Jump to content

Talk:Joyce Banda

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jenrow.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acting President or President?

[edit]

Shouldn't Banda be President of Malawi? GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the citations for this? The is apparently a power struggle under way, has she made a speech in which this has been announced - the death claim still has not been confirmed by anyone willing to give their name?? All a bit premature imo - Youreallycan 18:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just curious about how the succession works. Does the Vice President become President or continue as Vice President, merely assuming presidential powers & duties. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't even been an official government announcement of the Presidents death yet - I read something that said another person has been taking on the replacement of the president when he was away and that Banda had been sidelined and pushed out - she was going to mount a challenge against the president in 2014 - its not clear at all that she is actually acting president at this time - As I understand it from reading sources 0- vice president is according to the constitution automatically promoted to acting President, however , the constitution appears to be a bit adaptable in cases of dictator like activity.Youreallycan 18:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming the confusion has something to do with the fact that Banda is a female. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion, if there is any is coming from the fact that we are reporting things that have not been officially verified - five hours ago from AFP - notice the method of reporting, "appears to be set to become" - Truth is - this person has not been confirmed as anything - there is a campaign to shoe her in rather than the Presidents brother who has been fulfilling the acting post for some time - I imagine there is a lot of twists and turns in this yet - we need to stop reporting uncited and unannounced claims as if fact though - Youreallycan 18:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The contention is not because of her gender, GoodDay, but rather because she and the late President had a very public political dispute (reportedly precipitated by his desire to shove her aside in favor of his little brother in the run-up to the 2014 presidential election), with her forming her own opposition political party; and his partisans in the DPP appear determined to find some excuse to exclude her from office despite the clear language of the Constitution of Malawi. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check 'Main Page', the Malawi President has died. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She hasn't been sworn in as far as I can tell. As someone else noted, the issue may be contentious—Banda is an opposition leader despite her official title as vice-president, and it's certainly not out of the question that she might be excluded somehow. I'm reverting the page back to the version from yesterday. Everyking (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In otherwords, if she's sworn in, she'd be President, not just a mere Acting President. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She's not President in any sense at all. She isn't exercising any presidential powers. She has a constitutional claim to the office, but that's not the same thing. Everyking (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would that make her president designate, then? FormerIP (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just curious about the Malawi Constitution concerning presidential succession. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think your technically right when you refer to her as, president designate . I also think Everyking is right when he says, she has a constitutional claim but has not been officially awarded the position - Youreallycan 20:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think the reader needs to know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.54.220 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also wondered that, but it seems to be quite a common name. She is Banda by marriage. Hastings Banda had no children. That's all I know. FormerIP (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't it be included in the introduction that she is NOT relative to Hastings Banda? I mean taken into account that in developing countries political dynasties are so rampant that some reader might also tend to think Joyce is related to Hastings. 49.145.68.107 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One youd need a source (they could be related in a non-nuclar family way) and a reason to mention it as notable. Alternatively. a hat note on the top of the page "nto to be confused with" would be okeyLihaas (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, since the educated readership might then suspect Joyce as relative of Hastings - political dynasties are highly prevalent in developing countries - I note in the introduction would be noteworthy. Look at the example of Armenian politics: Prime minister and president both have the same family name, Sargsyan. Both are not related to each other. I hope you get the point. 49.145.68.107 (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that Joyce B was succeeded as Foreign Minister by Etta Banda. Again, the question arises whether they are related. Grutness...wha? 08:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can't answer either question in the article unless we know what the answer is, obviously. Formerip (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth

[edit]

Best to remove this part until a reliable source (pre-2011 per edit text request) emerge. The trouble is that all publications I find have evidently taken Wikipedia to be gospel. Talk about a debasement of purpose! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The core policy is WP:Verifiability. The BBC states 1950 as Banda's dob and the Malawian press give it precisely as 12 April 1950. Malawi Voice is not a mirror of WP and so the statement that WP:Mirror means that we should not use this as a source simply does not apply. Additionally User talk:Youreallycan's edits are removing Banda's maiden name from the article. I do not intend to edit war and so I ask other editors to step in. Greenshed (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Greenshed, 2 sources state this...its also synthesis on youreallycan to presume that sources are all copying WP and we need a pre-inaugaration source. Life does exist outside WP to gather information. Nothing suggests malawivoice is a mirror to parrot this and certainly not BBC. Take the two to RSN if in doubt.Lihaas (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering

[edit]

