User talk:Buidhe/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

CSIS/ITAC warning

Hey.

Looks like we were both drafting content on that CBC News report at the same time at anti-gender movement, as I just got an edit conflict trying to add some similar content from elsewhere in the same cited source. The content I was adding was:

In February 2024, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service issued a warning that violent extremists within the anti-gender movement could be inspired by the June 2023 stabbing attack at the University of Waterloo to "carry out their own extreme violence against the 2SLGBTQI+ community or against other targets they view as representing the gender ideology 'agenda'".

Do you think it's worth adding a sentence quoting the CSIS statement as well? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th I think your wording is better, and I don't really have an opinion which quote is more important to include. (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

How do you feel about both of the comments? Perhaps something like:

In February 2024, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service issued a warning that violent extremists within the anti-gender movement could be inspired by the June 2023 stabbing attack at the University of Waterloo to "carry out their own extreme violence against the 2SLGBTQI+ community or against other targets they view as representing the gender ideology 'agenda'". A spokesperson for CSIS said that although violent rhetoric does not always lead to violence, "the ecosystem of violent rhetoric within the anti-gender movement, compounded with other extreme worldviews, can lead to serious violence."

Cited to the same source of course. Maybe it's a bit quote farmy though, two lengthy quotations in quick succession. I'm not sure how we could summarise that though, given the serious nature of the warning and comments. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I would only include one quote for the reason you suggest w (t · c) buidhe 23:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Reflist

References

Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Mass message re:categorization

Hi Buidhe,

I'm noticing that the Wikimedia Mass Message bot recently sent out a message to a 111 article talk pages at your direction. The bot was used to explain your bold edits across 160 articles that was marked as minor. I understand the intent here, but these very broad edits removed the category from Forced labor in Nazi concentration camps and Extermination through labour. Am I misreading the indictment, or was the slave labor incorporated into the fact pattern as a part of Count 4 (Crimes against Humanity)? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk

1. "Crimes against humanity" is not mentioned in either of the articles. All categorization needs to be verifiable and supported by sourced text.
2. All categorization needs to be a wp:defining aspect of the topic. I doubt that the legal classification used at the Nuremberg trials is defining for either of these topics; as someone who researched and contributed to both, the sources don't focus on the legal aspects.

Very few of these articles meet #1 let alone #2. (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Philippe Sands

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Philippe Sands, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Lithuania CT sourcing requirements

Courtesy link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_125#Amendment_request%3A_Antisemitism_in_Poland_%28January_2024%29 Elinruby (talk) 06:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Elinruby (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Fighting Vanguard

On 3 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fighting Vanguard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Fighting Vanguard waged a guerrilla war against the Syrian government in the 1970s and 1980s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fighting Vanguard. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fighting Vanguard), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Notification of Involvement in Incident

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding potentially disruptive behavior. The thread is Potential Disruptive Behavior by Elinruby. The discussion is about the topic Double genocide theory. Thank you. Carlp941 (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to "Fighting Vanguard"

Greetings and felicitations. The change to the en dash was per MOS:RANGE, and the "language=enm" was a mistake I made when I didn't move the "m" with the rest of the book's title—thus the "Conundru". Most of the rest of the edit was to aid editing in the future, in part by putting reference fields in the order in which they are displayed. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit: Link. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Uncommitted campaign for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Uncommitted campaign is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncommitted campaign until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Esolo5002 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

• Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
• 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Garetosmab

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Garetosmab, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Edict of Expulsion

I guess it would be out of your normal period, but I thought you might be interested to read Edict of Expulsion and maybe give feedback at the FAC review if you felt like it. I'm particularly in need of someone to help with checking the copy for readability and clarity, etc. Jim Killock (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Seattle March 2024 Events

	There are a couple of events this month that we hope are of interest to you.
	Tuesday, March 12 2024 3pm – 7pm (PDT), Seattle articles edit-a-thon, Seattle Public Library University Branch
	This edit-a-thon is based on importance or popularity (as determined by pageviews, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Seattle/Popular pages; or main articles, such as those linked in Template:Seattle; also see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Seattle articles by quality statistics).
	Tuesday March 19 2024 6pm – 8pm (PDT), March monthly meetup, Little Oddfellows Café—new location!!!
	Since our previous meeting place, Distant Worlds Café, now closes at 6:30pm, we will meet this month at Little Oddfellows café inside of Elliott Bay Book Company in Capitol Hill.

Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 01:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC) by using the Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Participants list.
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name here.

