User talk:Symphony Regalia

Conspiratorial thinking

Look, maybe I was too insulting of you to begin with, but the problem is that you haven't shown any reasonable idea of compromise or engaged with Dekimasu on whether "China Virus" is a widely used term or not, where is your evidence? I have checked twitter and "China virus" is not a widely used term on there, with less than a dozen tweets an hour using the term. I don't know Dekimasu in any capacity outside the Coronavirus article, though I have great respect for him. What I would like to address is your conspiratorial thinking. We are not trying to censor the article on behalf of the chinese goverment, it is just that we think that the name isn't notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia:, The evidence is the google ngram viewer results as I noted on the AfD discussion. The phrase has been used in English consistently since 1984, with the earliest use in 1959. I attempted to make the disambig page in question more nuanced, feel free to join the discussion on the talk page there.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: I wrote this over 3 weeks ago, I have already contributed to the AfD discussion and agree that the article should be kept. This was about a separate discussion on the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 talk page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD

You are free to make bold edits, but please follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If your edits are challanged, you are supposed to start a discussion on the talk page so a consensus may be reached. Calling a popular term a misnomer in the intro is inserting a clear WP:POV. Also don't edit logged out to evade a block. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am here to strike through the last part of my comment, I see you've been impersonated by a vandal who was trying to get you into trouble, sorry for that. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Argh! no, no, no ...

" It is a nationality, and anyone of any race can be Chinese. " NO! I go thru this with so many students. Nationality=Ethnicity, NOT citizenship. Only those recognized as ethnically Chinese (typically those around the heart of Yellow River China) are "Chinese." Han Chinese is the largest grouping. There is no way I can ever be a Persian - I can become a citizen of Iran, but I remain English in my ethnicity/nationality. Please review "nation-state" and so on. There's been a lot of sloppy, "politically correct" nonsense in many schools of late, and this sort of sloppy talk will drive a historian or linguist mad. "race" doesn't play a part here - the non-scientific, but social, definition would be "Mongoloid" but as so many nationalities are part of this, it's useless in discussing ethnicity. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.45.197 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Nationality has absolutely nothing to do ethnicity. Nationality is a legal construct, that is decided by law. There are Chinese people of all races. You should not be erasing those people. Furthermore, (Han) Chinese is also an ethnicity, but ethnicity is decided by shared culture/traditions/language, and not blood. For example Borris Johnson and Vladimur Putin are of the same race, but of different ethnicities. Although minorities, there are Black Chinese and White Chinese who, for example, are both legally and culturally (Han) Chinese. If you have students, I fear you are doing them a great disservice, and are not doing your job. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Foxtail286 (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. Sigh. 50.111.19.34 (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

- MrX 🖋 12:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A thought

Hi, it occurred to me that if the disambig page met the deletionists' concerns half-way, the more moderate crowd at AfD would be less motivated to go for the kill.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "China virus" and "Wuhan virus".The discussion is about the topic Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Thank you.

WHO

Why did you remove well-sourced content and claim that the "source does not support this claim"? The content you removed was "On 10 January, the WHO began urging precautions due to a strong possibility of human-to-human transmission" and the source says "But WHO officials also told their counterparts in technical briefings on 10 and 11 January, and briefed the press on 14 January, that human-to-human transmission was a strong possibility given the experience of past coronavirus epidemics and urged suitable precautions." Prolog (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed the source and did not see that, and would not assume the WHO to so boldly contradict themselves. Good catch. I've revised the inclusion. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Please note that your use of the tweet as a primary source is not in line with WP:PRIMARY. The tweet does not say "repeated", "misleading" or that this constitutes the "Chinese stance". In fact, it clearly says "preliminary investigations". Also, you again removed the information about the 10 and 11 January briefings. Unlike the tweet, these are official documents delivered to nations. Prolog (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Per WP:Twitter-EL "a specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Twitter incorporates a Verified Account mechanism to identify accounts of celebrities and other notable people; this should be considered in judging the reliability of Twitter messages". The WHO's official account indeed meets that criteria. I've kept your current wording, which I think works well, but if you feel that we should mention the 10th and 11th as well which may be redundant, feel free. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Which "several quotes related to the controversy", as you said in your edit summary, did my edit remove? WP:Twitter-EL is part of the guideline on external links. WP:PRIMARY is part of a core content policy. A link to the tweet or proper use of it as a primary source is fine, but adding any sort of personal analysis is not. Prolog (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Quotes by Anne Schuchat and David Heymann. And pointing out that denying human to human transmission was misleading is not personal analysis. Symphony Regalia (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The quotes are there, and unaltered, in the second paragraph. The opinions that human-to-human transmission was denied and that the tweet was misleading are your personal remarks. Per WP:OR, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Prolog (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe WP:OR was ever intended for easy to prove, overwhelmingly common sense. To show that such a statement from the WHO was misleading, one simply has to cite that human to human transmission is indeed true, or even citing the WHO's contradictory behavior on the same day would suffice. As for the quotes, it seems I was mistaken. Apologies. I actually thought that you removed that entire first paragraph. That's why I added your background context back in the subsequent edit, after reverting to "restore" the lost paragraph. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

NY Times source

I read the NYT source cited, and the closest it comes to verifying the previous wording still falls well short: For online critics of the government's responses, which at times have been slow or seemingly random. This is not a statement of fact by the author or the paper, and no reasonable person would conclude it is. You also have no reason to remove the undisputed date on which the WHO China Country Office notified the WHO at large of the cluster of cases. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The NY times source isn't about other sources. It directly details the issue at hand, which is why the status quo had it written that way, and why the change describe it as a secondary secondary source seems strange. As for as the date, it was uncited and is ultimately redundant when looking at the previous sentence. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The date of notification is literally the first phrase of the added source. There is no way you could have overlooked that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

That source wasn't added, it was already present. In any case I'm fine with that sentence, but not the other parts. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No it was added by Acalycine, all that was required was for you to view the next edit. Stop arguing semantics while omitting necessary details. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

In that case that's good. The NYT source by and large directly describes what happens though. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No it does not, it never presents the "slow response" claim as fact, rather it attributes to the quoted person making the claim. Otherwise, by now, you would have produced quotes demonstrating that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The quote you provided sufficiently proves the point by itself. Lets take a look at it: For online critics of the government’s responses, which at times have been slow or seemingly random, the crisis has prompted a rethinking of the grand trade-off with the party, in which the people have surrendered individual rights for the promise of stability and prosperity.

First of all they're talking about whistleblowers, and second of all the middle clause "which at times have been slow or seemingly random" is not an attribution to the online critics. That is context being added directly by the NY Times. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Weibo users are by and large not whistleblowers, that is absurd. For that quote, it is not clear what level of government the NYT is referring to, and the at times qualification, again, is another limiter, not supportive of your version. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The quote makes clear that this is something that the NY Times said, and not something that the NY Times said about whistleblowers or the media saying it. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

How did the sentence about formal notification of the WHO not follow the WHO source? Was this a mistake? Also, I changed 'admitted' as it is very much not WP:NPOV. Acalycine (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The WHO notification line is fine. You changed Delayed and controversial responses by the Wuhan and Hubei authorities, which follows the NY Times source, to Public and media criticism has labelled responses by the Wuhan and Hubei authorities which does not follow the source. The NY Times directly says that the Wuhan response was slow, not that other sources said it was slow. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It's in-text attribution. Stating an obviously-controversial claim (i.e. labelling the response as 'delayed') as a matter of fact is not NPOV. Even so, I'm not sure why you would outright revert instead of manually editing the parts you dispute. not that other sources said it was slow. - I'm not sure what you mean here, are you implying that my revision erroneously implies WHO is a source for the slowness claim? Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not an in-text attribution. It's bias and editorializing where you attempt to take a side and downplay basic facts. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Important notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- SummerPhD^v2.0 01:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Symphony Regalia. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hi Symphony Regalia! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at COVID-19 pandemic in Senegal that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 03:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI: Talk Yasuke

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chrhns (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Symphony Regalia i mentioned you on the section about me on this Incident. ErikWar19 (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