It's not overly uncommon on Wikipedia, to number current Heads of State. There's no reason not to number Band, who's the 4th President of Malawi. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truth is not derived by how common something is on Wikipedia. Such numbers, in general, are artificial and depend on often uncertain lists and arbitrary rules of counting. Mewulwe (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to present (with sources) other Malawi Presidents besides the 4-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to. The list of Malawi presidents is clear enough, but may not be so forever. Mewulwe (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't given a good reason for your opposition to the numbering, yet. We'll let other decide on wheter she should be numbered or not. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have given a perfectly good reason. You are wasting everyone's time. Mewulwe (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Others will decide, not you or me. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mewulwe, it's obviously true that the list of Malawian presidents will change in the future, but it seems unlikely that it will change in such a way that the 4th president suddenly becomes the second or the twelfth. Please give a fuller explanation as to why you are concerned about the numbering and please stop reverting (on both articles) or I'll file an edit-warring report. Thanks. FormerIP (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may change in a way that there will not be an unambiguous numbering for later presidents, and it makes no sense to have numbers up to a point and then stop. Many other countries are already in that situation, so it makes no sense in general. It also gives the false impression that those numbers are semi-official as in the U.S., while in fact a comparable situation obtains almost nowhere else. Mewulwe (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not following. How would the numbering of presidents become ambiguous? What are some of the many countries in which this happened? FormerIP (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti, etc. But all you need is one president with multiple non-consecutive terms, and it becomes ambiguous. Do you count him once or multiple times (as with Grover Cleveland)? This is an arbitrary choice. Mewulwe (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem very convincing, Mweulwe. If you look at the "President of..." pages for all those countries, they number them without difficulty. There's a system for it, so that Leonel Fernández, for example, is the 50th and also the 52nd president.FormerIP (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They number them without sense, arbitrarily. There is no objective system for it, you could as well make him any other number(s). If you choose one system, you'd have to add the explanation directly to it. It is plain wrong to say "he is the 50th and 52nd president" in this absolute way. Mewulwe (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait until such a situation arises in Malawi, then we'll see how the country will handle such numbering. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We know that already: the country won't handle it at all, since even now it doesn't have an official numbering. Mewulwe (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, you're not making sense. Sorry. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not very clever to repeat what _I_ just told _you_ (and with good reason). You have stopped making sense a while ago, but "we'll see how the country will handle such numbering" takes the cake. The country clearly does not use any official numbering now, and will even less be doing so when things get more ambiguous. You are obviously out of arguments here, so just slink out of this in silence instead of embarrassing yourself more and more. Mewulwe (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mewulwe, what do you mean by "official numbering"? Counting things does not normally need a statutory provision. It is something people learn to do as children. Banda is the fourth president because there were three other presidents before her, not because it is the law. FormerIP (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Banda is unambiguous now, but what if, for example, Bakili Muluzi succeeds her? Would he then be still only the 2nd or the "2nd and 5th" president? If it can't be maintained in an unambiguous way, it should not be started to begin with. It is different if there is a quasi-official numbering like in the U.S. where presidents are frequently referred to by their number according to a fixed system. Mewulwe (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can cross that bridge when we come to it. I don't see why it's a problem now. But, FWIW, judging by all or most other countries, the answer is that he would be 2nd and 5th president. FormerIP (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "judging by the respective Wikipedia articles" - this is of course quite arbitrary. Why copy the U.S. method? It doesn't make particular sense to count non-consecutive terms separately, one might argue that one should either count every person only once, or every term (even when consecutive) separately. Why is it a problem now? Because, as I just said, it's pointless to start something that can't be maintained in the long run and already can't be done in other countries. If we have numbers in Malawi, but not in other countries, it reinforces the false impression that these numbers have official status. Mewulwe (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I think it's possible you may have a point about the US-ness of using numbers like that. It seems like infoboxes for some countries do it and some don't. FormerIP (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The us doesnt have any official, legally defined system. its just used because its always been that way.
at any rate, PSE is not a reason to cite as keeping it out. Malawi issues can certainly be seperately done from others. Further as said by the 2 editors here if thre is a conflcit in future then we can revisit it through consensus discussion as is anyones right to challenge.Lihaas (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said quasi-official. It's not legally defined, but one specific system is in widespread use. This is not the case in other countries. What is PSE? Mewulwe (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not even quasi-official, its not official in anyway
Sory i meant OSELihaas (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That easily qualifies as quasi-official. I don't cite OSE as a reason for keeping it out, only to invalidate arguments for keeping it in "because it's done in other articles too." Mewulwe (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the US govt uses it doesnt mean they initiated it. It s common and widespread practice now in academia , governmetn and elsewhere.
ALso pelase dont remove it 12 hours after you made one comment [1]...consensus clearly supprots its inclusion.Lihaas (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who said they initiated it? But if the government consistently uses it it can be said to be quasi-official. This is not the case in Malawi. I didn't remove it 12 hours after making a comment; I removed it 24 hours after I made a comment and no one replied further. So, do you have any argument left here? We don't vote here. I'm in no hurry, but if this can't be defended, it will be removed. Mewulwe (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Including the incumbent, Malawi has had 4 Presidents. There's no way one can dispute that & so there's nothing wrong with the numbering. As for future Presidents? let's wait & see. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes Malawi has had 4 presidents, but I have already explained how there is nevertheless very much wrong with the whole idea of numbering them. There is nothing to "wait and see" - not only is there little chance of the situation in Malawi always remaining unambiguous (never any president with non-consecutive terms, etc.) but even if that would be the case, it would not be a good idea given the inconsistency with other countries where it is already impossible and that it would give the impression that the numbers have quasi-official status. It's one thing to write somewhere in the text that she "is the country's fourth president"; it's another to put "4th President of Malawi" in the infobox, as if it was some official or commonly-used titulature. Mewulwe (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STOP deleting 4th from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop adding it when you can't justify it. Mewulwe (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fed up with your attitude & thus I'm done with this article. Others may decide on how to handle your conduct, I've neither the time or patience. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this "attitude" of mine of rational discussion and common sense is such a pain, I know. So anyway, is there anyone else wanting to defend the indefensible here? Mewulwe (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I have a new interest in this article. Mewulwe, I have looked over your approach to other editors, and am very concerned about your editing behavior. Its time to discuss the issues, to quit reverting other people's good faith edits without proper discussion. Let's work together. Do less reverting and more good faith discussions first. drs (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are replying to a lengthy discussion (which others have aborted, yet continued to revert) by telling me to discuss? Do you want to defend the numbers now, after already wasting so much time on the other issue? Mewulwe (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mewulwe, I am addressing the way you discuss, not the logic of it. I think others have adequately mentioned reasons for and against the number system. I am strongly suggesting, for all, not just you, that if a revert war is in progress, that everyone stop and examine the issue without threat of revert. Who reverted last? Let's be adult enough to let the other be the last to revert. Why is a number in, or not in, so important that we lose our civility in discussing the matter? The practice of civil talk page discussing needs more emphasis. As we can see from our own discussion, it does produce collegial thinking and results. drs (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no threat of revert impeding discussion. I reverted only when the discussion was dead, as it is now. So if you don't want to argue for the numbers, I'm going to remove them before long. Obviously letting the other be the last to revert when they refuse to discuss makes no sense. Mewulwe (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not concerned, personally, about the number fourth being used, or not. The issue is collaboration, not getting one's own way. I became interested in this article because I noticed a serious lack of civility. drs (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What doesn't help is your stalking. There is nothing wrong with my attitude or way of communication. Mewulwe (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing numbering on this & her 3 predecessors articles infoboxes. You've no consensus for those removals. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you just say a few lines above, "I'm done with this article"? Well, if you changed your mind, you still need to actually discuss and defend your position before reverting. My arguments stand; you abandoned the discussion. If you continue to revert without defending your position, perhaps you should be blocked. It doesn't count to say "I don't like it" and then claim there is no consensus. Mewulwe (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Get some editors to agree with you here, that the numbering should be out & I won't restore them. Until then, you've no consensus for deleting them. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need "some editors to agree" to make an edit, so long as no one opposes it by rational discussion, something you've been signally failing at. Consensus only becomes an issue when there is an intractable dispute, i.e. when two sides have exhausted discussion to the point that both could only "agree to disagree." This is not the case here; I have responded to any point you made, you failed to do the same and simply went away - this won't fly. Mewulwe (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Get some editors to agree with you, before deleting. In the meantime, 1+1+1+1=4. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an exercise in surrealism? You are reverting without discussing or anyone else here defending your point of view. So long as no one is seriously defending the numbers here, I will remove them. Mewulwe (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and until you get a consensus for that removal, I'll merely restore them. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other editors in this Numbering discussion, have agreed with you. Atleast two of them, are bewildered by your opposition to the numbering & another two editors have shown concerns with your conduct (which for some reason, you have continued to fail to address). Once again, FOUR individuals have served as President of Malawi - this makes Banda the country 4th person to hold that office - thus the 4th President of Malawi. It's irrelevant as to whether it's official or not & concerns about the numbering of future Malwai Presidents is unwarranted since we're dealing with the present & the past. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other editors are discussing. FormerIP and Lihaas have fallen quiet, presumably seeing my point. You too have stopped responding in the substantive discussion and yet you continue reverting. There is no other editor in this discussion (drs explicitly said he doesn't care about the numbering issue). Now you again merely repeat what you already said before, and what I responded to. You'd have to respond to the last thing I said before you made your show of "being done" with the article. I already tried to explain to you that this is not about whether Banda is the 4th president of Malawi, it's about whether it makes sense to put this into the infobox. After all, she is many other things which we do not put there either. Infoboxes contain standardized information, not any random facts, and this is not something standardizable. Mewulwe (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, if this dispute is just between me & you? that makes it a stalemate. Therefore, it appears we'll likely continue with the delete/restore method. Afterall, you're not going to convince me of your stance & I'm not going to convince you of my stance. We're going to have to work out a compromise, it seems. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't going to convince me because you don't even begin making a rational argument. However, I made one and instead of replying intelligently you just say "you're not convinced" - this does not create a "stalemate" or require a "compromise." It requires you to either discuss seriously or stop reverting. Mewulwe (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have to convince me & other editors. You're not the boss here, Mewulwe & I'm gonna keep restoring the numbering until you get a consensus for removal. This article doesn't need your stamp of approval. GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the boss here, GoodDay & the article doesn't need your stamp of approval... The difference here is that the one who refuses to engage in rational discussion automatically forfeits - and that's you. Mewulwe (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering, arbitrary break

[edit]
  • GoodDay, glad to see you still helping with the Joyce Banda article.
  • What do the two of you think about an RfC on this topic, i.e. the ordinal '4th'. It may seem trivial, but an article moves forward when we exert our interests and energies even on these type of intricate details. drs (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to start an RfC don't just do it for the "4th" in this article, but for the general question of numbering in infoboxes of any officeholders who don't have official or quasi-official numbers. Mewulwe (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An Rfc is agreeable. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further thought, I like information. To know that Joyce Banda is Malawi's 4th, helps me us understand both her and Malawi and the former Nyasaland. And, I don't see how including the 4th in the infobox is a problem. If there was an agreement to not include it, or to include it, I would be content either way. But, as the discussion moves forward, I find I have some opinions about this, too. drs (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Classic meaningless "I like it" argument. If you think this is an interesting information to have in the article, put it in the text, but not in the infobox. Otherwise, why stop there? Surely the fact that she is not just the 4th overall president of Malawi, but the 1st female one is even more notable. Why not put in the infobox "1st Female President of Malawi"? Are you getting the problem here? Mewulwe (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is time to get help from other editors. The dispute seems trivial, but obviously it is important to all three of us for various reasons. Should we proceed with a dispute resolution process or an RfC? drs (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am requesting that the 4th remain in the infobox until we can get some help on solving this dispute. drs (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mewulwe, can you cite WP counsel, guideline or policy to support your concern for the ordinal not be used in the infobox?
It's very simple actually. The relevant field in the infobox says "office"; "President of Malawi" is an office, "4th President of Malawi" is not. Mewulwe (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GoodDay, look over other infoboxes and see if the infobox ever includes an ordinal number before the office. I have done a quick search and have not found any yet. If there are no other heads of state who have such a number included in the infobox office, then it seems more in keeping with Wikipedia's practice not to include the ordinal number. Any thoughts?
Monarchs aren't numbered. Anyways, here's some numbered Heads of state & governments: Canadian Prime Ministers, Australian Prime Ministers, New Zealand Prime Ministers, American Presidents & Russian Presidents (to name a few). GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of ordinal number use in infoboxes