Io

Buidhe, would this page need an featured article review? It has 12 citation needed tags. 750h+ (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, 750h+, it does look like some work is needed to bring it in compliance with the FA criteria. If you have any concerns you should post on the talk page, and add a listing to WP:FARGIVEN so that FAR regulars know of the issues—although it's not likely to be a priority while there are many FA-rated articles in worse shape. FYI to igordebraga who recently nominated this article as part of a good topic. (t · c) buidhe 16:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  You raised that issue in February 2022, in a talk page topic titled "FA sweeps". 750h+ (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Correct, but that was two years ago and a lot may have changed since then—there is no longer an entry on the FARGIVEN list. A fresh notice is needed. (t · c) buidhe 17:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Serendipodous: and @Volcanopele: are more involved with the article than me, calling their attention. igordebraga ≠ 21:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  put in some work to clear the citation needed's in the the Io article. Couldn't clear the one about the alternative pronunciation. I would look for something that talks about the British pronunciation, I know in the past ee-OH was common over there but I think European researchers are switching more and more to the American pronunciation. The other one is about the size of Jupiter in Io's sky. Seems like that should be easy to find but that's not in my wheel house. I've also taken up removing some extraneous images (can happen when people just slap any new photo in there not knowing if it is a good fit or not). I also cleaned up the Juno section to reflect the fact that the flybys have now happened. Sorry this is taking so long. Wikipedia apparently doesn't like iCloud Relay. Volcanopele (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Good work. But there are still two citation needed tags. But they should be easy to rectify. 750h+ (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Denaturalization

The reason I considered the statement controversial is that it makes multiple nontrivial technical and legal assumptions, which I had been reading about for non-editing-related reasons quite recently. For starters, we have here a clearly pro-Palestine source…implying that the State of Israel is the sole legal successor to the Mandate? As far as I know no one, not even the Israeli government itself, claims that.

I’m not at all averse to a mention of the displacement of Palestinians, but I don’t believe the original version as originally sourced was appropriate for wikivoice. My hunch based on past experience was that when editors openly cite POV academics in any area, it tends to be because they can’t find anything better.

So if you can find better sources for the original wording of the statement, be my guest. If you have a rewording, great. Either way, I’d rather deal with this and move on as it was a drive-by edit and the last thing I want is to be dragged into a PIA furball.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What I'm missing here is 1) any evidence that the statement is disputed 2) any indication that the source's reliability is in question (technically all sources have "bias", so perceived bias is not necessarily a reason to disregard what the source says). Just removing reliably sourced content based on your POV and vague assertions of controversy isn't the way to go, imv. (t · c) buidhe 08:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm well…

1. I just did a fairly extensive (albeit by no means exhaustive) series of searches on engines, Google Scholar, and elsewhere. I came up with relatively few results, and the only one that discussed the matter at any length was this one:

[1]

A nonprofit org interviewing the same academic who wrote the book being cited.

So I’d say there isn’t enough basis in reliable sources. Especially as the claims being made in the cited work make a lot of contentious and unstated assumptions about the ramifications of the Mandatory period, some of which, if articulated, would not themselves find support in RS.

(Oh, and by the way, the top result for “denaturalization of palestinians” was about the contemporaneous expulsion Iraqi Jews. Which, indicates that the field of results was sparse enough that the engine had to split the input up into keywords even if those keywords were not linked in the text).

So without clearer sources, this seems to be just yet another case a case of some editor inserting contentious and insufficiently sourced examples in an article that doesn’t actually need them. We get a lot of that in Russia–Ukraine.

2. Have you looked at the source in question? It’s a pretty standard specimen of academic methodology being directed towards the propagation of a particular cause, i.e. highbrow POV.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources that discuss the denaturalization and/or statelessness of Palestinians, this for instance. I have yet to see any evidence that the fact is disputed or that the source is not reliable for the content it supports. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but denaturalization is not the same thing as statelessness. Denaturalization is an act and statelessness is a condition. Let me go read what you linked. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the statement is sufficiently novel that explicit contradictions of it are not easily searchable.

Israeli citizenship law#Post-1948 transition and History of Palestinian nationality#Post-Mandate and the references cited there provide good starting points and, in contradicting the statement contested here, presumably set forth the mainstream position.

The article you linked was interesting. The guy is clearly well versed in his field and writes quite well. I actually read a bunch of his abstracts and even skimmed a couple of his other papers, out of sheer interest. Some of his academic positions are a little radical, but I found it engaging; my main critique is that he seems blithely unaware of potential countervailing points and opposing arguments. Anyway, cursory searches also bring up that he has extensive involvement as a consultant to multiple Palestinian organizations.

