User talk:Monsore

May 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Al-Biruni. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Wikaviani (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

I don't consider my changes disruptive, I consider them informative. Al-Biruni's grave is located in Ghazni which is present day Afghanistan. Al-Biruni himself supposedly claimed that he even did not know who is own father was. (source: https://www.britannica.com/biography/al-Biruni) So why are you labeling him (very possibly innacurately, as an "Iranian", as if present day "Iran" is the only land mass producing high level scholars? This is false and misleading. He spoke multiple languages, most of the work that he is known for happened while he was in Afghanistan, not IRAN, and he himself NEVER claimed to be an Iranian apparently.

What classifies him as an "Iranian" scholar? According to what measuring stick? Correct this disruptive error of calling him an "Iranian" scholar.

Hi, Monsore, you're a new user and i can understand your lack of knowledge of wiki rules. When you want to edit an article it's better to read the talk page first. What matters here is not your opinion or mine, because Wikipedia works with reliable sources, not with users opinions. If you need any further help, just ping me, i'll be glad to help you. To ping a user, use "username" or "@Username:", see at the beginning of my comment. As an answer to your last questions : "What classifies him as an "Iranian" scholar? According to what measuring stick?", please check the article, there are numerous reliable sources referencing him as Iranian. Please remember, instead of editing articles with your point of view, use reliable sources, discuss the matter on talk pages and ask for help if you need so. Do not forget to sign your comments using the four tildes. By the way, since nobody welcomed you on Wikipedia, let me welcome you on this encyclopedia. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, @Wikaviani:, Thanks for the welcome. I agree that what matters here is not your opinion or mine, because Wikipedia SHOULD works with reliable sources, not with users opinions, because facts are important to establish so that people are not mislead when they are trying learn about something or someone. Regarding your answer to my question :"What classifies him as an "Iranian" scholar? According to what measuring stick?", and having me double check the article, where there were supposedly numerous reliable sources referencing him as Iranian;

-I did check those references at the bottom and most of those references refer to him as generally a PERSIAN in a broader-encompassing sense, not Iranian, so those references located in the article point to the fact that Al-Biruni should be called Persian, which encompasses a greater possibility of his origins, instead of narrowing it down to "Iranian", which is not correct. -Moreover, this supposedly extinct Khwarezmian language that he spoke was "replaced" by a language known as Dari, and Dari isn't spoken by Iranian's it is spoken by people in present day Afghanistan. Dari is the language that supposedly replaced the extinct Khwarizmian language --> . Many people consider present day Dari a much older language/dialect than Farsi or "Iranian". -Moreover, there are other articles splattered across wikipedia providing reliable sources that point to the possibility that Al-Biruni easily be argued to have been from the region of the globe known as Afghanistan today. He was born in the Khwarezm region and that region is argued to be in what is present day Afghanistan . -Moreover, there is a photo of a diagram and illustration made by Al-Biruni on his main wikipedia page which explains briefly the stages of the moon phases and how light from the sun affects these moon phases and how we see them. The writing used to explain it is not "farsi" or Iranian, it is Dari (although the two languages/dialects use a lot of the same alphabet so people who can read one can read the other but might find it weird or different after reading it). He knew multiple languages and was comfortable reading/writing/speaking/conveying his messages and many of them so this would be a moot point regarding his actual origins. -Moreover, I also provided my own reliable Britannica alternative encyclopedia reference which stated that Al-Biruni himself, in a poem that he himself wrote, said that he did not know who is own father was or what his actual origins were. What does wikipedia consider a reliable source? And where does a discussion take place to make the proper corrections to an article that has misleading or false information on it and needs to be corrected?

If his origins cannot be EXPLICITLY and factually (not by testimony) pin-pointed, and even based on the current citations and references, it cannot... then it would be more correct and proper and factual to keep it broad and simply say "persian scholar". Monsore (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Monsore:, The links you're providing are pointing to wikipedia articles, please note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. More, being ethnically a Persian or a Tajik or a Pachtun etc... implies being ethnically Iranian. I think you're mistaken with the difference between an Iranian citizen and being ethnically Iranian. Precisely, since we don't know if Biruni was a Persian, a Tajik, a Pashtun, etc... we must say "Iranian" (ethnically). Any other sub-ethny would be misleading for our readers. See here for reliable sources on Wikipedia. The right place for a discussion about an article is it's talk page, therefore, for Al-Biruni, it's here. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani, If wikipedia is not considered a reliable source then I don't have any contentions with the current state of the articles because..well..they aren't reliable or accurate as you point out. That being the case, at this point I simply want to go through the editing process of an article, trying to correct it to see for myself how this whole "wikipedia editing" process goes and how accurate the end results will be. Also, every wikipedia article has references to the information it contains, so would I not be able to link a wikipedia article and simply point to the external references, or simply just isolate those same external references and point them as if I found them myself? What would be the difference? Please explain this before I begin to find external reliable sources.

According to the dictionary definition of "ethnic group" , and applying those definitions; People who are ethnically Tajik, will not identify themselves as being ethnically "Iranian" and people who identify themselves as ethnically Pashtun or Afghan will DEFINITELY not identify themselves as being ethnically (or otherwise) Iranian either. Just because two different human beings from two different parts of the globe both eat and drink and breathe the same air, doesn't make them part of the same ethnic group, therefore lumping them all into one category of "Iranian" would not be accurate to reality. Otherwise, why not lump them all into one big category called "Afghan"? Who picked "Iranian" as the big umbrella that everything is supposed to fall under. "Persians" and the earliest sources referring to persians, showed up apparently around 10th century BC . The Pashtuns have been around in their exact current location apparently since about 50,000+ years ago . So...explain to me how the Pashtun ethnic group that has been around far longer apparently would fall into the "iranian" or even "persian" ethnic group when they have been around longer than both words even existed, and not the other way around?

Who is making up these categories?

The external references currently in the article suggest the phrase "persian" more than anything else so I would call Al-Biruni a persian..or better yet, just simply say where he is estimated to have been born, where most of his work took place and where he is currently buried at. The general population reading these articles don't know the differences between ethnic and citizenship etc, so why confuse them?Monsore (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You have to isolate the sources as if you found them yourself, but you cannot link a wikipedia article to source another wikipedia article. As to Tajiks, Pashtuns etc.. being Iranians, just take a look at Iranian peoples, i quote :

"Modern Iranian peoples include the Baloch, Gilaks, Kurds, Lurs, Mazanderanis, Ossetians, Pashtuns, Pamiris, Persians, Tajiks, the Talysh, Wakhis and Yaghnobis. Their current distribution spreads across the Iranian Plateau and stretches from the Caucasus in the north to the Persian Gulf in the south and from Xinjiang in the east to eastern Turkey in the west[16]—a region that is sometimes called the Iranian cultural continent—and represents the extent of the Iranian languages and significant influence of the Iranian peoples through the geopolitical reach of Greater Iran"

So, definitely, Tajiks, Pashtuns, etc .. ARE Iranians (ethnically) ... Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani You told me that wikipedia cannot be sourced as reference to prove something, yet you source me a wikipedia article to try to prove something. This is ...seems to be...circuluar, illogical, contradictory, unreasonable, and therefore, unconvincing, and as a result I am still inclined to change or remove or somehow edit the "IRANIAN" call-out for Al-Biruni on his article. If you want me to be okay with your latest reference, you have to go back and re-read and reconsider all the references that I have pointed out that go against what you are saying and referencing, and so far, my references are far more numerous than yours which would logically lead us to call Al-Biruni "Persian" or "Afghan" more accurately, NOT Iranian. My reliable OUTSIDE source (outside wikipedia) was a dictionary source that pointed out that ethnic groups pertain to what people identify as. If a wikipedia article considers me an "Iranian" because I am a Pashtun from Afganistan, that does not mean that I identify myself or consider myself or am an Iranian in any way, by any means, at all, therefore, by definition, categorizing me under the umbrella of Iranian, is not correct or accurate. We all apparently originated from Africa, so call Al-Biruni an African or simply call him a human being if you want to be even more safe. Calling him Iranian is not accurate.

He himself did not know where he was from reference ----> https://www.britannica.com/biography/al-Biruni (OUTSIDE SOURCE)

"Some of the early scholars believed Khwarezm to be what ancient Avestic texts refer to as Airyanem Vaejah (Ariyaneh Waeje; later Middle Persian Iran vij).[6] These sources claim that Old Urgench, which was the capital of ancient Khwarezm for many years, was actually Ourva, the eighth land of Ahura Mazda mentioned in the Pahlavi text of Vendidad.[7] However, Michael Witzel, a researcher in early Indo-European history, believes that Airyanem Vaejah was located in what is now Afghanistan, the northern areas of which were a part of ancient Khwarezm and Greater Khorasan." --->http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/AryanHome.pdf (OUTSIDE SOURCE HARVARD UNIVERSITY...)