[edit]
  • Perhaps there are more. In the brief study I have done, most infoboxes do not include the ordinal number with the office. But, the number is included in some. Thus the discussion will continue, I suppose. drs (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are justified where they are (semi-)officially used. In the other cases they are to be removed. Chávez was particularly absurd. Depending on how you count he could be any number between 30 and 100 or so. Mewulwe (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean semi-officially used? drs (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like in the U.S.; I cited earlier all the occurrences of the numbers on whitehouse.gov, even though there may be no legal basis for it. Funny sidenote: when you look who added the number to the Chávez article, guess who you find: [2]. Mewulwe (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The plot thickens: [3]. This is all the work of a single editor, who then has the nerve to justify this by saying "but it's used everywhere else"! Now it's obvious why he is so irrationally sticking to this. He can't possibly admit to himself that all this "work" he did was a waste of time. Mewulwe (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dare I repeat myself: If you can get some editors to support your position (i.e. consensus building), then I'll leave the infobox bare. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Indeed, over the years, I've been numbering Heads of State & Government infoboxes across Wikipedia. However, when I'm faced with opposition from a number of editors, not just one, I don't press the numbering anymore & move on. So far, you're the only one who's opposing me at this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit you faced opposition on this before. Since this is one and the same issue, anyone who ever opposed you on this would oppose you here too. You are the one who's on his own here (aside from some stalkers who have no actual interest in the issue, came from other issues and just revert me out of spite, but aren't making any more of a rational argument than you do). Mewulwe (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're the lone editor who's opposing the numbering 'here'. BTW - one article at a time, please don't take our dispute to the Venezuelan & Iranian Presidents articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mewulwe, you're not allowed to pick and choose from the people commenting here, nor are you allowed to invent a theoretical group of people who would also oppose this position. If you think there should be some sort of centralized rule, you should pursue it at WT:MOSBIO or some other appropriate place. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What picking and choosing? I made statements that are factually correct; if you disagree be specific what you disagree with. I can detail the circumstances regarding every particular editor on request. Nor do I "invent a theoretical group of people" - others have reverted GoodDay in other articles on the exact same issue (links on request). It is true that the issue should be discussed at a centralized place, but the burden of obtaining a consensus for the numbers should be on GoodDay, since he practically on his own spread them everywhere where they otherwise wouldn't be. Mewulwe (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced that there's a problem with numbering the infobox of this Malawi President or her predecessors. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced, and I can defend it. Now tell me why your position should be the default here? Mewulwe (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding it up on my fingers, Banda comes out as the 4th President of Malawi. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and since you reverted there too, kindly demonstrate how Chávez is objectively the 61st president of Venezuela. This should be interesting. Mewulwe (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to seek help beyond us. A dispute resolution process should help. There is no WP rule controlling the use of ordinals in the office section of the infobox. Logic and knowing you are right is not enough. We need to see a rule or policy statement. drs (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Chave'z predecessor is numbered as the 60th President of Venezuela. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you base it on that, demonstrate how the predecessor is the 60th. Mewulwe (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the editors who numbered all of Chavez's predecessors. Furthermore, this should be discussed at that article. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you based your edit on that, you have to take the responsibility. Wikipedia itself is not an admissible source. So, bottom line, you don't have a source. It will thus be removed. Mewulwe (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to remove the numberings from all the Venezuelan Presidents articles? GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they all need to go, and not just the Venezuelan ones. But it's not my obligation to clean that mess up all on my own. Mewulwe (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's best that you put citation tags on all those articles, as I'm not the only editor to have numbered them. It's also best you wait 'atleast' a week, before you begin deletions. Removing only Chavez's numbering is likely to get it restored by someone else. They'll see his predecessors numbered & become curious. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In essence, DonaldRichardSands is right. Mewulwe, whenever you feel like gathering up this silent consensus you imply exists to oppose the numbering of items that appear in a discrete, non-overlapping series, please do so. WP:RFC is a good first start, unless you think this is more of a style than content issue, in which case I recommend a discussion at WP:MOSBIO. Should either of those avenues fail to produce clear results, there are further options open after that point. Until then, I see a very clear "unanimous minus one" consensus in favor of keeping the numbers there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since only GoodDay and I are actively in dispute, "unanimous minus one" is the case both ways. To suggest that some drive-by comments by people demonstrably just pursuing me from other issues should change the situation is ludicrous. And even counting them would not establish a consensus but only a 3-1 or so majority, and since we are supposed to discuss, not vote on, issues, the weight of arguments is by any reasonable standard squarely on my side. I made a whole number of points GoodDay has not responded to at all, instead he repeats this silly mantra "I counted them on my fingers! She IS the 4th president!" which I explained to him multiple times is not the point. Perhaps you can demonstrate somehow this consensus you imply exists for the numbers, by showing all the people who have defended them beyond ILIKEIT. Looks like zero to me. Oh, and assuming that infoboxes are supposed to contain standardized information (and besides that, should contain information which is maintainable and might not have to be removed in the future), we are of course not talking about "discrete, non-overlapping series" here. Just because the series of Malawi presidents as of now is unambiguous, doesn't mean it belongs in the infobox when equivalents cannot be added to most other countries and even for Malawi the situation sooner or later will become ambiguous. Mewulwe (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll contribute something to the discussion when there is something meaningful to respond to from those who prefer not to include the ordinal. All I see here is obstreperousness. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mewulwe, if you examine the comments, you will notice that several of us editors do not find the use of an ordinal number in the infobox office offensive. Several of us are okay with the addition of the ordinal number. An addition which does not violate stated Wikipedia policy should have more weight than the deleting of that same addition. For example, if I make an addition which I think is sensible, and there is no clear policy against such an addition, it should be allowed to stand until the opposing editor(s) can get a near consensus to remove the addition. It seems discourteous, or uncivil, to remove something otherwise. Let's discuss it on the talk page and strive for consensus before removing policy compliant additions. Thanks. drs (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have. And it's not policy compliant. The Chávez number is patently unverifiable, yet it is being restored as much as the Banda one. And challenged additions need to be defended, nowhere does policy say "you can add whatever you want, refuse to defend it, and it can only be removed by consensus." Edits can be freely made, including removals, and if an edit war develops, both sides need to discuss. I am, he isn't, that's all there is to it. Mewulwe (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's focus on the Joyce Banda article. There is no policy I have read where an ordinal number in the infobox is inappropriate. As you have admitted, the 4th can be verified in the Joyce Banda situation. You are now discussing with me, not GoodDay. I am more flexible on this than GoodDay, it seems, but I see no policy against the use of an ordinal in the infobox. I realize that you don't like the ordinal in the infobox and you have presented some logic for its removal, but it is not compelling logic, IMO. Let's start an RfC and get some more thoughts. drs (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia style, the use of ordinals in the office section of infoboxes

