Talk:Agʿazi People

Original research

This article is a mess of original research. There is no academic consensus on who or what the "Ag'azi" even were, some sources say they were a small tribe, others say they represented the Aksumite population as a whole. It also makes bold claims of "Agazians" living as far as Shewa and Gojjam which is completely ludicrous. I recommend that this article gets deleted or merged. Socialwave597 (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gyrofrog I'd like to know your thoughts on this? Socialwave597 (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Briefly, I agree with what you wrote in your first post. Personally, I wonder if this should have been moved (or could still be moved) to Draft space (I wouldn't disagree with deleting or merging, just that Drafting might've been quicker). What I've seen in this article are sections that don't cite any sources at all, and a few places where the text cites a source, but doesn't corroborate the the text, if it (the source) even mentions the subject matter at all. (And in two other instances, there's a citation of a WP:SPS, and an incomplete {{sfn}} citation that someone else came along & fixed, though I still don't have access to the source.) They way I read it, the article comes off as an assertion of what someone thinks this means, citing sources that are generally about the topic area but don't actually support the article. A bit like hammering a square peg into a round hole. There are (I think) behavioral issues surrounding all this, which are out of the scope of this article's talk page, but are being discussed at WP:AN3 (archived here) - where I've also explained that I may be too WP:INVOLVED to handle this myself in the way that I would prefer. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• P.S. Having just re-read the second paragraph at WP:INVOLVED, I've reconsidered that stance. My edits here were to address WP:V and WP:NOR. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gyrofrog I went ahead anyways and opened up a deletion request, your input would be much appreciated. I agree with what you said about the article though. I've interacted with this editor, and he has a general tendency to prioritize his own subjective interpretation over reliable sources (on various different articles). I think that this[1] and their recent conduct suggests that they might not be too mature to contribute. But idk, you're an administrator so perhaps you might have more insight then me on this. Socialwave597 (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)