The external references currently in the article suggest the phrase "persian" more than anything else so I would call Al-Biruni a persian..or better yet, just simply say where he is estimated to have been born, where most of his work took place and where he is currently buried at. The general population reading these articles don't know the differences between ethnic and citizenship etc, so why confuse them? Monsore (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Monsore, i think you misunderstood what i said about wikipedia; i said Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, this is because everyone can edit this encyclopedia and its content may be the result of vandalism, otherwise it's a very good source for readers. The fact that Pashtuns are eastern Iranians is not the result of any vandalism, this is a well-sourced fact. I do not really understand your insistence, is there a problem with being Iranian for you ? As to your source about Biruni's father being unknown, Britanniaca makes it quite clear, "he said this in the context of demonstrating his total disgust with flattery, even when it was being directed at him." and Britannica itself states that Biruni was a Persian (i.e Iranian). Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Wikaviani, unfortunately what you stated and what your reference stated does not match. Look here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source . "Wikipedia should not be considered a source for 'fact-checking." Your reference states that wikipedia itself is not a reliable source and should not be considered a reliable source for fact checking. If Al-Biruni is called an "Iranian" scholar, I would agree with your reference stating that wikipedia is not a reliable source and would not reference wikipedia as a reliable source to anyone in the future either or consider it a reliable source if it is referenced to me. There is nothing wrong with being Iranian, IF that is actually what you are in reality and factually. The specific wikipedia article categorizes Pashtuns as "eastern Iranians" (and that may have to be edited as well then), and that's great, but the dictionary does not, and neither does numerous other sources that I've referenced that are also "well-sourced facts" that show that Pashtuns have been around far longer than "Iranians", so this misleading categorization is unwarranted and false. Why are you ignoring many of my numerous references (far more numerous than yours)? Is there something wrong with being Afghan or non-Iranian? If Britannica calls him Persian, call him Persian (your (i.e. Iranian) addition is not relevant to what Britannica states.)

And, why did you ignore some of my other references? "Some of the early scholars believed Khwarezm to be what ancient Avestic texts refer to as Airyanem Vaejah (Ariyaneh Waeje; later Middle Persian Iran vij).[6] These sources claim that Old Urgench, which was the capital of ancient Khwarezm for many years, was actually Ourva, the eighth land of Ahura Mazda mentioned in the Pahlavi text of Vendidad.[7] However, Michael Witzel, a researcher in early Indo-European history, believes that Airyanem Vaejah was located in what is now Afghanistan, the northern areas of which were a part of ancient Khwarezm and Greater Khorasan." --->http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/AryanHome.pdf (OUTSIDE SOURCE HARVARD UNIVERSITY...). So if Al-Biruni was born in Khwarzem, and according to Harvard, this is located in Afghanistan, then he would more accurately be called an AFGHAN scholar, not an Iranian Scholar. Monsore (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not ignoring your sources, but they don't contradict what i'm saying to you and i have by no mean any problem with being non Iranian. Al-biruni is a 10th century scholar, there was no "afghanistan" at that time, the region called Afghanistan was a province of numerous Iranian dynasties (Samanids, Saffarids, etc ...) therefore, calling him "Afghan" is nothing else than a wrong statement and your remarks are under WP:OR. The only legit question is : DO YOU HAVE ANY RELIABLE SOURCE CALLING bIRUNI "AFGHAN" EXPLICITELY ? As to your remarks about Pashtuns being "older" than Iranian, i can only disagree with it, because you seem to be thinking that Iranians only exist since 1000 BC, this is wrong. Iranian languages invaders came to what is Iran today ca 1000 BC and imposed their languages to local peoples, this does not mean that Pashtuns have 50000 years and Iranians only 3000 years, i hope you can understand this. Saying that Tajiks, Pashtuns are not Iranians is tantamount saying that Algerians or Syrians are not Arabs. To make it short, do you have a reliable source EXPLICITELY stating that Biruni is Afghan ? if the answer is no, then this discussion is over. However, i would be happy to help you if you need more help. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani I also consider your remarks under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research . I am not trying to categorize Al-Biruni based on citizenship to a country, therefore I don't need to find anything saying that he was an Afghan citizen. I am saying that he should not be categorized within the Iranian ethnic group because it is misleading to the reader and therefore inaccurate. If it is misleading to the reader/audience, then I sure as heck am not going to reference it as an article to anyone in the future, and if anyone references it to me, I will disregard it and find another more credible source, just like what wikipedia itself suggests.

The majority ethnic group that makes up the "afghans" is the group that is called Pashtuns. Pashtuns have been around longer than any "Iranian" categorization has been around. source is the follow, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtuns#History_and_origins . According this reference no one is 100% clear of the origins of the Pashtuns because their origins supersede recorded history, including any "Iranian" categorization. Al-Biruni spoke a dialect and wrote in a dialect similar to the Dari language presently, and this language is spoken where Pashtuns and present day Afghans exist, not where Iranians exist or what Iranians currently speak. Since Al-Biruni was likely born where Pashtuns currently are located, since he spoke the dialects more closely related to what Afghans do today, since most of his work that he is known for was carried out in what is now present day Afghanistan, and since he grave is currently in Afghanistan, I find it absolutely ridiculous that he is being called an "Iranian scholar" on his page. The difference between Tajiks and Pashtuns is that they don't consider themselve or identify as "iranian" ethnically, while Algerians and Syrians don't have a problem ethnically calling themselves Arabs, this is not rocket science (which I can also do).

All current articles and outside sources call him out as a PERSIAN, not an IRANIAN. The change should be made to PERSIAN. It is FAR-less misleading to the reader. Monsore (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If, as you say, "he should not be categorized within the Iranian ethnic group because it is misleading to the reader and therefore inaccurate", why do we have 12 reliable sources in the article stating that he is Iranian or Persian (and again, being Persian implies being Iranian) ??? Since i'm an Iranian from Khorassan, i know Afghanistan and Afghans (our neighbours and welcomed immigrants) quite well, 40% of the population is Pashtun, 25% Tajik and about 15-20% Hazaras (Persian speaking Shia population) but even if we're not sure of the Pashtuns origins, there are many evidences showing close relations with eastern Iranians of Iran and northern Indians (excluding Dravidians) (just have a look at the wikipedia article about the origins of Pashtuns you linked above). Again do you have a reliable source stating that Biruni was Afghan ? it seems quite clear that the answer is NO. By the way, i refuse to make any further comments about your opinion that Pashtuns are an older people than Iranians just because the Wikipedia article is absolutely not supporting this, it says "Excavations of prehistoric sites suggest that early humans were living in what is now Afghanistan at least 50,000 years ago. Since the 2nd millennium BC, cities in the region now inhabited by Pashtuns have seen invasions and migrations, including by Ancient Indian peoples, Ancient Iranian peoples, the Medes, Persians and Ancient Macedonians in antiquity, Kushans, Hephthalites, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, and others. In recent times, people of the Western world have explored the area as well", where do you see that Pashtuns have 50000 years history ??? On the other side i see massive invasions and domination for many centuries of Afghanistan by Iranian peoples and some others. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

–––––––––

Those "12 reliable sources" don't all explicitly state that Al-Biruni was "Iranian", they more generally state that he was PERSIAN, and for clarity for the reader this is an important difference.

source, M. A. Saleem Khan, "Al-Biruni's discovery of India: an interpretative study", iAcademicBooks, 2001. pg 11: "It is generally accepted that he was Persian by origin, and spoke the Khwarizmian dialect"

source, Rahman, H. U. (1995), A Chronology of Islamic History : 570 – 1000 CE, London: Mansell Publishing, p. 167, ISBN 1-897940-32-7, A Persian by birth, Biruni produced his writings in Arabic, though he knew, besides Persian, no less than four other languages

source, * Biruni (2007). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 22 April 2007;

David C. Lindberg, Science in the Middle Ages, University of Chicago Press, p. 18:

"A Persian by birth, a rationalist in disposition, this contemporary of Avicenna and Alhazen not only studied history, philosophy, and geography in depth, but wrote one of the most comprehensive Muslim astronomical treatises, the Qanun Al-Masu'di."

source, L. Massignon, "Al-Biruni et la valuer internationale de la science arabe" in Al-Biruni Commemoration Volume, (Calcutta, 1951). pp 217–219.

"In a celebrated preface to the book of Drugs, Biruni says, "And if it is true that in all nations one likes to adorn oneself by using the language to which one has remained loyal, having become accustomed to using it with friends and companions according to need, I must judge for myself that in my native Khwarezmian, science has as much as chance of becoming perpetuated as a camel has of facing Kaaba."

source, Berggren, J. L.; Borwein, Jonathan; Borwein, Peter (2014). Pi: A Source Book. Springer. p. 680. ISBN 978-1-4757-4217-6. The Persian polymath, al-Birüni, a younger contemporary of Abu'l-Wafa', calculated the perimeters of inscribed and ...

source, S.H. Nasr, "An introduction to Islamic cosmological doctrines: conceptions of nature and methods used for its study by the Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ, al-Bīrūnī, and Ibn Sīnā", 2nd edition, Revised. SUNY press, 1993. pp 111: "Al-Biruni wrote one of the masterpieces of medieval science, Kitab al-Tafhim, apparently in both Arabic and Persian, demonstrating how conversant he was in both tongues. The Kitab al-Tafhim is without doubt the most important of the early works of science in Persian and serves as a rich source for Persian prose and lexicography as well as for the knowledge of the Quadrivium whose subjects it covers in a masterly fashion"

And regarding the reference that shows that human beings have been around in present day Afghanistan far longer than any "iranian" categorization, why did you stop copy pasting the very next sentences conveniently? source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtuns#History_and_origins.