[edit]
  • There is no policy I have read where an ordinal number in the infobox is inappropriate. Mewulwe, you have admitted, the 4th can be verified in the Joyce Banda situation. You are now discussing with me, not GoodDay. I am more flexible on this than GoodDay, it seems, but I see no policy against the use of an ordinal in the infobox. I realize that you don't like the ordinal in the infobox and you have presented some logic for its removal, but it is not compelling logic, IMO. drs (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes convey standardized information for a set of related articles, in this case political officeholders. They are not for random pieces of information that only apply to one or to a small subset of the articles. Numbers cannot be objectively determined in the great majority of cases. Therefore such "self-counted" numbers should not be used at all, especially since the impression would be that wherever numbers are given, they represent an established system like in the U.S. The average reader who sees numbers in some cases and not in others would not figure that numbers are only used where the count is unambiguous. Mewulwe (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The numbering of Heads of state & government article infoboxes, tends to be decided by the participating editors of that article. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Does the ordinal in the infobox interfere with the function of DBpedia? Can DBpedia still gather President info even if it is '4th President' rather than just 'President'. Or, will DBpedia just look for all the '4th Presidents'? If that happened, then there certainly would be compelling logic to remove it. drs (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banda's vice president

[edit]

We should be showing that the vice presidency is vacant. Instead of creating the impression that the office was abolished, upon Bander's succession to the presidency. GoodDay (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dont see where tatimpression of abolishign comes from...anyhooe its solved now ;)Lihaas (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first female head of state of africa

[edit]

Elizabeth II was head of state of Gambia (1965-1970), Ghana (1957-1960), Kenya (1963-1964), Malawi (1964-1966), Nigeria (1960-1963), Sierra Leone (1961-1971), South Africa (1952-1961), Tanganyika (1961-1962), and Uganda (1962-1963). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.170.81 (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ER apart...ven Liberia had a female head first.Lihaas (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention Cleopatra.
And the queen of Sheba. Have they figured out whether that was in Somalia or Yemen yet ?

Banda is not the second female head of state in Africa.

[edit]

Just because media portreys her as the second female head of state in the continent after Ellen Johnson Sirleaf it is not a credible source. Actually Ellen herself is not even Liberia's first female head of state (she is just Liberia's and Africa's first democratically elected female head of state). In chronological order these are the women heads of state in Africa till now: 1st Carmen Pereira in Guinea-Bissau, 2nd Sylvie Kinigi in Burundi, 3rd Ruth Perry in Liberia, 4th Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in Liberia (first elected), 5th Rose Francine Rogombé in Gabon, 6th Monique Ohsan Bellepeau in Mauritius and finally 7th Joyce Banda in Malawi... So please stop giving false information about Banda being the second woman president in Africa. For more look at this: List of elected or appointed female heads of state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.171.153.130 (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded this statement accordly to show she is one of two incumbent female heads of state in Africa, which I think is what might have been meant originally. I♦A 02:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just in time. I was about to mention Cleopatra. Formerip (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And another, reword, adding "elected" (Monique Ohsan Bellepeau is acting president of Mauritius). I♦A 02:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but Banda is not elected (that should be quite obvious)Lihaas (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm . I see you have removed that whole statement, and I am fine with that. *removes page from watchlist* I♦A 05:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just dint think we needd all the caveats and would be easier. Statement doesnt seem true at all ;)Lihaas (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um - Carmen Pereira was not the first African female head of state - you forget earlier leaders such as the three Queens Ranavalona of Madagascar. Grutness...wha? 08:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you're right but we are talking about elected or appointed female heads of state not about monarchs.

