Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
Kendrick7 (talk | contribs)
→‎Analysis by International Legal Team: keep up the good work, I only check back here from time to time
Line 139: Line 139:
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|target=/Archive index
|mask=Israeli apartheid/Archive <#>
|mask1=Israeli apartheid/Archive <#>
|mask=Allegations of Israeli apartheid/Archive <#>
|mask2=Allegations of Israeli apartheid/Archive <#>
|mask=Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive <#>
|mask3=Israel and the apartheid analogy/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template=
}}
}}

Revision as of 15:29, 23 January 2015

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 3, 2006Articles for deletionNo consensus
June 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 15, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
August 11, 2006Articles for deletionNo consensus
April 4, 2007Articles for deletionKept
April 24, 2007Articles for deletionNo consensus
June 26, 2007Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
September 4, 2007Articles for deletionNo consensus
June 11, 2008Articles for deletionNo consensus
August 21, 2010Articles for deletionKept

Dubious Mandela reference

It would appear that the recently entered Mandela reference was from a mock memo that has turned into something of a hoax. See Mandela memo:How it started?. I'd delete the reference myself if I found something more authoritative than a tumblr page. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text figures here http://books.google.com/books?ei=PZTFU8-UAcbG0QWS5YGwDw&hl=en&id=bOMhAQAAIAAJ , p. 41, with the source given as Sowetan Sunday World, May 19, 2002, p. 18. Notably, whilst the tumblr account says it started in 2001, this text (which is not entirely clear who published it either) given 2002 as year of publication. --Soman (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not any tumbler: it's Arjan El Fassed's, and his claim of authorship is also reproduced on The Electronic Intifada, who'd be to happy if indeed Mandela'd really said that. I think that's evidence enough that the quote is not from Mandela. Adʁijɛ̃ (talk) 04:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard Leadership Group

Any reason why this section is being kept? I was under the impression that the debate of whether or not to include it in the article was already settled. Inthefastlane (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hafrada

User:Plot Spoiler, please explain your removal of the comparison with the term Hafrada. As with the rest of this article, noone is passing judgement as to whether such a comparison is fair or not. But many scholars have made the comparison, and that is clearly notable. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit strange that Hafrada is not mentioned anywhere in the article but the lead. Why is it notable? I do not know much about the issue, so I am asking. Generally stuff should only be in the lead if it is in the body, per MOS:LEAD. If there is a discrepancy, it should be resolved by either reducing the lead or enlarging the body. Kingsindian ♚ 18:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly violates WP:LEAD. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even when it is remedied, as it eventually will be, by a section of the article about Hafrada, there's no need for a "See also" at the top of this article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all and good point. A section has been added as suggested. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion. Why not simply WP:transclude the lead of Hafrada in this section? Seems to be covering same material. Kingsindian ♚ 19:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2014

Please add the protection template to show a visible icon indicating the protection level of this article. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 65.94.171.225 (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis by International Legal Team

OK, can someone please tell why this new information isn't encyclopedic? -- Kendrick7talk 04:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns were raised in this edit summary [1], which you failed to respond to in either of your two reverts or here. Again per WP:BRD, the burden is on the proponent. You also violated WP:1RR and you should self-revert and then initiate discussion in good faith. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thank you for engaging on the talk page. Still, per WP:PRESERVE the content which was removed should be moved here so we known what we are discussing. -- Kendrick7talk 05:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll remind you WP:BRD is an WP:ESSAY, WP:PRESERVE is a WP:POLICY. -- Kendrick7talk 05:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick, as long as we are noting policy: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy... Everyone seems to know what we are discussing. For those who don't, a relevant dif has now been linked to here on the talk page. The text in question is in the article history, and can easily be retrieved. There is no need to cut and paste the entire text of the section here on the talk page. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that a new heading International (or Academic) Analysis be entered and both Analysis by Adam and Moodley and Analysis by International Legal Team be subheadings and controversial wording can be edited so that both subsections can be contrasting and equal.Cathar66 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. I'm sorry if I get paranoid, but back in the day an editor who declared he was merely intent on improving this article via reorganization sneakily deleted almost half of the sources in the process. And then he put it up to WP:AfD for lack of reliable sources. I try to assume good faith that we're all here to write an encyclopedia, but there are enemies in our midst. Keep up the good work. -- Kendrick7talk 04:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply