Jump to content

Talk:Transitional Sovereignty Council

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 21 August 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. If anyone is not satisfied with 'Sovereignty Council of Sudan' please open a new move request and be specific. As User:Andrewa observes, if editors want to make this title cover more than one sovereignty council, they could convert this one into a broad concept article about the different Sudan councils. People seem to accept the idea of 'Sudan' being in the title. There is less unanimity about whether to include dates in the title. My own observation is that it is easy to create dated redirects to point to different sections of one article, if people want to go that way. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty Council (2019) → Sovereignty Council (Sudan) – There already exists an independent article Sovereignty Council (Iraq), but this article (about Sovereignty Councils in Sudan, especially the new one) does not concern Iraq; so a year alone is not enough to disambiguate the topic. This article includes a brief description of earlier Sovereignty Councils in Sudan as background, so it's not only concerned with 2019. Moreover, if the 2019 Sudanese transition to democracy goes more or less as planned in the Draft Constitutional Declaration, then it will last 39 months, so it will be from 2019 to 2022, forcing future name changes in 2020, 2021, and 2022 if we're to avoid crystalballing; but having an unstable article title is disruptive, and seems to be unnecessary. Technical help: The original title was Sovereignty Council (Sudan), so tech help in reverting the redirect/name swamp will be needed if the requested move is accepted. Boud (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall:For example, we have an article Transitional Military Council. In 2019, the sole Sovereignty Council have been formed in Sudan. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the name of the 2019 council is unique, so I think the current WP:RM request is still valid (so I still support it). We can always add a hatnote to Transitional Military Council from this article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@IJBall: Sovereignty Council (Sudan) should not be used for this page because it is the name who should be used by the desambiguation page. Sovereignty Council (2019, Sudan) is a good compromise but not really enough because in 2019 we have only one. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this discussion has been going on, this name change from Sovereignty Council (2019) to Sovereignty Council of Sudan was made. I warned the user, who seems only to have been active since April 2019, and may be unfamiliar with solving Wikipedia conflicts of this sort. If this happens again prior to resolving the discussion, we'll need to ask an admin to freeze the name until the debate is finished. Boud (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1: Alternative proposal: Sovereignty Council of Sudan (2019). This would make sense with the present article in its actual state (previous Sudanese Sovereignty Councils are "background"); it would distinguish it from the Iraqi Sovereignty Council; and it would allow for the future creation of Sovereignty Council of Sudan (1956–1958), Sovereignty Council of Sudan (1964–1965), Sovereignty Council of Sudan (June–July 1965). I see no reason not to create separate articles for each; with a bit of work, whoever does that (not me, sorry) should be able to look up sources and present the context, what happened, why (with a half century of hindsight, there should be quite a few historical studies available). Offline sources are not so convenient, but they are definitely acceptable. There are individual articles on episodes like these of the history of France, UK, Germany, so they would be perfectly justified for Sudan. Boud (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2: another alternative: Sovereignty Council of Sudan (2019–2022) (with an en dash). We could worry that this is crystalballing, since the system could in principle collapse before 2022, but the plans are defined in the Draft Constitutional Declaration, so it's a bit like future election articles - the title includes a future date, but the lead clearly states that the event is planned (in a legal/political sense) and is not guaranteed to happen. For convenience in the discussion, I propose that people put Oppose ALT1, Support ALT2, and so on, in addition to reasons. (Personally, I'd be happy with either ALT1 or ALT2.) Boud (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall and Boud:I have created a desambiguation page. Sovereignty Council. But I think Sovereignty Council (2019) is better because the name of the article is Transitional Military Council (1985) not Transitional Military Council (1985–1986). Also, according to the constitution, the council is called Sovereignty Council. Also, we have also two non collective Sovereignty Councils in 1965 and 1986. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Panam2014 and IJBall:. Panam2014: Nice initiative with the disambig page. :)