Sorry - I ewas going by the header of this section and the first sentence of it ("Just because media portreys her as the second female head of state in the continent after Ellen Johnson Sirleaf it is not a credible source.") Grutness...wha? 22:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is important to include in the article her role and standing in women's issues in Africa. It seems obvious that she is an important woman of Africa. Her standing and status is important to the article and I believe that we need to inform our readership of such. After all the tweaking of the exact wording, her standing in the women's issue(s) of Africa must not be lost. drs (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures and Portrait-photo

[edit]

A portrait/photo always adds to an article, especially for people becoming increasingly important. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so - I've added a {{photoreq}} request at the top of this page. Grutness...wha? 09:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting of Reliable Sources

[edit]

I have looked over Mewulwe's reverting record on this article and think it is time that we discuss this editor's record in particular. If we really have an interest in this article, let's work in a positive way to improve it. The Joyce Banda article deserves better, don't you think? drs (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with you, this Talk page isn't really intended to discuss an editor's conduct. For that, you'd have to go to WP:ANI or another dispute resolution forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bbb23, thanks for the advice. I was first just trying to get Mewulwe's attention. Perhaps, I could have done that on M's talk page. I do appreciate your guidance. drs (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, let's look at everyone's editing record on this article. This is going to be interesting! For one thing, the above two editors have both restored a source that plainly doesn't even state what it's used as a source for, aside from the fact that it wouldn't be a reliable source anyway (the whole series of books is of poor quality, frequently using Wikipedia as a source) and that the existing sources - which actually confirm the exact date - are perfectly sufficient. And the editors knew all that since I had already explained it in the discussion on the BLP noticeboard. Mewulwe (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually, you will dig yourself in so deep that someone will report you to WP:ANI. First, Donald didn't restore anything. He just put in the source in the first place. I and another editor restored the source. Second, what's your basis for saying the source is "poor quality" and uses Wikipedia as a source? I agree with you that the source isn't necessary, but it's a judgment call as to how many sources are needed for a particular assertion, and given how ridiculously controversial you made this birthdate thing out to be, editors are more inclined to include multiple sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't come up with the source, it was mentioned on the BLP discussion. Whether it was in the article before is irrelevant. But well done nitpicking about the word "restore" - replace it with "put in" for no substantive difference. In the BLP discussion I showed how that series uses Wikipedia, which should already disqualify it. And the date was only controversial precisely because these kinds of unreliable sources were offered for it; with the Malawian sources the date is no longer controversial, so it's absurd to add the unreliable ones to "bolster" the reliable ones, especially when your source doesn't have the given date 12 April 1950 at all! Mewulwe (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless to argue with you but the fact that a source (or the series) sometimes cites to Wikipedia doesn't mean that in this instance it is getting its facts from Wikipedia. Indeed, the fact that it openly cites to Wikipedia tends to indicate that when it doesn't cite to Wikipedia, it is getting its facts from somewhere else. Many things cite to Wikipedia. The issue is whether a source we are using is in fact citing to Wikipdia, and in this instance, as in so many other instances, it is just you saying so.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mewulwe, sources do not need to state what it's used as a source. Sources are either found to be reliable, and we use them, or they are not reliable, period. If you feel a source is not reliable, please take that issue to the RS board and see what others think. --Mollskman (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know reading is hard, but keep trying. I can only assume you missed the word "for"... and no, a source can be as reliable as it may be, we don't just put it randomly in articles. It has to be put behind a specific fact and it has to actually confirm that fact, which yours doesn't... Mewulwe (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about not reading, the italics is a direct copy and paste from your post above, YOU are the one that left out "for", that is why I didn't see your point. --Mollskman (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's important, but Mewulwe did include the word "for" above. That said, I'd forget about it as it's not worth your (Mollskman) time.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I will not comment here again. --Mollskman (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should comment whenever you have something to say. We all make mistakes, and yours was very minor. I was reading an article this week about computer monitors and the negative effects they can have on our eyes if we spend too much time in front of them. Like many people, I use a computer at work, and then I come home and spend far too much time on Wikipedia. By the time I'm done, my eyes are tired and they burn (they're burning right now). I need to get out more. --Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Dictionary of Malawi, is it a reliable source?

[edit]
  • Kalinga, Owen J. M. (2011). Historical Dictionary of Malawi. Historical Dictionaries of Africa (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. pp. 51, 52. ISBN 978-0-8108-7531-9.

This citation has been used in the Joyce Banda article. One editor has challenged it. Before resorting to the reliable sources noticeboard, maybe we can examine here reasons for why this source is, or isn't, a reliable source.

Reasons for considering it a reliable source
Reputable by what standard? It's a publisher like any other, which may impress those who think a regularly published nonfiction book is ipso facto a reliable source. In my estimation the Historical Dictionary series is generally poor. The series editor certainly doesn't have a good enough sense of accuracy to ensure that Wikipedia is not being used as a source in the books (e.g. http://books.google.de/books?id=1jSg3lxgSy8C&pg=PA250&dq=wikipedia+intitle:%22+historical+dictionary%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AxKKT7TDDorzsgaxuL3BCw&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false), so it definitely can't be used to source information that has previously been in Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They use Wikipedia as a source. Mewulwe (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia thrives on publisher's work. It is the self-published work that is often challenged. And, yes, if a source is obviously based on Wikipedia then that too is challenged. I am not convinced that Scarecrow Press is duplicating a Wikipedia source. Can you clearly show that this book depends heavily on Wikipedia? Can you clearly show that this book cites Wikipedia as a source. The link you provide is in a different language. I need more convincing, I guess. drs (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the link. What more do you need? I don't have to show that a book "depends heavily" on Wikipedia. If it uses it at all, it may use it for anything. Mewulwe (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have the burden of proof exactly backwards again. You would have to show that they are not using Wikipedia in a given case, when it is a distinct possibility that they do. Mewulwe (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This view has been rejected. No doubt you will offer it again. But I don't see any sign that it is embraced by anyone else. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a "view," it's basic logic. You can't just assume a source is reliable unless you can prove it's unreliability, which for many unreliable sources would naturally be impossible. You must instead positively prove a source is reliable. Since the source here uses Wikipedia, it must be assumed to be generally unreliable and you would have to prove that any particular claim is NOT based on Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia usually allows reputable publishers decide on what to reliably publish, I think. It is not up to a Wikipedia editor to make that decision. If Random House, for example, publishes a book about the topic, it is automatically citable. However, if Random House's book cites Wikipedia along with other normally accepted citations like the US Government. Then what? Is the book not worth citing? At some point, we should refer this question to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Meanwhile, the issue is complex enough that we should not revert until it is resolved. Any thoughts, anyone? drs (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1