"Most historians acknowledge that the origin of the Pashtuns is somewhat unclear, although there are many conflicting theories, some modern and others archaic, both among historians and the Pashtuns themselves.[38]"

"... the origin of the Afghans is so obscure, that no one, even among the oldest and most clever of the tribe, can give satisfactory information on this point."[39]

"Looking for the origin of Pashtuns and the Afghans is something like exploring the source of the Amazon. Is there one specific beginning? And are the Pashtuns originally identical with the Afghans? Although the Pashtuns nowadays constitute a clear ethnic group with their own language and culture, there is no evidence whatsoever that all modern Pashtuns share the same ethnic origin. In fact it is highly unlikely."[40]

Since no one knows where the Pashtuns came from, academically or otherwise, and since they have been around in the area far longer than any "Iranian categorization", then it can very safely be concluded that Pasthuns have been around 50,000 years, since recorded history, in the area. Who else was there if not the Pashtuns? Magical fairytale creatures? The Iranian categorization didn't exist 50,000 years ago and has nothing to do with the Pashtuns. And I don't know of any "iranian invasion" of the region in Afghanistan, and if it did occur it was definitely not successful. What I do know is that many people have tried to "invade" the region, and all of them have been unsuccessful, including the Greeks, Alexander the great, the mongols, russia, usa, etc. Evidence of this is that no invasion has ever lasted, there are no greeks there anymore, there are no mongols there anymore...so, so much for any so-called "invasions". They all got kicked out and sent back to wherever they came from and humiliated. The people in the region in present day Afghanistan don't like being invaded and are proud of their origins and don't want it to be tainted or tarnished by any foreign forces (and they have proven it all throughout history), including Iranian or otherwise. Pashtuns speak Pashto, not farsi. Do you think a person speaking Pashto will understand a person speaking Farsi? I will tell you, the answer is no. This doesn't mean that being Iranian is bad, but people need to stop trying to claim everything as Iranian, because that can be considered delusional.

Al-Biruni spoke a dialect and wrote in a dialect similar to the Dari language presently, and this language is spoken where Pashtuns and present day Afghans exist, not where Iranians exist or what Iranians currently speak. Since Al-Biruni was likely born where Pashtuns currently are located, since he spoke the dialects more closely related to what Afghans speak today, since most of his work that he is known for was carried out in what is now present day Afghanistan, and since he grave is currently in Afghanistan, I find it absolutely ridiculous that he is being called an "Iranian scholar" on his page. The difference between Tajiks and Pashtuns is that they don't consider themselves or identify as "iranian" ethnically, while Algerians and Syrians don't have a problem ethnically calling themselves Arabs. This combined with the fact that the majority of the current references in the article call him PERSIAN, not IRANIAN (this makes a difference, regardless of your potentially dissident and inconsistent stance).

His article needs to call him a Persian Scholar, not an Iranian Scholar, based on the majority of references that are already being referenced in the article...there is a difference, and keeping it what it currently is, is very misleading to the reader. Regards Monsore (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

For the last time, being Persian implies being Iranian. As to the "failed" Iranian attempts to conquer Afghanistan, see Achaemenid Empire, Parthian Empire, Sasanian Empire and many others and you will see Afghan territory included within these empires. By the way, stop edit-warring on the Al-Biruni article or i will have to report you to an administrator to make sure you stop.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You personal feelings have nothing to do with reality and facts. I've provided relevant reliable sources, multiple actually and you still refuse to make the change. Noted. Yes, they were "failed" Iranian attempts. Just because maps show pretty colors that include certain areas in those pretty colors doesn't mean the region was "invaded" and "conquered". It is also a possibility that the Pashtuns in the region didn't care what you want to write in your delusional history books and just keep doing what they want, while Iranian historians lie about reality, because it seems like Iranians like to draw all sorts of delusional colors and maps and history books. Noted. If corrections are not made, I will attempt to mark this and other articles as "disputed" or something. Thanks bud.Monsore (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Notified

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wikaviani (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Monsore, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Monsore! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Monsore! You created a thread called Disputing an articles information and marking it up a disputed to make sure all readers who visit the article understand to take caution, because other editors are refusing to allow more accurate corrections to be made. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by User:Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)