Jump to content

Talk:Azawadi declaration of independence

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

Text of Declaration in English

[edit]

I've added a link to the original declaration of independence document in French on the MNLA's website. I also have a self-translated English version on my site, Political Geography Now. If other editors think it would be appropriate to add this to the "External Links" section, please do so. To avoid a conflict of interest, I won't post the link myself. Evzob (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your translation against the French and it looks good to me. I would go a step further and suggest that we include the full of text of your translation in the article in a section titled "Text of declaration" or something similar, assuming you don't mind sharing it directly. But I'm not really familiar with the rules for articles like this, so I'll hold off for a third opinion. Khazar2 (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Including the whole text here might be a bit overkill. A better solution would be to upload the translation to s:Azawad Declaration of Independence at Wikisource and link to it from here with the {{wikisource}} template. TDL (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. Khazar2 (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how the wikiwource would work for translations, etc. But that could be a good idea
Also i havent checked the translation yet, but if there are some differenes can we match it to the words on the page in wikisource (or would that make this a copyvio)? As mine is of-my-head translation (i speak/read some french myself)Lihaas (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okey add this. first time at wikisource, so someone should check it.Lihaas (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to the wikisource text to the article. TDL (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Wikisource page should credit the translator as well? It's potentially a question of accountability as much as credit. Evzob (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no qualms...i jsut dont know how wikisource works...but i translated here first too ;( Lihaas (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you also did an English translation? Is that the one on Wikisource? The attribution should go to whoever did it. Evzob (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and add your attribution, im not sure how to do all this as im new to wikisource
For "my" comment i mant the wording on this WP page in the respective section, but just kidding ;)Lihaas (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, and done. I'm new to Wikisource as well, so anyone is welcome to clean up after me if they know the rules better. I wouldn't suggest the credit if the translation had been created specifically for wiki, but the original intention was to host it mainly on my own site. I have no problem with it being posted to Wikisource though - it's not like I could really claim copyright on something like this. Evzob (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Lihaas has requested a discussion on the inclusion of a link to the actual declaration that Evzob and I would like to include. For me, it's a no-brainer to include a link to the text of the official declaration; there's no reason to make the reader hunt through the references to find this. But I'm up for getting some more opinions here. Khazar2 (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also the EL here is redudnant as the same link is already listed and per EL stuff that can be sourced should be. Its aeasily accessible in the references as its not a bare url. But perhaps the inter-wiki link to wikiwource would help further..
Its not bruning through, its in the guideliens to avoid redundancies. More so when the page is short and easier to see.Lihaas (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I see your point, I guess I see this as more of an WP:ELOFFICIAL case, where it's a link we want to definitively call attention to. Like I said, though, I'm glad to wait for some more opinions. Khazar2 (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about wikisourcing to the english version as accomodation? Its also more relevant to the english version
see abveLihaas (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the new addition seems
Resolved
(if not then feel free to remove this)Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“feel free to remove this”

No. I don't edit other peoples' writings. That does not mean I agree.

The original text of the very subject of this article fully deserves a link to it in this article. Furthermore, the link is to the authentic document, it is a link to the site of the organization who declared the independence. This has more value than the text on a different Web site. And this text is its original language. This is more important than a translation in English — although a translation in English is nice to have too.

--Nnemo (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nnemo. A link to the original version of the document is at least as important as an unofficial and editable translation at Wikisource. --RJFF (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. And someone also needs to indicate ASAP on the Wikisource page that it's an UNOFFICIAL translation - don't want anyone to think that's an officially sanctioned English version. Evzob (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are yall aware that it is already on the page? and an overlinkLihaas (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any obvious link to the original French text of the document on the MNLA website - the reference in the footnotes isn't as easy-to-find as a normal link in an "External Links" section would be. Evzob (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change the wording then? Or quote another source for the article as primary sources are less preferrable anywaysLihaas (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, is there a policy against putting it in both the references and the External Links section? If so, then yeah, I like the idea of replacing the reference with a different source and putting the primary source in External Links. Evzob (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

[edit]

To Azawad Declaration of Independence as its a declaration of a state not the people/language,. Also consistent with kosovo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Lihaas (talk • contribs)

No, see: Category:Declarations of independence. Kosovo is the exception to the rule and should probably be moved itself. We should use the demonym, just like you'd say the "French President" (not "France President") or the "Japanese Parliament" (not "Japan Parliament") or the "Ugandan election" (not "Uganda election") even though all of these are about the state and not the people/language. TDL (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is there a consensus discussion on hthat? Per CCC its nto okey to parrot per OSE.Lihaas (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might have a slight problem with this, as the term "Azawadi" to describe the inhabitants of Azawad does not see widespread usage... --Yalens (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent point. A move may be called for here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo Declaration

[edit]

I've removed the "See Also" to the Kosovo Declaration. While it's another unilateral declaration of independence, we can't list all disputed states here, and this may not actually be the best comparison, since the declaration was "welcomed" by some in the international community, while Azawad has been thoroughly condemned. (A better comparison might be Somaliland.) More importantly, I feel that drawing analogies to any other states--without those analogies appearing in our sources--is a clear violation of WP:OR. Since some other editors clearly feel the same (I'm not the only one to have removed it), I'd ask that this be left out of the article at least pending a source and some dicussion. Khazar2 (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Azawadi declaration of independence. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azawadi_declaration_of_independence&oldid=1205975278"