[edit]
No, I say that it may be taken from Wikipedia. Mewulwe (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The may be taken from Wikipedia is not good enough. I agree that any citation of Wikipedia in a source is odd. Perhaps it signifies Wikipedia's changing status among reputable publishers. And, in my opinion, it reduces the source's reliability in citing Wikipedia as a source. Though it cites the U.S. Government which usually is not challenged as a reliable source. The date, 1950, can be verified from various sources, so no problem. However, what if the source provides new information not found in Wikipedia, is that information reliable even though Wikipedia is on the list of otherwise reliable sources? drs (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It still wouldn't be the best source, but at least it wouldn't be circular. Mewulwe (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2

[edit]
The very page I linked to (250). At the very bottom. Mewulwe (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I have found it. Wikipedia is cited as a source along with the CIA Factbook and the U.S. Government. That is interesting. Because of the changeable nature of Wikipedia and the ongoing edits possible, Wikipedia is often not considered a reliable source in academia. So, here we have an otherwise reputable publisher citing Wikipedia as a reliable source. I wonder if the editorial staff at Scarecrow Press or its parent company Rowman & Littlefield have discussed the reliability of Wikipedia. I have heard discussions of Wikipedia by high school English teachers. They admit that Wikipedia has become more reliable than it used to be, but continue to disallow any citation of Wikipedia as a source, mainly because of the fact that anyone can edit an article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question 2 follow-up,
  • Does Wikipedia discuss this possibility, i.e. that of an otherwise reliable source citing Wikipedia as one of its sources? I wonder if the Reliable Sources Noticeboard has discussed the matter before. Anyone know? drs (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIRCULAR: ...do not use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia. Formerip (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi FormerIP, Thanks for the quote. Can a book have both reliably and unreliably sourced material? What if the source comes from a reputable publisher and it gives information not found anywhere in Wikipedia along with some information found in Wikipedia, is that information from a reliable source? Obviously, if Wikipedia makes no mention of a particular fact, then it logically follows that Wikipedia was not the source for that particular information. drs (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that makes sense, but you would need to check literally all historical versions of the article to make sure that the information has never been there. Formerip (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FormerIP, I see your point. Do we conclude from this, that if Wikipedia is ever cited as one of the sources in a book published by a reputable publisher, that the source is automatically considered unreliable over all? In our current discussion, the date 1950 already appears in Wikipedia. The source quotes Wikipedia along with many other sources and does not identify 1950 as sourced only from Wikipedia. Mewulwe, I will remove that citation from the date. The overall use of this source is still up for discussion. drs (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus University and Joyce Banda

[edit]

The article states that Joyce Banda has a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Early Childhood Education from Columbus University. Is Columbus University the same as Columbus University (Louisiana)? Columbus University (Louisiana) has a problematic reputation as its WP article reports. If this is the source of Banda's Bachelor's Degree, should the WP article about her cite the Bachelor's Degree without qualification? On a more personal note, I am impressed, thus far, with Joyce Banda's accomplishments and outlook on life and politics. This question is raised only because of Columbus' apparent reputation, not hers. drs (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Banda as President and new developments

[edit]

Joyce Banda has made some quick decisions which have major importance, it seems. Do we have any editors who understand Malawi politics enough to provide some guidance? drs (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissals and appointments

[edit]

She appointed new heads of Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) and Malawi Savings Bank. Apparently these are controversial appointments.[1]

April 25, The Daily Times article

[edit]

I am placing this article, almost in total, because it provides a source for quite a lot of information. I expect that over the next few days or weeks that the information can be gleaned from this and the text here deleted or reduced considerably. If this is contrary to WP policy, anyone stating such is welcome to remove this material. But, let's not lose this source. Thanks, drs (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<snip>

Sorry, I did have to cut the copy of the article; copyright applies no matter where you copy and paste something even article talk pages. The link above should be sufficient for anyone seeking to add info. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Your help is appreciated. drs (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed prosecution of civilian 'Coup Plotters'

[edit]

The president of the Malawi Law Society (MLS) has called for the prosecution of Cabinet ministers who, he says, orchestrated a failed “constitutional coup d’état” following the death of President Bingu wa Mutharika....

The accused officials include sports minister Symon Vuwa Kaunda, Health and Population Services minister Dr. Jean Kalilani, Local Government Minister Henry Mussa, deputy ministers in the office of the president Nicholas Dausi and deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Kondwani Nakhumwa....