@Symphony Regalia
We obviously have a problem.
First, I would like you to explain precisely what you mean by "this manner of qualification".
Secondly, I would like you to point where "clear consensus" was established that it is not needed.
Thirdly, I would like you to point out which part of WP:WEASEL you think apply to this and which exact policy justifies that "The majority view in reliable sources does not need qualification".
Fourthly, I will mention that the section I changed is pretty much taken directly from the Britannica article, something you've defended tooth and nail to be considered a reliable source.
Fifthly, your aggressive reverts fail to distinguish parts you disagree with and uncontroversial changes like the removal of repetion during this diff for example or the contradiction I pointed out with the edit summary of this diff, which, as a second warning, is WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR.
Sixthly, not only am I pretty sure you have opposed a separate subsection discussing Yasuke's samurai status before but if you think it is unacceptable in the lead, I would recommend you just WP:DOIT instead of expecting people to navigate your mind to avoid things that would result in getting reverted by you.
Lastly, WP:BRD is an essay and as mentioned very visibly on its page, entirely optional. Yvan Part (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You shouldn't take editing personally. I will warn you not to assume bad faith in others. WP:BRD is optional in the sense that it in itself generally won't lead to a block, but not following it can quickly lead to behavior that does end up in a block. It's commonly cited for a reason, and I think good practice for all editors in the spirit of collaborating.

First, I would like you to explain precisely what you mean by "this manner of qualification".

We have consensus on referring to Yasuke as a samurai as the majority view in WP:RS, which means that "historians think..." is unnecessary (particularly when it is the analysis of a single person), as we use wikivoice to refer to the majority view. The nuance of the definition of samurai during the Warring States period is also WP:UNDUE for the lede text. Also, the WP:WEASAL language is generally a poor choice which is why the guidance on it exists. That being said, I understand you are using that phrasing because the source was using that phrasing. This then becomes a situation where you are citing the thoughts of a specific person, which also probably doesn't really belong in the lede.

I may be able to offer some guidance if I can better understand your intentions. Are they:

1) To provide context on the mechanics of why (on what basis) historians refer to him as a samurai? In my view the most appropriate place is likely in the "Documented life in Japan" since that is where the quote about the residence, the stipend, and sword is introduced for the first time. It can be noted directly in context that said quote is why historians consider him one.

2) Because you want to publish deeper information on the nuance of the samurai during the Warring States period in contrast to the centuries after? As mentioned above probably not necessary in Yasuke's article as readers can click to the samurai article. If you insist though in terms of weight it would be appropriate somewhere in the article body, definitely not the lede.

My thoughts. Hope that clears things up some. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• I disagree with your understanding of WP:WEASEL which says "A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint." (emphasis mine) which is the exact contrary of the understanding you present here, adding that "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source." (emphasis not mine) which entirely falls under the changes I proposed if we are to agree that Yasuke's status as a samurai comes from a consensus of expert historians. Furthermore "citing the thoughts of a specific person" that agrees and merely repeats an established consensus does not need attribution if it is not a dissenting opinion.
• Similarly, claiming that "The nuance of the definition of samurai...is also WP:UNDUE for the lede text" does not fall under the rule you cite, it is either WP:UNDUE for the whole article or it's not. Only MOS:LEAD offers precisions on what should or shouldn't be in the lead as a guideline. If you consider it too detailed for the lead, you should move it to an appropriate section rather than reverting it.
• I have not addressed it earlier but your justifications for earlier reverts with another editor that "This does concern the RfC considering you are removing mentions of "samurai"." is entirely undue as the RfC does not mandate an arbitrary number of mentions of the term samurai beyond the general agreement that Yasuke should be considered a samurai.
• Nor have you addressed my concerns of overly broad reverts which end up reverting uncontroversial changes and an obvious contradiction between expert consensus and the CNN article.

Instead of attempting to provide "guidance" to justify reverts, WP:JUSTDOIT. This is one of the primary way consensus is achieved on wikipedia instead of toeing the line of edit warring and the three reverts rule.

Overall your attitude is closer to WP:GAMING the system as your rationale falls flat on its face at every corner. Yvan Part (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore "citing the thoughts of a specific person" that agrees and merely repeats an established consensus does not need attribution if it is not a dissenting opinion.

This is incorrect, because you are not citing the consensus, you are citing an analysis providing a reasoning for the object of the consensus. These are not the same things.

Similarly, claiming that "The nuance of the definition of samurai...is also WP:UNDUE for the lede text" does not fall under the rule you cite, it is either WP:UNDUE for the whole article or it's not

This is also false. Per WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

I have not addressed it earlier but your justifications for earlier reverts with another editor that "This does concern the RfC considering you are removing mentions of "samurai"." is entirely undue as the RfC does not mandate an arbitrary number of mentions of the term samurai beyond the general agreement that Yasuke should be considered a samurai.

The editor in question did not provide any justification for the removal. Any removals from the lede do concern the RfC on an individual basis, and there is no arbitrary maximum so can you explain why you have an issue with the two mentions?

