Talk:Ottoman Empire

From Citizendium
Revision as of 07:38, 25 March 2011 by imported>David Finn (→‎Reversion)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition An empire, informally the Turkish Empire, that dominated most of the Middle East from the 14th to early 20th century. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories History, Politics and Geography [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English


I have created this section in anticipation of the discussion that is warranted by the reversion that has been performed on my edits to this article, in the absence of that discussion being initiated by the reverter. I have also reinstated my contributions to the article pending that discussion. See this section specifically on standardisation of articles for my concerns about the article and this section on the reversion process. Also this section, particularly the part about "Resolving content disputes among authors", and finally here is a quote from CZ:The Author Role - "Authors take pride in their work, but all articles are owned and managed by the whole community. We all take responsibility, and mostly we negotiate (on talk pages) to a mutually acceptable compromise." David Finn 12:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

At least with my screen (large) and my eyes, the map is currently obviously much too small. I'd say it could be enlarged considerably without interfering with text.
On the other hand, could it move to a "map" subpage? Or be labelled "click to enlarge"? Either of those lets us have a large version without interfering with text. Sandy Harris 13:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't yet read this or gone through the history, but I'm glad to help. While I'm not especially expert on the Ottomans, although I do know one nonmember -- also a combat engineer so be nice to him -- I'm more steeped in the Arab Revolt and other reactions to the breakup of the Empire. Nevertheless, as a History Editor, can I help in some gentle way? Howard C. Berkowitz 14:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Certainly Howard, Editor input would be most welcome. The question however is not one of content but of presentation - is it desireable to have a fullpage map within an articles body, especially given the principle of standardisation of articles? I don't recall seeing a 700px image used in any article on CZ so far. Normally we use pictures to enhance text, but it appears that this picture is to be used in place of text. It seems to me that, as Sandy suggests, if someone wants to enlarge the image they may simply click on it, and we could say that underneath the image. It also seems to me that it should be more desireable to incorporate text found in images into articles, rather than use larger pictures instead of article content. I am interested in your views as an Editor and member of the EC. I think that Sandys suggestion of a subpage for maps is a good one. Subpages are a standard CZ remedy, but the use of fullpage pictures in articles is not one I have encountered so far. David Finn 15:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I have made an editorial decision. There is no text and the map is not readable in small form. Furthermore, even with text I would recommend the map be there in large format for usability. The motivation in removing this is not apparent, and open to conjecture that I shall not engage in. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately you are not an Editor on CZ and therefore have no authority to make Editorial decisions. I have already engaged an Editor and member of the EC - your reversion without discussion is therefore inappropriate. I have no recourse but to report this matter to the Constabulary. David Finn 18:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that you ask the EC whether I am an editor or not. YOu, on the other hand, are on probation and should be aware of it. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
An informal comment by the Secretary of the EC: as far as I know, only one Citizen, User:David E. Volk, has ever asked FORMALLY to have one of his two Editorships removed from his record. This was done, fairly recently, but I forget exactly what the process was. As far as I know, unless an Editor makes a formal request in the way that David did, an Editor remains an Editor as long as he is a contributing member of CZ. Since Martin is indeed a contributing member, then I presume that he is also an active Editor. I suppose that if a Citizen disagrees with this informal statement, he/she could make a formal request for a decision from the EC about the status of any given Editor but, unless he/she had strong supporting evidence for his/her view, it is doubtful that the EC would consider the request. Hayford Peirce 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
From Martins userpage, where all active Citizens are required to post their biography: "Martin Baldwin-Edwards was an Editor in Economics, Politics and Sociology on Citizendium. He also served as a member of its first Editorial Council and was Secretary of the second-constituted Council. At this time he remains a Citizen but is not active as an Editor.".
From the forum: "As of today, I have resigned from the Editorial Council and will no longer participate in CZ. I have to say that I am very disappointed with the conservatism and lack of vision of the EC. It has been an uphill struggle to do the most basic of things, and still there is no effective control of qualification as an editor, no effective dispute resolution procedure, and many other issues which have not been addressed. The worst sin, in my book, is that there is no quality control over CZ content. I have attempted to remedy this, and have had no support at all other than from the Ombudsman. I wish CZ luck, but it will need it."
I am not sure that you are correct about any of that, Hayford. I believe I have tried to follow CZ principles, quoting them even where appropriate, and your remarks address, as I see it, none of the issues that spawned this conversation, and may not be in line with the Charter. Pending Constabulary input I shall consider your offer of a formal request to the EC and thanks to Howard and Sandy for at least discussing the issues. David Finn 22:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(undent) See the constable comment section below. D. Matt Innis 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Those who object to the way in which the CZ councils operate, and continually argue about interpretations of the Charter, should stand for election as they are entitled to do. Telling everyone your own interpretation of everything, especially given your short time here, is very irritating and unhelpful to your own case. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Daniel says Joel Williams, who's actually been banned, nevertheless remains an editor under the Charter till he's removed by the EC, even though he can't actually exercise his functions. If he's right then you remain one, as even do inactive ones, contrary to what Hayford says above. However, you could be criticized for inconsistency in still saying on your user page that you no longer act as an editor while trying here to do just that. Peter Jackson 10:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
There is some inconsistency on my part. I wrote my userpage comment, and since then have merely acted as an author. However, I have the right to act as editor when I choose to do so. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, now I think about it, it's not clear that your ruling is currently allowed under PR-2010-024 at [1]. Peter Jackson 17:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
My bio was readable on the Talk page. I left it there because it is important that editors who have approved articles should have a visible bio. Any complaints about this are legalistic bunkum, but I have restored my bio page on request. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It isn't legalistic bunkum, but lest you think I am merely being objectionable, let me explain.
Some time ago Mary Ash removed her bio out of concerns for personal security, and the Charter provided insufficient guidance over the matter. The question was put, must Citizens retain a copy of their bio on their userpage?
That discussion was held on the Forums and the conclusion was that Citizens should retain a bio on their userpage as, while not a Charter requirement, pre-Charter policies would still provide guidance until ruled on by the Council.
That ruling came, as Peter has shown, after much discussion and ammendment at the EC, and the conclusion verified that for Editors a userpage bio must be shown, and it is clear that the bio should be on the userpage itself.
Now to me that isn't legalistic bunkum, but a great example of a situation where the Charter provided insufficient advice and the Councils, following discussion on the Forums, took action to make the advice very clear.
I don't think it was unreasonable to question your Editor status because the EC already made such a clear ruling about it. That is different from questioning your ability to act as an Editor, and at the end of the day your userpage bio, at that time, did say that you were not an Editor. The important thing for CZ is that now all active Editors have a bio displayed. David Finn 13:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Map subpages