John Gift Mwakhwawa, chairman of the law society, said the ministers should be held accountable for refusing to support Vice President Joyce Banda. Instead, they supported the president’s brother, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Arthur Mutharika, a move Mwakhwawa called a treasonable act under Malawi’s constitution.[2]

Zambia's Fuel 'Donation'

[edit]

"While Zambian tax payers will lose more than USD$ 7 million (about 36 billion Zambian Kwacha) in procuring and transporting fuel to Malawi, the Malawian government has resolved to sell the fuel donated by President Michael Sata."[3]

References for this section

[edit]
  1. ^ http://www.malawitoday.com/news/124536-joyce-banda-faulted-appointments-msb-and-mbc
  2. ^ Clottey, Peter (April 17, 2012). "Malawi Law Society Demands Prosecution of Civilian 'Coup Plotters'". Voice of America, Africa News. Retrieved 2012-04-19.
  3. ^ Editor (April 19, 2012). "Don't Kubeba: Malawi to sell fuel donated by Zambia and raise $11.4 million (K60 billion)". Zambian Watchdog. Retrieved 2012-04-19. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

Controversial Reverts

[edit]

I have started a new section to address minor contested reverts on this article. There is very little that is new under the sun. Wikipedia editors must have discussed this somewhere already, but here is my thinking:

Unless a written policy is being violated, contested additions to the article should not be deleted without a near consensus. Even if policy was being violated, once an edit war begins, the talk page should address the issue. If there is no violation of policy and an editor has added information, civility seems to expect that, rather than deleting something because of personal better logic, go to the article's talk page and try to win a consensus. Unless a policy has been violated, it seems that additions should not be deleted without a near consensus. drs (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nomoskedasticity, WP:BURDEN deals with a WP policy, i.e. proper citation, notice the section found there, I have highlighted the relevant sections. I am referring to matters not covered in policy.

Burden of evidence: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.

drs, I don't know where that statement comes from, but it does not match standard Wikipedia editing practices. As a general rule each addition/change must stand or fall on its own. When something is added or changed, even if its a grammar/spelling change, and people disagree, the default is generally the "stable" (prior) version. There are many exceptions to this rule, of course: material being questioned on BLP grounds must be kept out until consensus and policy say to keep it in; removing unsourced material is generally fine; etc. This principle is codified in the Bold, Revert, Discuss paradigm; even though that isn't a guideline or policy, it actually has the force of one given that it documents standard practice in a large number of cases. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Qwyrxian, thanks for this. The quote comes from WP:BURDEN. The statement before that is simply my words indented. In the current edit war re: the ordinal in the infobox, it is difficult to determine which came first. I do appreciate the 'stable' or 'prior' version being the default. drs (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

News media re: Malawi

[edit]

Marriage to Richard Banda

[edit]

When did Joyce Ntila marry Richard Banda? Greenshed (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, let's establish that she is married to him. This BBC report says that she credits her marriage to him for her success.

    She puts her achievements down to her happy marriage to retired Chief Justice Richard Banda with whom she has two children. "My dear husband, Richard, has been the driving force behind my success and rise to whatever level I am now. My story and legacy is incomplete without his mention," she said.

  • There are many sources which state that they are married but none that I can find putting a date to the beginning of their marriage. drs (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering (again)

[edit]

Removing this article from my watchlist in May, was a bad idea. The consensus in April was to keep 4th in the infobox, as Banda is the country's fourth Presidnet. She's only had 3 predecessors, who've served consecutive terms. Therefore, we should keep 4th in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion above. I have replied to that and you just keep going back to the same statement. Mewulwe (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above was to keep the numbering. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above was about the numbering, and my points against the numbering stand unchallenged. Mewulwe (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, what happened was, you were the 'only' editor to oppose the numbering. Then, when you felt things had settled down (after about a month), you went back & reverted to your preferred version. Due to your action in May, I'll be leaving this article on my watchlist, as apparently I can no longer trust you to respect consensus. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS, It's likely this 'dispute' will be heading to DRN, eventually. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a vote. My arguments stand unopposed. Mewulwe (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments have been opposed. If you don't agree? take it to DRN. - GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mere contradiction is not an argument. Mewulwe (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to DRN, if you disagree. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do that yourself if you feel you don't have to justify your edits. But they'd probably tell you that you do. Mewulwe (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking with my administrative hat on now. Mewulwe, you can't just assert that you have consensus because you believe your position is right and that no one has refuted it to your satisfaction. Quite a number of editors above have refuted your position, and have done so based on precedent and policy. Until such time as the consensus on this talk page changes, the article is going to include the number. If you want to try to change that, Mewulwe, you take it to DR--try DRN or try an RfC, but the burden is on you. Reverting the article based on claims of some consensus for your position for which there is absolutely no evidence is disruptive, and will be met with a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In every subthread of the above discussion, I replied to any substantive point made. GoodDay - the only one who clearly still opposes me on the matter - has failed to maintain the discussion. Who else are you counting - drs? He left the discussion by saying that I "presented logic, but no compelling logic" without saying what's wrong with it. I have explained why precedent and policy does not apply. There is no policy specifically about the numbering, but precedent - if you exclude that created singlehandedly by GoodDay on countless articles - was that such numbers were only used where they are in (semi)official use and in this way lastingly unambiguous, which is not the case for Malawi. Mewulwe (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with the consensus to keep the numbering? then take you argument to DRN. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such consensus. Thus, if we have to go for a "default" position, it would be the one without the number, since the conflict started when you added it where it never was before. Mewulwe (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is 'indeed' a consensus (reached in April) to keep. You're just ignoring it now (as you did in May), so again take it to DRN. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mewulwe, you are not going to convince me that consensus is on your side. Take the matter to dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never claimed that consensus is on my side. I claim it is not on GoodDay's either. Mewulwe (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Joyce Banda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joyce Banda. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Joyce Banda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joyce Banda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joyce Banda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

Is it relevant to state that Colombus University is an unaccredited distance education institution? The same question for the mention that Atlantic international University is a distance learning institution. Why is it relevant? Gatito999 (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joyce_Banda&oldid=1252190851"