Talk:Hazza bin Sultan Al Nahyan

Article

Hi Alexandermcnabb, maybe you could turn this into an article using sources like this. Currently, it is a redirect to that section, since it is about him, particularly why he was prominent for the area, and turning this into an article would require more time and effort. Leo1pard (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC); edited 05:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Leo1pard I'll try and get to it tomorrow! Thanks - Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb Do you need help? Leo1pard (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC); edited 05:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Leo1pard Another 4-5 hours per day would be handy... I'll get around to it, honest! By all means start without me... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Leo1pard There we go! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb What are you doing? First the thing about pages not being clear, when in fact they were already, and messing up references (like scattering them out based on particular pages in the same chapter, when it is easy to just group them together like "25–46" for example, and what kind of a format is ".|last=Said.|first=Zahlan, Rosemarie|date=2016|publisher=Taylor and Francis|year=|isbn=9781317244653|location=|pages=43", considering that last and first should look like this: "|last=Zahlan |first=Rosemarie Said") and then claim "create your own damn page", when in fact this page is mine? Leo1pard (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC); edited 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Leo1pard You've already been told by an admin: "Books need page numbers besides the usual title, author, publisher, ISBN." Citing the pages WITHIN the Liwa article gives an accurate source to the fact being quoted in the article. Lumping them all together under a page range means anyone who wants to check the citation has to pick through the whole article. The citations I have added to the article I WROTE AS PER YOUR REQUEST TO ME ABOVE have been done in Visual Editor and that's how they come out. It's invisible to the reader, I don't know why you're getting flustered about it. And it's not YOUR or anyone's page (again, another editor has commented to you on ownership behaviour), it's CC and open/free to anyone to add to, challenge or change. However, having asked me to write the page (I still don't know why, you could/arguably should have done it yourself), crashing around unpicking the work I did could be construed as simply bad manners. Those citations took time to locate and put in and are accurate. They should stay in as per WP:CITE. Once again, as another editor has already commented to you, "Is space a higher value than granularity? - General advice: don't put so many changes in one edit." and I'd also echo that advice. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb I already gave page numbers, besides the chapter, so that readers would not have to go through the whole article, and once again you messed up this reference, by putting in date and year, putting full stops here and there, using 'pages' even if only one page was used, and wrongly arranging the first and last names of the author, Rosemarie Said Zahlan, and yes, space can be more important than granularity, depending on what it means for the size of the article. If every article had to be styled the way that you would split up common references based on pages, then even the largest articles would be much longer than required. If I had known that you would keep the article untidy like this, then I would not have asked you for help, and you have been rude and unfair in 2 ways:

1) Telling me "create your own damn page", when in fact I created this page

2) "don't put so many changes in one edit." and I'd also echo that advice." When in fact you do that yourself, and I justify why I make major changes, there are reasons for that. It is alright to make major edits, with justification, and if it deals with cleaning the article up, like tidying up references, there is no rule prohibiting that, even bots may do that, like in this case. If it however deals with massive removal of referenced content (rather than uniting references if they are the same, or deleting or modifying unreferenced content), then I would be careful about that. People often make massive changes if they need to, it is not prohibited to do that. What is prohibited are things like obscuring WP:verifiability, which you have done be confusing between parts of the name of this author, and stating the pages and chapter of a reference used more than once in an article like this, is not a case of obscuring verifiability, because readers can see what the chapter and the range of pages are, without having to go through the whole article, which you repeatedly gave the impression was not the case, even if I had given the page numbers beforehand. Leo1pard (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Leo1pard I'm done arguing. You created a redirect and requested me to write the article. I really don't know why I bothered. Each citation has a page number, which is where you'll find the fact in question. Each verifiable fact or assertion requires a citation, with its page number, which is precisely what I have done. The more granular and verifiable a citation is, the better. Obscuring citations by using a page range when you can be more precise is not helpful. If you don't like it, take it to an admin or get consensus from a more experienced editor. It's.not.your.article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb It's not a matter of liking it or not, as it is, I decided to keep the "split up" formats of the first reference due to your insistence, the fact is that you remove or distort references. This is wrong. Leo1pard (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC); edited 06:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb Stop your repeated acts of vandalism. Even if it is not a journal, you have shown disregard by distorting the references once more. How many times do Doug Weller or I have to tell you to stop doing things like this? You may have survived this because a non-administrator closed it and the attention was diverted to the use of the word 'damn', but do not think that this means that you can continue this WP:disruptive behaviour in which you show disregard for references. Leo1pard (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC); edited 16:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR

• Leo1pard, per WP:CITEVAR, you must get consensus before changing the original citation style of an article. You've been violating this and edit-warring over it since mid November: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. There is no consensus to change it, and there is consensus to retain the original citation style. If you change this again you will be reported to a noticeboard. Softlavender (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender Actually, despite that reversion, you have done me a favour by doing things that I wanted to do, which the other user opposed, despite trying to talk to him about this, in the section above. For example:

1) I complained to him that where one page is used, then the formate should be 'page', not 'pages', and you did that, changing 'pages=25' to 'page=25', and so on.

2) I complained that the article was cluttered with the same reference being repeated over again, just over different page numbers, and you have helped to consolidate them.

3) I complained about the way references were detailed, such as first and last names of Rosemarie Said Zahlan being in the incorrect position, which you corrected or the wrong details being used in different places, like the year '1941' being in a section for the author's last name, and you corrected that, and removed full stops that I had said were unnecessary.

Therefore, much of what you have done recently in the name of WP:CITEVAR actually supports my position against the other user, so though you addressed me, your argument about WP:CITEVAR is practically against his edits, in which he for example distorted details of references like the first and last names of R. S. Zahlan or put unnecessary full stops here and there, not mine, so as per your edits, he's the one who violated WP:CITEVAR by making edits that both you and I oppose, not me. Leo1pard (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC); edited 07:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read WP:CITEVAR, because you are making things up about it. WP:CITEVAR reads: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change.. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No, you have supported what I was talking about, like correcting the name of Zahlan, according to the rules, therefore your changes are mostly in support of me, not him. This is not about personal preference, it is about the correct way of styling references, like the first and last names of the authors, and you have supported me in that. Leo1pard (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC); edited 08:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

And since your edits are mostly in support of what I wanted, not him, I hope you don't mind me using the shortened footnote template '', to further consolidate references, since this was mentioned by another user to me. Leo1pard (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

References

If you violate WP:CITEVAR by doing that, you will be reported to a noticeboard. Indeed, if you make any further changes to the citations in this article, you will likely be reported to a noticeboard. Softlavender (talk)

Softlavender You made changes that I desired, such as correcting the name of Zahlan, so stop saying that I violated WP:CITEVAR, because that would mean that you have violated WP:CITEVAR by making those changes that I asked for. Leo1pard (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC); edited 09:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR states: Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. (underlining mine) I have not changed the style of any citation. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

somebody upload pic

can somebody please upload pic ? Sakura6977 (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

RP format for de-cluttering

@DougWeller and Elmidae: Would you mind if I de-clutter the same references that have been separated by another user on the basis of page numbers, thus helping to reduce the length of the article? Take the references by Shamsa Hamad Al-Dhahiri for instance:

Sheikh Hazza bin Sultan Al Nahyan (Arabic: ٱلشَّيْخ هَزَّاع بِن سُلْطَان آل نَهْيَان, romanized: Ash-Shaykh Hazzāʿ bin Sulṭān Āl Nahyān) was the brother of Sheikh Shakhbut bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Ruler of Abu Dhabi from 1928 to 1966, and Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Ruler of Abu Dhabi from 1966 to 2004 and the UAE's first President. Hazza was the Ruler's Representative in the Western Region of Abu Dhabi.

...

