not generally considered equivalent? I can make that change right now if that would help. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! They basically are the same (the definition at WP:GUNREL is "WP:QUESTIONABLE in most cases"), so revision of that point is up to you. I just wanted to make sure because the shift in terminology used from WP:GUNREL to WP:QUESTIONABLE, for example within the sentence There was no consensus on whether the source is WP:GUNREL, though there is a rough consensus that its coverage of events relating to and people involved in Indian politics was WP:QUESTIONABLE, could have suggested that you might have meant something different with each term. By the way, you may want to add the customary tag at the end. — MarkH21talk 07:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!
uyghurs stronk

Bobbinon (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

A kitten for you!
Naughty name!

 starship .paint  (exalt) 09:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Deku link (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)