Fadhul's name

edit

I don't think "Walls" is a part of his name; this seems a mistransliteration. Waris/Warris seems to be more likely, as per these sources:

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have adjusted the article accordingly. Applodion (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Seven Pandas (talk14:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • ... that Ugandan rebels did not recognize Ali Fadhul as enemy commander when he drove past them during an invasion of Uganda in 1972? (Source: "As they [the rebels] proceeded north, the convoy happened to pass a civilian vehicle that Lieutenant Colonel Ali Fadhul, the commander of the Simba Battalion, was driving toward the border on a reconnaissance mission. The enemy officer sped past them, unrecognized [...]" (Rice, Andrew (2009). The Teeth May Smile But the Heart Does Not Forget: Murder and Memory in Uganda, p. 180)

Created by Applodion (talk). Self-nominated at 21:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC).Reply

  •  , Applodion, Hi friend. The article is overall... overwhelmingly sourced and interesting. But going to the point, what you want to feature as DYK is verified. Sourced I mean, I see no problem in approving this. As I said, it's really sourced and cites extra-reading. I was going to ask you to add some sources in the lead but I remembered that by MOS date, there are no sources to be put there. Great work. Cheers and hugs ^_^ CoryGlee (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

No source which describes the king’s African Rifles as the King’s Army rifle is reliable in any ordinary sense

edit

Discuss. Qwirkle (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

No. No discussion neccessary. The Daily Monitor is a Ugandan newspaper, used in hundreds of articles of Wikipedia. It is active since three decades, and has even endured suppression by the government due to independent reporting. It is fully reliable, which was already discussed in several FA reviews here on Wikipedia. Applodion (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
If this article quoted is typical, then that is merely a reflection of Wikipedia’s unfortunately low standards; if this article is not typical, perhaps you should find a better source. Qwirkle (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Again, reviewers of the Featured article process (which is literally the most high quality review process on Wikipedia) judged Daily Monitor to be reliable. In addition academics repeatedly quote and use the newspaper as a source. So no, no "unfortunately low standards" neccessary. Applodion (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I reiterate what Applodion has said. The Daily Monitor is Uganda’s largest private daily and quoted in books for information on Ugandan affairs and respected for its independence from the government. I personally know an academic who writes as a columnist for the paper. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

…Ahh, we have gone from the “it’s just a typo” and playing the victim card to “I personally know…” As I’ve already written, if this is their usual calibre, than some of that repect is unearned; if it isn’t, perhaps a better cite, even from the same paper, should surely be straightforward to find. Qwirkle (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Are you suggesting I have a COI? It’s a former professor of mine. Yes, African media generally isn’t on par with the NYT but the monitor is the closest you’ll get to a Ugandan newspaper of record. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
If you have serious objections, why not open a RSN discussion? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
If you have a serious belief this source is actually reliable, why not “correct” the article to reflect it? Qwirkle (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
The article is correct as it is, with everything reliably sourced. That's the whole point. Applodion (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
So, you have something you claim to be a reliable source, used to support a claim it contradicts, and you can’t see why that might be a bad thing? Qwirkle (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
In addition, the source does not "contradict" anything. So I don't see what you are trying to achieve here, Qwirkle. Applodion (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply