Talk:Niger/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

"Nigerois"

I've set up a quick user page on the coined "faux-French" term "Nigerois." It is of course not the accepted way to refer to people from Niger, and thankfully its use seems to be in decline. However the history of the term seems worth having a record somewhere that does not validate its use. Anyone having further information on its origin or early usage, please let me know.--A12n (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've lived in Niger for 20 years, but I don't recall ever hearing this word. The article says it was in the CIA Factbook, but I don't recall that either, though I may simply not have noticed it. seberle (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Tourism in Niger

Hi! It would be great if you could create this article: Tourism in Niger!

Perhaps you can draw some inspiration from Tourism in Brazil and Tourism in Germany. :) Use proper sources! Thanks & all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

There is little tourism in Niger, and sources are weak. Why is it important to create hundreds of per-country articles in neat serried ranks? It may be an easy way for some editors increase their count of articles-created, but I think it's much less helpful for readers. bobrayner (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It's important to draw a more comprehensive picture on world tourism. Either you care or you don't, but tourism is developing also in weaker economies. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that more information about tourism in Niger would be important. Such an article should also document historical factors. Tourism used to be more important in Niger, until security factors began curtailing it in the 1990s, and much more so since the war in Mali. Tourism in Saharan countries has traditionally been more popular among the French. --seberle (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4250709.stm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Niger

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Niger's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Geels2006":

  • From Wildlife of Niger: Jolijn Geels (1 August 2006). Niger. Bradt Travel Guides. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-84162-152-4. Retrieved 18 March 2013.
  • From Abalak: Geels, Jolijn (2006). Niger. Chalfont St Peter, Bucks / Guilford, Connecticut: Bradt UK / Globe Pequot Press. ISBN 978-1-84162-152-4.
  • From Diffa: Geels, Jolijn (2006). Niger. Chalfont St Peter, Bucks / Guilford, CT: Bradt UK / Globe Pequot Press. ISBN 978-1-84162-152-4.: pp.227–231 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Life expectancy

It would be helpful if this stat were added. It's 58 yrs for life expectancy at birth, 2012. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN 74.60.161.158 (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2014

REPLACE: "Presidential elections were organized in following months. General Ibrahim Baré Mainassara entered the election as an independent candidate and won the election on 8 July 1996. The elections were widely viewed nationally and internationally as irregular since the electoral commission was replaced in the middle of the election."

WITH: "Presidential campaigns were organized in the months that followed. General Ibrahim Baré Mainassara entered the campaign as an independent candidate and won the election on 8 July 1996. The elections were viewed nationally and internationally as irregular since the electoral commission was replaced during the campaign.

REASON: Talk about a confusion. A campaign day is not the same as an election day. How many ELECTION/VOTING days were there? Can a campaign viewed internationally never be "widely" viewed? WIDELY is redundant. The importance of the issue is not that it happened at in the middle of an election but that it happened during the election. Can when the "middle of an election" or "campaign" ever be determined when some campaigns never end and the campaign for one person or party can easily be mis-associated with another? "Middle of the election" is a colloquialism that is best put to bed since it is vague. The only thing certain about "in the middle of the election" is that it happened during an election. Whether it really was in the middle is probably not the effort at mathematical calculations.66.74.176.59 (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done: [1]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 03:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Reduced number of subheadings in 1990-present part of history

With seven Republics and four military regimes, there were too many subheads for some thirty years of history. I condensed several of them, and also added dates in the subheads. Marfinan (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Niger. 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: 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) 16:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Niger. 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: 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) 15:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate Statistics

Literacy Rate

According to UNESCO, Niger's literacy is even worse than stated in this article. 80.9% of Nigeriens are illiterate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.227.57 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians

The article states: "Religious persecution is rare in Niger which is ranked last (#50) on the World Watch List for severity of persecution that Christians face for actively pursuing their faith."

However, if you follow the link to World Watch List, you'll see that article lists Nigeria at #14 in the "Very High Persecution" category. Even the country ranked #50 (Djibouti) rounds out the end of the "High Persecution" category; I don't think claiming any place on this list, even last place, says good things about a country. This statistic should be corrected and the statement rephrased to indicate that there is in fact significant persecution of Christians in Nigeria.

Adjective form of Niger?

What's the correct form for "the Nigerian town of Agadez", as used by the BBC today [2]?

To my eye, "Nigerian" (of Niger) is too easily confused with "Nigerian" (of Nigeria). Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We'd better change the language to accommodate you, then, Andy. I'll contact the Embassy immediately. Actually, it's your ears that are the problem. The adjective from Niger is "Nigerien". Sounds a bit like "Nigerian". It's a "homophone". I don't think even you can do anything about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.34 (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a homophone. All English speakers I know pronounce it similar to the French, but anglicized: /ni.ˈʒɛr.i.ɛn/ (hope I got the IPA right), something like "nee-ZHAIR-ee-en". (In French it is /ni.ʒe.ʁjɛ̃/.) --seberle (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The BBC page has now been corrected to say "Nigerien". bobrayner (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I have never pronounced it "nee-ZHAIR" like the French. In the US, normal people say "NIGH-dger" like they always have. Only the media says it differently. Kind of like how they randomly started saying Qatar as "cutter" instead of "kuh-TAR." --172.56.28.80 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Who are "normal" people? In my experience, people in the U.S. struggle to pronounce Niger in a wide variety of ways. (I often hear "nigh-JEER," among other things.) I live in Niger and English-speakers here always say "NIGH-dger" or "nee-ZHAIR". I hear both frequently. All English speakers here say nee-ZHAIR-ee-en for the adjective. --seberle (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Niger is being mentioned frequently by both military spokesmen and U.S. TV news announcers (October 2017). The pronunciation they use is invariably not /niːˈʒɛər/ or [/ˈnaɪdʒər/ , and not even /ˈniːʒər/, but /'niːdʒər/ (like "kneejerk" without the final 'k'). I haven't yet heard anybody use the adjectival form, but there's a great potential for 'new' pronunciations. Perhaps this is another example of the strange pronunciations used by many U.S. speakers for words entering the country (e.g. Edinburgh, Iraq, Tottenham). It's not a dialect so much, given that more common words (guitar, nuclear, piano, theater, etc.) are given unusual pronunciations by geographically disparate people.
Whatever the cause, the variations are inconsistent and I think it's best to leave the two current choices alone. Twistlethrop (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that someone has included the pronunciation /naɪdʒɪrɪˈɛn/, which I have never heard. I live in Niger and all English-speakers I know say /niːˈʒɛəriən/ (or /niːˈʒɛriən/, which is practically the same). I googled the top few audio news reports on Niger, and all of them used this pronunciation. There are currently two references listed for the pronunciation: the first no longer exists and the second only lists the pronunciation /niːˈʒɛəriən/. There are no references for the incorrect pronunciation /naɪdʒɪrɪˈɛn/. I will remove the erroneous pronunciation and the missing reference. seberle (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Niger. 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: 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) 14:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Niger. 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: 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) 22:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2017

Humor Editori Programori (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I found an innacurate change here. It's supposed to be Diffa, not Arabs although Diffas are an Arab ethnic group.

Not done for now: The article is technically correct. If anyone else here wants to change this, I will change it (even then you still need sources)Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Niger. 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: 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) 20:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Official name of the Niger in English

The official long form of the Niger in English is not "Republic of Niger", but "Republic of the Niger". The article is essential. http://unterm.un.org/DGAACS/unterm.nsf/WebView/2AFCF776A7E7F35785256DC700440A7A?OpenDocument — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.149.47 (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This is debatable. The official name is in French, which always requires the definite article in such constructions, even where English does not. --seberle (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedic terms?

In the History's section: "Empires and kingdoms in pre-colonial Niger" it is written that: "This mobility, which would continue in waves for several centuries, was accompanied with further migration to the south and interbreeding between southern black and northern white populations." northern "white"? southern "black"? Since when people should follow c.s coon's classification? Honestly, in coon's "white" classification there are even people as dark as a Dinka (I know that these classification are not based on skin complexion, just to make clear that the terms "white" and "black" are non-sense). I know that in the US people say like this but, Wikipedia english shouldn't serve a wider audience? Shouldn't Wikipedia move away from such race related concepts (excepts for specific articles which deal with the matter) ? I ll wait a couple of days for an answer, If no one will answer me then I will delete the "white", "black" categorization and leaving it as: "northern and southern population." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleistinos (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a good point, and I'm not up on the best PC ways to handle this, nor am I expert enough in Niger history to edit this section. People in Niger call them "black" and "red" in their local languages, but labeling the ethnic groups might be more helpful. Just saying "northern and southern" won't help people understand the historic and current racial and cultural tensions between the lighter skinned Berber peoples to the north and the dark-skinned subsaharan Africans in the south. Perhaps more knowledgeable editors can come up with better terminology? --seberle (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

We could write it like this: "This mobility, which would continue in waves for several centuries, was accompanied with further migration to the south and interbreeding between western african and northern african populations."

If we know the ethnic group of the western african population we can, like you suggested, write directly the ethnic names. 

I heard about the "red people" thing, but I would like to know more.

I don't think there are racial tensions. The tensions in the country are more likely religious (islam and traditional faiths) and resource driven conflicts. Race is basically a concept of the "west" (especially US and the Americas). So that the relatively lighter skinned imazighen (in this case Kel Tamasheq/Tuaregs) who, for the most part, lives in SSA (UN definition) are not considered SS-africans because of their ethnic affiliation (afro-asiatic); while their dark-skinned neighbours(for the most part Niger-Kordofanian; Nilo-Saharan are found in the region too) are defined so. Sorry for the late response. Kleistinos (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Niger for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Niger is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Niger until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that it's shaped like a chicken wing?

Seems like an interesting fact. HalMartin (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

no.WisDom-UK (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2020

i want to change the fake of this text to reality. 213.175.126.120 (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but you have to be specific on what you want changed. -- Alexf(talk) 10:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Please correct this

The most common pronunciation is the French one of /niːˈʒɛər/,

This is not the French pronunciation, which is /niˈʒɛʁ/. This is an imitation of the French pronunciation. 89.172.8.118 (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Is the ethnic slur disambiguation at the top necessary?

If the disambiguation text at the top of the article does not even find space to specifically mention the delta or the river of the same name (yes, there is a link to a disambiguation page), is it really necessary to entertain the possibility that the reader is looking for an ethnic slur? It should be seriously considered whether this editorial decision does more to harm than to help. 2607:FEA8:7E0:F0:AC96:571B:7806:894A (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Momo824: from what I can see in the talk page archives, this issue was intermittently discussed in 2008 and 2013. However, I can't see any clear consensus that formed then and the term is still in the hatnote. However, consensus can change and if you are feeling WP:BOLD you can remove the term yourself citing this thread - the worst that will happen is someone reverts you and we start forming a new consensus here. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I edited it. Momo824 (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Momo824. I agree with your edit and this discussion. --seberle (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention

A discussion relating to the name of this article was started by an unregistered IP on my Talk page, following this pending edit revert that I made to the Niger River article on 6 Nov. The IP's argument seems to be largely geopolitical, whereas I am mostly concerned with preventing ambiguity. Calling the river "the Niger" and then also referring to the country as "the Niger" in the same article can only lead to confusion. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I live in Niger, and I have never heard anyone call this country "The Niger." --seberle (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Bordering countries

The top section of the article currently contains the sentence "Niger is bordered by Libya to the northeast, Chad to the east, Nigeria to the south, Benin to the southwest, Mali to the northwest, Burkina Faso to the southwest, and Algeria to the northwest." I think it would be better (= more consistent) to maintain a clockwise order throughout, that is to swap Mali and Burkina Faso. I also think Mali would more accurately be described as bordering Niger to the west (and not to the northwest as per the current version). My suggested rephrasing would therefore be: "Niger is bordered by Libya to the northeast, Chad to the east, Nigeria to the south, Benin and Burkina Faso to the southwest, Mali to the west, and Algeria to the northwest." This is a minor edit, but I can't perform it myself because of the article's protection status - so I'm mentioning it here, in the hope that someone else will take care of it. 2A02:8109:A380:B58:6833:FD93:8CDC:A118 (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done and moved the links to the subtopic. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that using a consistent clockwise description makes sense. Looking on the map, I guess it also makes sense to speak of "Mali to the west" and "Burkina Faso to the southwest." But most of the population of Niger lives near the southern border. So for those of us who live here, we know that events that happen in Mali that affect Niger happen to our north (especially if we live in Niamey). And to get to Burkina Faso, you go west. So I also see why it was written the way it was previously. But I won't argue with the current edit. It also makes sense. --seberle (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2021

Add wildlife of Niger to the main article. 2603:8001:401:63B4:8450:9106:B58B:BBDF (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This is already included in the article. CMD (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Etemology -- Latin?