Nor have you addressed my concerns of overly broad reverts which end up reverting uncontroversial changes and an obvious contradiction between expert consensus and the CNN article.

There is no controversy litmus test to edits, and what you consider uncontroversial or controversial may not align with other editors. This is why you need to discuss things with other editors when challenged, as I've previously warned you about[1], as opposed to assuming bad faith, making accusations, or jumping to conclusions.

Instead of attempting to provide "guidance" to justify reverts, WP:JUSTDOIT. This is one of the primary way consensus is achieved on wikipedia instead of toeing the line of edit warring and the three reverts rule.

This is an incorrect reading of WP:JUSTDOIT, which is guidance aimed at editors broadly highlighting issues with articles. The onus is on you to seek consensus for your edits. In fact, WP:JUSTDOIT actually applies to your own behavior: Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be.

Overall your attitude is closer to WP:GAMING the system as your rationale falls flat on its face at every corner

Kindly, this is the second warning I'm going to give you about assuming bad faith in others. Given that you appear to be a WP:SPA created to argue against the inclusion of "samurai", I can understand if this is an emotional topic to you, but do try to be civil. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you or do you not agree that your use of WP:WEASEL has been wrong?

• "you are not citing the consensus, you are citing an analysis providing a reasoning for the object of the consensus." This is just pedantic. Analysis of the consensus is still part of the consensus and is entirely WP:DUE if we are going to put that consensus anywhere in the article. Arguing that the analysis of how a consensus is reached is WP:UNDUE is just silly and again if your problem is that it appears in the lead, moving it instead of reverting it is much more reasonable.
• The editor in question did not provide any justification for the removal. And you also provided a bad reason for the revert.
• Any removals from the lede do concern the RfC on an individual basis I fail to see the reasoning behind this. Again if your problem is what the lead contains instead what it actually says, moving over reverting is much more sensible.
• and there is no arbitrary maximum so can you explain why you have an issue with the two mentions? I did not say there was, just that your reasoning that the RfC does prevent editors from removing mentions of the term samurai to an arbitrary minimum that apparently you have decided is fallacious. I even made my initial edit specifically to retain an additional mention of "samurai" as a way to avoid being reverted by you, excepting that it would be enough to appease you but apparently I was wrong.
• what you consider uncontroversial or controversial may not align with other editors. I really doubt the removal of repetitions from the lead by BrocadeRiverPoems with this diff can be subjectively considered controversial.
• This is why you need to discuss things with other editors when challenged You've been plenty challenged yourself and rarely took the first step to attempt discussion or compromise. The fact the I'm the one who had to start this section after you reverted twice is a good example of that. I could have perfectly reverted again and forced you to stop due to the WP:3RR but here I am.
• This is an incorrect reading of WP:JUSTDOIT Fine. I will point you to WP:ONLYREVERT and even though it's not a policy, it is nonetheless good guidance. Your reverts did not overall improve the quality of the article.

The problem I have is that you don't even disagree with the content added and would even argue that you have been one of the prime user to argue that this content is WP:RS, you just dislike how it's presented for some reasons and don't provide changes that would improve the article instead of reverting to your preferred version.

Adding: is there even a point to you warning other people about assuming bad faith if you're going to do it yourself in turn in the next sentence? Yvan Part (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The application of Wikipedia:WEASELdoes indeed seem to be faulty in this instance, specifically because Wikipedia:WEASEL states views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source emphasis not my own. I.E, if the reliable source says historians think that this would contemporaneously have been seen as the bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank. This is where the claim that Yasuke was a samurai originates. It is not WP:WEASEL to say that "historians think this would have been seen as the bestowing of warrior or 'samurai' rank in this period" or some variation thereof. Specifically, WP:WEASEL applies to Unsupported attributions. The attribution is sourced and so reverting or removing it on the basis of WP:WEASEL doesn't seem appropriate. Brocade River Poems 10:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Just because it is attributed doesn't mean it is the ideal choice, and indeed is still WP:WEASAL language if you are not properly attributing the text. Your modification is better in that it addresses the WP:UNDUE semantics on the term samurai. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not WP:WEASEL, furthermore, it not being the ideal choice is your opinion, and not grounds for reverting. See WP:NOTPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE, particularly on the subject of what to do instead of reverting. Furthermore, Per WP:WEASEL, Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed. Emphasis my own. The statemenst that "Historians believe" is attributed to a source that you yourself have argued is reliable, meaning it is not WP:WEASEL to use the statement that the source itself uses. Again, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source emphasis added. WP:WEASEL explicitly states that it does not apply here. Brocade River Poems 23:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It is WP:WEASAL, and something being not ideal is also not grounds for inclusion simply because in theory it could be better, if there isn't much justification to begin with. See WP:ONUS and WP:VNOT, particularly on the subject on certain information not improving an article. WP:WONTWORK also calls out undue weight.