There are definitely times when a full-page map would make sense. Now that Martin has given me a way to get PDF into JPEG or PNG, there are some excellent but large maps. For example, I'm on the mailing list of the UN Logistics Mission in Sudan, and it really isn't feasible to reduce their size or crop.

Could we come up with a suggestion for a motion for map subpages, not in huge detail, which could be submitted to the EC? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Map subpages are definitely a good idea. Can they not be made individually? I thought we could make our own subpages (maybe I am deluded). In this article, as there is no text anyway, the issue doesn't arise. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Some people are opposed to user-defined subpages, and I'd rather get agreement and, perhaps, a style guide. Perhaps other subpages should be addressed, such as code samples for programming and computer configuration. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I made one for Maps, but there is no way of linking to it from the menus at the top. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that the addition (creation) of new subpages has to be decided on at a fairly high level (MC? EC?), and then a sysop or someone has to do it. I myself think that this is a wise measure -- I don't think that we want random Citizens creating subpages more or less at random as their whim takes them. What was the process for the Recipes subpage? I know that it did not exist at some point, and then it *was* created, but only after, say, Larry OKed it. Hayford Peirce 00:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems like such a reasonable request. I'd think the EC should have the say on this one, with a request from the geography people (in a perfect world--no pun intended). D. Matt Innis 00:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It's content and therefore an EC decision. You need to pass something and then instruct the MC to do it. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
That's the way it appears to me. Someone who's interested, please submit a proposal to the EC and I'll take the next step. Hayford Peirce 01:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Proposal email sent to Hayford. Quick searches on both wiki and forums failed to turn up the EC Suggestion Box; maybe it needs to be made more obvious. Sandy Harris 02:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Like a lot of CZ functions, this is not particularly intuitive, and is just about 100% impervious to Searches -- this drives ME batty, also. But there is a certainly rationality to it: you go to the lefthand pane of CZ pages, click on Personnel, then from there to Editorial Council, then about halfway down the page to Suggestion Box at Then when you send a Suggestion it goes directly to my own personal email account -- it didn't used to, there was a dedicated email box somewhere else, but it mistakenly got deleted in the course of some technical doings and it would have been prohibitive to try to reinstate it. In any case, I see that you have indeed sent me an email -- I'll read it in a moment. Hayford Peirce 03:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Constable comment

It seems that things may be working themselves out here. I might add that the Ombudsman has made an interpretation of the charter that may apply:

Per the Ombudsman interim decision,

  • “An editor should exert "authority" rarely. If an editor is also acting as an author on a particular article, then he or she should take care to exert authority only on issues where his or her professional expertise is clearly relevant. Many issues about articles are not relevant to an editor's specialist expertise. Some (e.g. citation styles, naming conventions etc.) may be determined by the workgroup policy. Others (including issues of presentation, writing style, level, and tone) should be settled if possible by discussion between the collaborating authors and editors as equals.“
  • "The constables must ensure that authors can contribute without domineering oversight, and without being subject to offensive attack. They have to act fairly, and that means they have to treat all Citizens as equally deserving of respect when considering the facts of the matter; as enshrined in the Charter, the rules apply equally to everyone."

D. Matt Innis 23:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Threatening a Citizen that he is under probation and needs to watch his step is not offensive attack?
I note, however, that nowhere in the Charter is language that indicates the Ombudsman has authority to interpret it. While I recognize that you and Gareth believe this to be the case, I do not believe it to be so. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I do not think the ombudsman can issue authoritative interpretations, like US Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution which are binding on everyone including both President and Congress. I would, though, take his pronouncement at roughly the level of a lower court's interpretation in the US system, precedents which will likely influence future discussion and decision, but are not binding and may be overturned on appeal.
More generally, I think we all have a hand interpreting the charter. Presumably the Councils have the final say; I'm not sure exactly how. In the meanwhile, anyone is entitled to an opinion. Personally, I'd give extra weight to an opinion from ME, Ombudsman or Chief Constable, but not to one from a Council member or ex-member, since they do not represent the Councils here. Sandy Harris 01:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Curiously, the US Constitution doesn't actually say the Supreme Court has the power to make authoritative interpretations. The Court simply assumed that power and it was generally accepted (apart from my presidential namesake's deportation of an Indian tribe in violation of a Supreme Court ruling). Peter Jackson 10:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Howard: I reminded a Citizen on probation who challenged my own status, that it is his in question not mine. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)