"niger" is the Latin word for "black man" (nigra is feminine) while "nigrum" maybe the color "black" (or it might be Coracinus or Pullus -- help please).

So I wasn't actually looking for this country ("niger" is not a country but a word, while "Niger" is a country; yet neither should be the exclusive reference in Wikipedia) but interested in the Latin word and it's history (herstory since I'm writing this on march 8th). I suppose it may apply to how Niger got it's name but the french is Noir for black (and was it the french who named this country?). So actually I'd like some more discussion of how/how/why this country was/is named and a little more detailed history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tymes (talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

As the article says, the country is named after the Niger River. The Wikipedia article on the Niger River has a brief discussion of the possible etymology of the river's name, but no one is really sure. The river was known by Europeans from antiquity. --seberle (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one to find the paragraph under "Etymology" (same as under article about "Nigeria") to be a desperate PC dodge worthy of "1984" or North Korea? (I expect this question to be taken down in 5 minutes)

3 hours later and your question still here (paranoia is not cool though, you should check that). If they are the same is because both names have the same origin: Niger River. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for section on science and technology

Hi, just a suggestion, many country articles have sections or subsections for 'science and technology', this could be a section on this article as well. The UNESCO Science Report may be a good place to start and can copied from directly using these instructions.

Thanks John Cummings (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of "Template:Largest cities of Niger"

Template:Largest cities of Niger has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Janajunelle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stipem94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2022

At HDI, change from low to lowest. 2A04:2419:8B05:4700:B1C4:BD54:1EB2:2864 (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The HDI doesn't qualify the ranks as highest/lowest. (CC) Tbhotch™ 16:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2022

The population of Niger is 24.22 Million. Please change the false and outdated population count that is displayed. Mr. Scratch Of JCC (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Search "Niger Population" on google. Mr. Scratch Of JCC (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Please see wp:BURDEN. That's your job. Adakiko (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove (temporal)

The phrases and parts are removed as they needs source, and must be instantly. If to "tag" it, literally anything can be put in and will be allowed, then there would be a sum of content that needs source keep piling up, and does not sound plausible. Btbg (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Removing easily attributable content under the pretence that it's not sourced is unhelpful at best. You're also changing content as you see fit (without an explanation in sight). M.Bitton (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
If it is not sourced, it must be removed, almost in any circumstances, "easily attributable" or not is to each own's evaluation. No content is changed, all are removal of the phrases not sourced, or removal of some words or phrases that sound unsuitable to the encyclopedic tone. Btbg (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
My guess is that you don't understand what attributable means, so I suggest you familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works before creating more damage than you already have. M.Bitton (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand what it is in your sense, some words have multiple layers of interpretation depend on circumstances. It would be more helpful that you can interpret what you mean more specifically, perhaps? I'm not sure on what sort of "damage" have been done, either. Btbg (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I already left comments on your talk page that you ignored, along with the various warnings that were left by myself other editors. Reading those should help. 14:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I have read it, it does not sound like there is anything helpful with the "easily attributable" content that is not sourced or such. Btbg (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The content is not sourced or such. It doesn't sound like you want to specify the "easily attributable" part of content that needs source and it doesn't sound like you want to talk in general. If you don't respond after another 20 hours, I will restore the change. Btbg (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
In that case, let me make it very easy for you: should you add WP:OR, change or delete anything without giving a valid reason or dare to edit war (which is what you're promising), I will not hesitate to report you. Btw, I'm not your teacher, I don't owe you a thing, and given the attitude, I don't feel like going out of my way to help you. M.Bitton (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
The reason given is valid enough: the phrases removed are not sourced. Nothing in there is related to the link you gave about "original research", because I don't add or make any new claim, or phrase whatsoever. What I did is change the writing and some words of some sentences so as that they suit the encyclopedic tone, that is another totally valid reason that follows the encyclopedic guildline. This type of change is done commonly and by many. You are likely the single one who is currently and constantly getting exasperated over such normal changes for no reason. I don't have an obligation to add every single pieces of what is changed and to explain too intricately to you because the reasons for every pieces are the same: they are not sourced and they does not suit the encyclopedic tone. If you want me to do so, then you, as an objector to the change, have the obligation to specify any part that you object, if you fails that, you don't have any right to ask me to do much more than you whatsoever. I understand that I initiate the change and I'm sort of required to explain sort of more. But, that doesn't mean you can act like a big boss, demanding people to do much much more than you, why you yourself literally don't move a finger or only make negligible moves, as well as giving small, vague questions and demands to others, so to give yourself an false image of a higher position. You don't own this written work. This is an environment of cooperation and both sides are required give the same effort of explanation, no one is the boss and has the right to demand others to explain much more than themselves. If your question is vague, then I answer it vaguely like what I did above. If you asked in more details and more specifically, I will answer it specifically to the parts you asked, I am ready to satisfy you that way, so for the case you understand your position and mine, equal contributors.
Btbg (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

M.Bitton, the writing problem here is that the words in some sentences and phrases do not suit the encyclopedic tone hence these are changed/tuned. Other than that, removed phrases are all about being not sourced. This is very basic change, I wouldn't do this if I haven't seen this done. Please ignore and let me have a time and edit at least other articles, sure if not this or some articles. We will see if my edit is really unjustified or wrong or not, anyone would have come up and revert them, not only up to you. But up to now you are the most and only one persistently or randomly get after me and have problems with my changes. Btbg (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a claim that you need to substantiate using more than the meaningless "changed/tuned", especially when doing things like changing "in today's Nigeria" into "in what later is Nigeria" (just one example among many). There is nothing basic about removing easily attributable content (such as the culture section that you obliterated) without providing a valid reason. Do you really need a source for Guérewol and Cure Salee? You got away with some of your edits because, so far, you only edited low traffic articles; try similar edits on United Kingdom or United States and see what happens. While I'm not the only editor who reverted your unjustified content removal, I asked you on more than one occasion to justify them. M.Bitton (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
We needs source for every phrases and paragraphs. People are not mandated to click on other article links to read the sources from there. "Today" is too general and can always change, so using the latter phrase is a more stable alternative. Btbg (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
1) No, we don't need reliable sources for every sentence and paragraph. 2) You explanation regarding the "today" doesn't hold much water. M.Bitton (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
1) Why don't we need? 2) Why doesn't it hold water?; "today" always change, so it's not accurate and legitimate to use that term. You are just commenting and criticizing my statements without giving further explanation and details. Btbg (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
That's how Wikipedia works. You need to provide a convincing argument and seek consensus for your change (not the other way round). M.Bitton (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. Can you explain why "today" can be used, and why "we don't need reliable sources for every sentence and paragraph"? Please focus on what I'm asking above. Btbg (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I already explained to you that we don't need sources for content that is easily attributable. Do you need a source to prove that Paris is the capital of France? No and anyone who asks for one is just being unnecessarily difficult. I already explained the rest. M.Bitton (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, because there are cases which the capital changes, we need sources for anything, including "Paris is the capital of France". And there are readers, like very young kids, may not know or heard that fact despite it being a common knowledge to many others, so yes, everything needs source. Btbg (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
In that case, you're welcome to add them.
Am I also welcomed to remove them, yes? If not, why? Btbg (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
No, you cannot remove them without providing a valid reason. M.Bitton (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Removing content not sourced is a valid reason because people read it don't know where that content comes from. Why is it not a valid reason? Btbg (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Why would you remove "Paris is the capital of France"? M.Bitton (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Because it is not sourced, and some readers who don't know that before want to make sure that the statement is trustworthy. Btbg (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Let me try another way: why not just add a source if you're that concerned? M.Bitton (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I'm unable to find one? And I'm not sure if the source I find is trustworthy? And other reasons? Btbg (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Sticking to the same example: finding a source that says "Paris is the capital of France" is easy, the question is: have you tried? M.Bitton (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I have tried and I have found some sources. For that example, yes, it is easy to add to that. But for some examples is another story, which is harder to find, that makes you uninterested in finding them, and removing the content not sourced is the mandatory and temporary step before anything else. Btbg (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
So you claim, but I very much doubt that you looked for the sources (especially, for the examples that I have cited above). M.Bitton (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
If you found the sources for example above, you can spend the time adding them if you truly care, and I will not remove them anymore. I personally saw a content not sourced then I just removed it, as a random reader, because I don't know where that comes from. Why would a reader who is reading this page spend the time looks for another source just to check the trustworthiness and read the same content? Btbg (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a difference between a reader and an editor. The latter has certain responsibilities, which among other things, include spending time reading and understanding how Wikipedia works. M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