WP:BRD is a very straight forward solution to this.

The statemenst that "Historians believe" is attributed to a source that you yourself have argued is reliable, meaning it is not WP:WEASEL to use the statement that the source itself uses.

This has already been addressed. As mentioned it is indeed still WP:WEASAL language if you are not properly attributing the text. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not WP:WEASEL, despite your persistent insistence that it is. The sentence is cited to a source that uses the language, the views are attributed to a reliable source by the citation. WP:ONUS states Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, your singular opinion in contrary to what was discussed on the talkpage is not consensus. VNOT is the same thing was WP:ONUS, which insists upon consensus. Undue weight calls for removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources. It is not trivia, it is not a tiny minority viewpoint, nor is it material that cannot be supported. You have already violated WP:BRD yourself, which states If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted.. Including a source that explains why Yasuke is considered a samurai and citing that it is what historians believe is not giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint. You are engaging in WP:LAWYERING, and consistently reverting changes that have been agreed upon in discussion is not participating in consensus building, it is potentially engaging in WP:FILIBUSTER and WP:FIXFIRST. BRD Clearly states that it is never a reason for reversion. Brocade River Poems 02:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed WP:WEASEL whether you understand the policy or not.

The sentence is cited to a source that uses the language, the views are attributed to a reliable source by the citation.

No. It recommends attribution by who is saying it, otherwise the source is being attributed to people it does not apply to. This is the literal definition of weasel language. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed with the further context explicitly recommending this: , , and to more clearly attribute individual statements.

WP:ONUS states Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, your singular opinion in contrary to what was discussed on the talkpage is not consensus.

This is an incorrect reading of WP:ONUS by you. WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN very clearly states that the burden of consensus is on the one making the change: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You are demonstrating drastic misunderstandings of even the most fundamental Wikipedia policy pillars, so my advice to you is to take some time to familiarize yourself with them. You will likely find them quite fascinating.

Undue weight calls for removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources.

Correct.

which states If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted

This does not preclude the reverted editor from seeking consensus for his edit, and is the definition of engaging in WP:LAWYERING.

Including a source that explains why Yasuke is considered a samurai and citing that it is what historians believe is not giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint.

It is as that particular source is the only source with that view on how the conclusion was reached.

BRD Clearly states that it is never a reason for reversion.

The reason for the revision, as clearly noted, was the weasel language and lack of due weight. Twisted readings of BRD, simply because you wish to get your edit through without consensus, is not a reason to disregard WP:BRD or any other consensus building processes. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just pedantic. Analysis of the consensus is still part of the consensus

These details matter. The consensus in regards to the "what", but different experts may have differences in how they arrived there. Even if you think something is true, it amounts to editorializing to attribute it to those who have not explicitly stated their reasoning.

And you also provided a bad reason for the revert.

I did not.

I fail to see the reasoning behind this. Again if your problem is what the lead contains instead what it actually says, moving over reverting is much more sensible.

In my view the inclusion was not justified to begin with (note: this is not an implication that you are incapable or unable to do so, just that at the time it wasn't).

This does not mean that the edit is bad, or that the information is bad.

I did not say there was, just that your reasoning that the RfC does prevent editors from removing mentions of the term samurai to an arbitrary minimum that apparently you have decided is fallacious.

This is a strawman and has no one has made the argument. On the contrary, your implication that there need to an arbitrary maximum is fallacious.

I really doubt the removal of repetitions from the lead by BrocadeRiverPoems with this diff can be subjectively considered controversial.

This kind of all or nothing thinking generally isn't productive as it depends on the content of the edit. Instead of depending on binary classifications like this it is best to simply get input from other editors if there are doubts.

I think it is in a decent state now.

The problem I have is that you don't even disagree with the content added

You've mentioned this twice now, and I think it goes without saying, but your personal opinions should not be a factor in the edits you make. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)