Talk:International Judo Federation
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International Judo Federation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International Judo Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050328235711/http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=5&theme=&usrsess=1&id=51197 to http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=5&theme=&usrsess=1&id=51197
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
"Judo Union of Asia" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Judo Union of Asia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Deletion[edit]
This massive deletion lacks any proper wp basis. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Judo_Federation&diff=1035551439&oldid=1035483876
Nor is any offered.
And of course the information is highly relevant at the moment, as just this week again this sort of issue took place at the Olympics. What an odd deletion, under the circumstances. I understand the IJF may not like Wikipedia reflecting what is prominently in the press, but ...
As the page is now protected, I will ask other editors to chime in here, and revert it. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C973:7CDF:4B58:F48B (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- It seems to me that that edit removed a collection of incidents, some better verified than others, which supposedly added up to a Controversy section (those sections are discouraged)--and almost all of them fell under the WP:ARBPIA set of measures. So whether those should have been added by an IP editor remains to be seen, but more than that, it's just poor writing (note the overlinking, the punctuation errors) and a pretty blatant attempt to turn a few individual incidents, which may or may not have directly involved the Federation, into a scandal. So, no. User:.karellian-24 could have left an edit summary (really, should have left an edit summary) explaining the reason for the revert, but the revert itself is justified. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- So, IP, I saw there's a bit more to it. I also saw that you edit from this range, and this IP, which makes edits like this one kind of shitty, as if two different editors had complaints. And I see also that you've been edit-warring to get this content in; the above deletion was done before, and with a valid edit summary, by RandomCanadian--so you know why it was removed. And I'm going out on a limb and say that you inserted this information years ago in the first place. And you stuck it in the UAE article, here. All that is enough to suggest that you are editing from an agenda, and have waged a lengthy campaign to get this material in this article--but Wikipedia is not for your personal hangups. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies - 1) We are discussing a content inclusion issue. I don't see the basis for you saying in such a discussion that what you view as poor writing and overlinking and punctuation errors is reason to delete. That really seems like someone reaching for a reason. And of course that was not cited as the reason. 2) You seem to be suggesting that an IP has lesser rights when it comes to making RS-supported edits. I understand that there are some here who have that view. But I do not think it is a correct one. 3) You also lead by stating that some of the deleted text is better verified than other text. OK. If all is proper and RS-supported, but some RS's are better than others, that's fine. If some of it is not RS-supported, that should be deleted. 4) Only incidents that directly involve the Federation/its rules should be reflected. 5) I agree - the reverting editor should have left an edit summary; that's clear. 6) My computer - as you may know this is not uncommon - through no fault of mine, but a function of my normal bare bones service, changes IP address but keeps it within a range generally I think that makes it clear that it is the same user. I'm not trying to appear to be multiple different editors. I'm not being "shitty." 7) You suggest that if editor A makes an edit with an edit summary, and editor B makes a corresponding edit later, that it is the case that the rationale and edit summary of editor A should be presumed to be that of editor B. I don't believe that is correct. 8) If you edit on say issue z, let's say -- the Yankees -- that does not make it "an agenda." 9) Your language - "your personal hangups" - is ad hominem. Improper. And beneath you. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C973:7CDF:4B58:F48B (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Haha I'll take that last comment as a compliment. But let's see what other editors have to say. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Anyways, a good example of the concerns I (and I guess, others too) have is the WP:COATRACK, such as perfectly exemplified by the addition of the recent incident (which is more of a controversy for the athletes involved than it is for the IJF). What Drmies is saying is that if you make an edit and it is reverted, with a reason given for the removal, you should not attempt to edit-war it back in, but you should rather seek consensus for the new changes on the talk page (the burden for this lies on you). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- And I'm not saying it's not important, what happens here, and the recent withdrawal by Nourine has brought earlier events back into the news again as well: here it is in a Dutch news source. But why this content should be in this article, and completely overwhelm it, that's also a valid question. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Anyways, a good example of the concerns I (and I guess, others too) have is the WP:COATRACK, such as perfectly exemplified by the addition of the recent incident (which is more of a controversy for the athletes involved than it is for the IJF). What Drmies is saying is that if you make an edit and it is reverted, with a reason given for the removal, you should not attempt to edit-war it back in, but you should rather seek consensus for the new changes on the talk page (the burden for this lies on you). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, and IP, the "reason to delete" you're looking for is that there are simply too many issues for this to be fixed in a timely manner. Like when you put something in the oven and leave it in too long: not much point in doing anything but starting over (or eating something else). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Drmies: A decision was made at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, regarding this and only then (after) RandomCanadian - Wiki contributor - removed the material. I personally feel there is an agenda going on (at least on this page) and some potential ethnic conflict, or anyway some war. Not sure if the IP is heavily linked to the judo federation or not. I just defended the Wikipedia and it was not my "mass deletion". I just reverted a decision and RandomCanadian was justified to do it since it was discussed. An encyclopedia is not the best place for politics. Regards, Karel .karellian-24 (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
- Haha I'll take that last comment as a compliment. But let's see what other editors have to say. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies - 1) We are discussing a content inclusion issue. I don't see the basis for you saying in such a discussion that what you view as poor writing and overlinking and punctuation errors is reason to delete. That really seems like someone reaching for a reason. And of course that was not cited as the reason. 2) You seem to be suggesting that an IP has lesser rights when it comes to making RS-supported edits. I understand that there are some here who have that view. But I do not think it is a correct one. 3) You also lead by stating that some of the deleted text is better verified than other text. OK. If all is proper and RS-supported, but some RS's are better than others, that's fine. If some of it is not RS-supported, that should be deleted. 4) Only incidents that directly involve the Federation/its rules should be reflected. 5) I agree - the reverting editor should have left an edit summary; that's clear. 6) My computer - as you may know this is not uncommon - through no fault of mine, but a function of my normal bare bones service, changes IP address but keeps it within a range generally I think that makes it clear that it is the same user. I'm not trying to appear to be multiple different editors. I'm not being "shitty." 7) You suggest that if editor A makes an edit with an edit summary, and editor B makes a corresponding edit later, that it is the case that the rationale and edit summary of editor A should be presumed to be that of editor B. I don't believe that is correct. 8) If you edit on say issue z, let's say -- the Yankees -- that does not make it "an agenda." 9) Your language - "your personal hangups" - is ad hominem. Improper. And beneath you. 2603:7000:2143:8500:C973:7CDF:4B58:F48B (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)