We don't have the responsibility to find a source to add to content we read that is not sourced. We, as readers and editors, have two options that is our rights to do: to remove it (option 1), or to waste time to find another source just to keep what has been read (option 2). if you choose the option 2, that's your choice. I choose option 1, because of certain reasons, and I have the right to do so, before I do anything else that I may be interested. Btbg (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Since you're obviously here to "teach the rules", there is nothing else I can possibly say to you. I'm done trying to reason with you. M.Bitton (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's you who is the first to lecture me about the rules and who lead me to talk about the rules in this talk page. If rules has to be talked about to deal with the article's content, then so be it. "Done trying to reason" with someone is not a valid way to escape your responsibility. You revert a fellow editor, you have the responsibilty to talk to them and consitently participate until that consensus is reached to settle the issue. If you stop discussing just because some of their comments does not satisfy the way of your logic, you don't have the right to prohibit any editor from continue editing. Btbg (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You're going to discuss or not, or keep reverting without discussion? Btbg (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What needed to be said has been said. Nonetheless, I will repeat for you one last time: the onus is on you to provide a valid reason for content that you delete and to seek consensus for any content that you change. These are the rules that I don't have to talk about ad nauseam with you.
Pinging an experienced admin who may have better luck getting the message across: @Doug Weller: time and everything else permitting, could you please have a look at this case as I have ran out of things to say to this editor who's doesn't seem to understand that easily attributable content (ex: mentions of Guérewol, Cure Salee, Hausa, Zarma-Songhai, etc) should not be deleted without providing a valid reason? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the onus is on me to provide the "valid" reason, but valid according to who, you? I already explained that the removed content needs source. Is that not valid enough? You asked me to provide valid reason, but you don't ask in further details which needed to be provided, then how do I or anyone answer it to you properly? Btbg (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I will have to sum this up for M.Bitton to understand. There are only 2 main types of these changes across articles: 1) remove sentences not sourced 2) change the writing and words of sentences and remove some opinion pieces so as to suit the encyclopedic tone, as well as cutting some repeated sentences and statements that seems superfluously lengthy to make it more concise. Every changes are for just those two reasons. If you ask, please ask in details which part you would like to question; you just need one sentence for a question. You can't demand me per a vague question to explain every pieces of what is changed. I will explain every change, that is if you ask in more details. If I have to explain every change/removal without knowing further details then the reason I would say for each change would just be the same (restricted to the two simple reasons above), and that doesn't help you anything. Btbg (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

And yet User:Mako001, User:Hey man im josh and User:Moxy have given you warnings. I'll sum up by saying that if this continues, you'll be blocked. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the policies, I found these 2 links for you that make the 2 reasons for the change above valid: 1) this said about the onus of the reason above, it said "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", so that means I can choose to remove, if you want to restore, it's your onus, and 2) this said about the change of writing of sentences even if attributed to sources, so there's nothing original research like you claim, the content is mandated to be tuned to suit the encyclopedic tone and may differ slightly from how it is written in the source, this applies regularly.

Why don't you explain about why my statement about the change from "today" to "what later is" "doesn't hold much water"? You then asked another thing. Right, please talk and finish that part first, then you will very likely understand the rest of the changes.

It is ad nauseam of course because you did not actually explain anything or make any countering point, saying unclearly or changing the subject doesn't help, it's for someone who don't want to discuss or is trying to milk the discussion to make it a stalemate. If you feel tiresome and afraid of discussion, you can withdraw, however then, you don't have the right to prohibit any editor from continue editing by reverting without discussion. Btbg (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Niger/Archive_2&oldid=1220043506"