At the meta-level: This move request will eventually have to be closed by someone neutral to the debate. You will help that person understand the debate by clearly stating if you support or oppose the original proposal, and the alternative proposals ALT1 and ALT2. The convention is to use bold for the support or oppose declarations. Independent Wikipedians are busy (like us) and while the individual arguments are supposed to outweigh !votes, it will still help if you can clearly label what you support or oppose.
Regarding your arguments: "according to the constitution" — right now Sudan has no formal constitution. The Draft Constitutional Declaration (or Charter, depending on the choice of translation into English), is intended, according to the majority of the sources in the relevant articles, as a transitional document, not a permanent constitution. We do not have access (in the sources used in en.Wikipedia so far) to the original Arabic version signed on 17 August, and we don't have access to a copy of the English version of 4 August. So we cannot argue that we have any strictly official source — the strict source would be an official source of the 17 August English version (we don't even know if that exists; we can make a best guess that it wouldn't differ much from the IDEA English 4 August unofficial translation). But it is reasonable to consider "Sovereignty Council" as the English de facto official name. That is not disputed here. It is not strictly official information, but it is not disputed. However, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title" — WP:OFFICIAL. Writing Sovereignty Council of Sudan does not mean that that is the official title. For example, look at Prime Minister of Australia who is officially Prime Minister of the Commonwealth; President of France who is officially Le président de la République (The president of the Republic), or Prime Minister of Poland who is officially President of the Council of Ministers. None of these three official titles say which country the person is a leader of. So adding "of Sudan" doesn't mean that people in Sudan include "of Sudan" when describing the Sovereignty Council.
In terms of WP:CRITERIA, including either "(Sudan)" or "of Sudan" better satisfies the main WP:CRITERIA of Recognizability and Naturalness. Omitting "Sudan" would make the name a bit less recognisable and less natural (in terms of how international texts talk about the Sovereignty Council). In other words, people looking for the topic right now will tend to use "Sudan" as a more informative/discriminatory word than "2019", and people looking for the topic in 5-20 years' time are more likely to remember "Sudan" rather than the particular year. Remembering country names is generally easier than remembering individual years in history. Using "(Sudan)" would make it difficult to add a year for disambiguation than if we use "of Sudan". So ALT1 and ALT2 seem the best to me in terms of WP:CRITERIA.
Whether previous Sovereignty Councils of Sudan were collective or not doesn't seem relevant to this debate.
Anyway, I propose that you state clearly whether you support or oppose the ALT1 and ALT2 options. Although I'm the nominator, I'll add my position in the following line to follow my own advice and help whoever decides to close the debate. :) Boud (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT1. Support (prefer) ALT2. Oppose original proposal — on the grounds of long-term vision for Wikipedia: it's fair to prepare things for some Wikipedians to create the missing articles when they are ready. For avoiding WP:BIAS, Sudanese history justifies as detailed a level of encyclopedic coverage with specialised individual historical articles as France, United Kingdom and other desktop/laptop-internet-privileged countries. See above for my reasons. Boud (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave at Sovereignty Council of Sudan as currently (following an out-of-process move). There are several ways forward from here, and possibly we will eventually move this article to a more precise name, but probably it's better for it to become a BCA on all the various councils by this name. For now, it's the only article on anything by this name, and the best name for it as such. Andrewa (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I misinterpreted "For the theree articles, I could create it in 5 minutes" to mean a concrete intention at that time to start the three articles themselves, not just a disambiguation page for others to create the pages; I also thought that "I will create the articles in the coming days" on 29 August was meant to mean maybe 2 to 3 days. I suggest that an uninvolved editor looking to close this move request give maybe 1 to 2 days more and then close depending on whether the older-Sovereignty-Council-of-Sudan three articles have been (viably, even as stubs) created or not. Boud (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify: If at the time that someone wishes to close this discussion, Sovereignty Council of Sudan (1956–1958), Sovereignty Council of Sudan (1964–1965), Sovereignty Council of Sudan (June–July 1965) remain red links or look like they will not survive an AfD or speedy delete, then I agree with Andrewa for Leave at Sovereignty Council of Sudan; if a few or all of those three articles are created and look viable enough to not be quickly deleted, then I support ALT1 or preferably, ALT2 above, for the reasons already discussed above. Boud (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal

[edit]

@Boud: I think we should suggest other proposal. of Sudan is not enough and if ye choose Sovereignty Council (2019-22), we must also move to Transitional Military Council (1985-86). So, I support Sovereignty Council (2019), Sovereignty Council (2019-22), Sovereignty Council (2019, Sudan), Sovereignty Council (2019-22, Sudan) but I (very weak) oppose Sovereignty Council of Sudan (2019), Sovereignty Council of Sudan (2019-22). --Panam2014 (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty Council of Sudan

[edit]

Article has been boldly moved to Sovereignty Council of Sudan, which was out of process but I support that name. It ticks all the boxes. Andrewa (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you claim that Sovereignty Council of Sudan (1956–1958), Sovereignty Council of Sudan (1964–1965), Sovereignty Council of Sudan (June–July 1965) should not be created? Please read WP:BIAS before answering (warning: this is about systematic bias of the en.Wikipedian community; it's not accusing you individually of bias; the data at the top there date back to 2005 and are certainly out of date: the bias today is most likely different to what it was back then). Boud (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: Sovereignty Council of Sudan should be a redirection to the sudanese section of Sovereignty Council. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sovereignty Council is a disambiguation page. Sovereignty Council#In Sudan has only one article listed currently, and three redlinks that seem to be alternative titles for the three articles that Boud seems to want to create (see above). They (or you) are of course free and encouraged to do so provided the sources are there to provide material and references. My suggestion is to discuss the names of these articles with them, and then someone should create these other articles... stubs will do for now provided they don't satisfy the criteria for deletion (see particularly criteria for speedy deletion), and are capable of expansion to reasonable length. Then once these are in place, there will be a case for disambiguating this article title. There isn't currently. Andrewa (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't expressed any opinion as to whether those articles should be created. Have I?
And your referring me to the essay at Wikipedia:Systemic bias is even more puzzling... how have I shown any bias? Andrewa (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: there are sources for both the others Sovereignty Council of Sudan. So no, clearly, Sovereignty Council of Sudan does not ticks all the boxes. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa, IJBall, and Panam2014: Quoting from WP:BIAS: "The common characteristics of average Wikipedians inevitably color the content of Wikipedia". In this particular case, neither I, Panam2014, IJBall, nor you (Andrewa), have, as of 19:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC), created any of the articles Sovereignty Council of Sudan (1956–1958), Sovereignty Council of Sudan (1964–1965), or Sovereignty Council of Sudan (June–July 1965), despite the fact that we're interested enough in curation of knowledge about Sudanese history to participate in this discussion. That's objective evidence of the bias discussed in the essay. Suggestions of likely factors to explain why the four of us (and 123,483 or so other active en.Wikipedians) are biased may be found in the essay. An example of what we can do to correct for the bias in this particular case is to make it straightforward for someone/some people less biased than us to create those articles, when they have time to do so, without having the extra difficulty of having to organise a new move request. Since you mention the need for sources, the subsections Availability of sources may cause bias and Representation in sources may cause bias explain the relation between sources and bias. Boud (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's very good that you want to correct this systemic bias. I'm just trying to help you understand the procedures so that you can do this.
Create the stubs, and cite these sources so the stubs don't get deleted. Panam2014 has already done most of the work in finding these sources, so don't expect others to repeat that work. Instead provide the sources in the stubs and/or their talk pages. Then others can expand and improve the articles if for some reason you don't want to. Nobody is stopping you except yourselves. Andrewa (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
clearly, Sovereignty Council of Sudan does not ticks all the boxes... Disagree. We disambiguate article titles based on the articles that exist. You are just wasting my time and yours.
And there seems to be some disagreement as to whether these sources exist. I'm assuming above that you've found them. If they don't exist, nothing can be done. We do not publish material that is not supported by sources. And yes, that is bias. It's unfortunate, but inescapable. Andrewa (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa:Disagree. We disambiguate article titles based on the articles that exist. You are just wasting my time and yours. False. It is a very bad argument. We disambiguate article titles based on the articles that exist and could exist. You are free to respond or not but I am right to say that you are not right. Also, I will create the articles in the coming days, I have find sources in various langage and we have various interwiki. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need other views on this so I have sought them here. Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Am I correct in thinking that none of the articles foreshadowed above has in fact been created? Andrewa (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, on the evidence presented, the current title is either the correct title for the article as is, or possibly the article could be rescoped and made a broad concept article covering several notable and related bodies by that name. And either way, no further move is required. Andrewa (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both comments. We need an uninvolved person to close the RM. Boud (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transitional_Sovereignty_Council&oldid=1253958415"