Hazza was born in the period 1905-1907 in the Western Abu Dhabi village of Mujib, the second son of Sheikh Sultan bin Zayed bin Khalifa Al Nahyan and Sheikha Salama bint Butti, an influential lady from the tribe of Al-Qubaisi. Sheikh Sultan would go on to rule Abu Dhabi from 1922-1926. Shakhbut was his elder brother. Sheikh Salama, alarmed by the family history of fratricide, made all four of her sons swear not to harm each other.

So the references are the same, but separated by page numbers. What I would propose is a format like this:

Sheikh Hazza bin Sultan Al Nahyan (Arabic: ٱلشَّيْخ هَزَّاع بِن سُلْطَان آل نَهْيَان, romanized: Ash-Shaykh Hazzāʿ bin Sulṭān Āl Nahyān) was the brother of Sheikh Shakhbut bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Ruler of Abu Dhabi from 1928 to 1966, and Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Ruler of Abu Dhabi from 1966 to 2004 and the UAE's first President. Hazza was the Ruler's Representative in the Western Region of Abu Dhabi.

...

Hazza was born in the period 1905-1907 in the Western Abu Dhabi village of Mujib, the second son of Sheikh Sultan bin Zayed bin Khalifa Al Nahyan and Sheikha Salama bint Butti, an influential lady from the tribe of Al-Qubaisi. Sheikh Sultan would go on to rule Abu Dhabi from 1922-1926. Shakhbut was his elder brother. Sheikh Salama, alarmed by the family history of fratricide, made all four of her sons swear not to harm each other.

Leo1pard (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Err... no opinion on that, and I'm not sure why I was pinged. I'd note that the preferred format for this kind of sourcing (same work but different page numbers) is short format citation, which may also be acceptable to Alexandermcnabb. Suggest you two sort that out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy ping, Elmidae, which is clearly more than Leo1pard was going to afford me, "another user". For the record, I really do not support the waste of oxygen in these tendentious circumlocutions. There are different points made in different page numbers. If WP:SFN works, then fine use that format. Having gone to the bother of sourcing different facts from different parts of the same publication, I am only keen that those facts remain easy and quick to reference. This argument does seem to me to be a little bit bonkers. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If you hadn't repeatedly messed up details of the references ([9] [10]), like changing "|pages=25–46" to "|pages=25", and "|last=Zahlan |first=Rosemarie Said" to "|last=Said.|first=Zahlan, Rosemarie", or been so rude as you were, even though I repeatedly tried to reason with you, including in this talk-page ([11] [12]), then I would not have to think twice before talking to you again, about changes to this article, but I am glad that you agreed to what Elmidae mentioned. Leo1pard (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"Leo1pard You've already been told by an admin: "Books need page numbers besides the usual title, author, publisher, ISBN." Citing the pages WITHIN the Liwa article gives an accurate source to the fact being quoted in the article. Lumping them all together under a page range means anyone who wants to check the citation has to pick through the whole article. The citations I have added to the article I WROTE AS PER YOUR REQUEST TO ME ABOVE have been done in Visual Editor and that's how they come out. It's invisible to the reader, I don't know why you're getting flustered about it. And it's not YOUR or anyone's page (again, another editor has commented to you on ownership behaviour), it's CC and open/free to anyone to add to, challenge or change. However, having asked me to write the page (I still don't know why, you could/arguably should have done it yourself), crashing around unpicking the work I did could be construed as simply bad manners. Those citations took time to locate and put in and are accurate. They should stay in as per WP:CITE. Once again, as another editor has already commented to you, "Is space a higher value than granularity? - General advice: don't put so many changes in one edit." and I'd also echo that advice. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)" You really do need to take some time out, IMHO... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb Regardless, that does not hide what you were doing, that is screwing up details like first and last names of an author (like by changing "|last=Zahlan |first=Rosemarie Said" to "|last=Said.|first=Zahlan, Rosemarie"), and I certainly did not request you to do something like that, so you being like how you were in late 2018, thus justifying my decision not to mention you to talk about issues related to this page! That's why I would think twice before mentioning you! Leo1pard (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

References