(By the way…you see the problem? Unlike many other CT areas, virtually all academics have more or less taken a side. I haven't participated in very many ARBPIA discussions, mostly moves, but I imagine there is quite a lot of source bashing all around. Or at least I hope they do that instead of getting all ugly.)

In any event, the issue is that the article, narrowly speaking, is about a specific phenomenon, one that, apart from the previously discussed sources, doesn't seem to be directly related to the well-documented displacement of Palestinians. I personally am mainly annoyed at the fact that someone (didn't check blame) dragged contentious statements into an "examples" section yet again (I'm currently dealing elsewhere with an inexperienced CT cowboy, as I was barely a year ago, who had restored something analogous elsewhere in flagrant contravention of BLP rules). Among other things, this is a simply atrocious practice because it not only entails, but further encourages, the leakage of contentious topics into virgin territory. Deplorable, no?

Anyway, if you aren't convinced, I have way better things to do than start a formal DR process, naturally. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but I see no policy based reason to treat this case any differently than others mentioned in the article, such as those involving the breakup of the Soviet union and Yugoslavia. (t · c) buidhe 01:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, so are you. Anyway, happy editing :)

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, Buidhe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ojos del Salado/archive1.
Message added 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greetings, since you did review Guallatiri at FAC I was wondering if you may be interested in Ojos del Salado too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarification needed for a recent revert

I noticed your revert of an edit of mine on the Occupy Pedophilia article.

The older revision that I reverted to seemed to me to be based on information directly sourced from the article's first reference, a report from Human Rights Watch on homophobia in Russia, which was cited in that revision.

Quoting directly from that report: "Since late 2012, its members have harassed and attacked primarily gay people and children and in some cases also transgender women and gender queer individuals."

Could you please provide clarification on why you believe the revision prior to my edit was more accurate? Additionally, I would appreciate any suggestions you may have on what actions I could have taken instead. Sinerst (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad: I confused the revisions and thought that I was restoring the content about it being anti-LGBT. The error has now been rectified. (t · c) buidhe 04:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Signups open for The Core Contest 2024

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Request

Hello, collegue. May I ask you to read this article and express your criticism? With respect, Smpad (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Soviet POWs

Since we are both blocked and apparently guilty of edit warring, we should instead include other editors to discuss the sources and what is accurate or not, instead of back and forth arguing without making progress. I see you pinged someone and I have asked someone else for input as well, hopefully this resolves the dispute. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Garetosmab

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Garetosmab, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Edelman Family Foundation

Hello @Buidhe

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Buidhe,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

WCK drone strikes

I want a clarification about this edit because you have changed more than removing the IDF flag from the infobox but reverting other edits as well, contrary to your edit summary. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Sameboat I don't know what went wrong here, I only meant to remove the flag. (t · c) buidhe 01:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Transgender people in Nazi Germany

On 10 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Transgender people in Nazi Germany, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in just one night, thousands of books on the experiences and medical care of transgender people in Nazi Germany were burned (pictured) for being "un-German"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender people in Nazi Germany. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Transgender people in Nazi Germany), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 12,314 views (1,026.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Thank you for your work on the article, also featured on Portal:Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

I know you quite often patrol and correct pages of genocides, and was seeing if you thought the infobox for the Armenian Genocide page looked adequate? Reaper1945 (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have been opposed to having an infobox there for a long time because most of the fields are oversimplified or at least somewhat disputed (death toll, location, time) depending on which events are counted as part of the genocide. Reducing "perpetrators" to the CUP or Ottoman state is rather simplistic, given widespread popular participation in aspects of the genocide even by non-Ottomans—for example, Iranian Kurds if you count killings in Iran. (t · c) buidhe 03:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand that part about the perpetrators, as similar to the Holocaust, while it was mainly Germany, a lot of it was carried out by its allies and local collaborators, so maybe something similar can be put for perpetrators? Also, the timeline is a bit wonky, but the most commonly stated, as provided by the Holocaust Museum as well, is 1915 to 1916. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I can live with those dates, but Suny and some others say it ended in early 1917. What's your source for 1915-1916 being the most common? (t · c) buidhe 03:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources for the date of 1915 to 1916 are listed here. However, I see other sources listing it from 1915 to 1923, so as you said, the dates are complicated to pin down and interpret. Reaper1945 (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

On top of the comment above, I may have misinterpreted "most common", as I see there's no agreed upon end date. Whether 1915–1917, 1915–1916, or 1915–1923. Reaper1945 (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)