Talk:Central Coastal Oman

Majlis al Jinn

There is some disagreement about whether to include the history of the cave's discovery in its description. When I wrote the original text I chose to include this fact as I found it interesting; however an anonymous editor apparently finds this offensive, and has now twice removed the wording. Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter? –StellarD (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

While I always love to read as much backstory as possible about a place in a travel guide, I think I really have no strong opinions on this. If it's relevant, then please add it back, and if not... Pointing out what you find interesting about the American hydrologists discovering it may be worthwhile (like, it took until 1983 someone found the second largest cave chamber in the world, and even then, they had to come from half the globe away to do that).

What I find really interesting about the place, though, is its name ("the gathering of the demons", if I'm not mistaken). Why did they decide to name the cave as such? Any local myths associated with it (seem unlikely to emerge, since the cave wasn't known to exist at all before 1983)? Or the surrounding area? Vidimian (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion, with an explanation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The IP user is now edit warring. What do you all suggest as the next step? I've invited him/her to state his/her case here, but I'm inclined to revert again, because "irrelevant to travellers" is not a substantive argument. Irrelevant because? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your time and comments. The bit about American hydrologists is certainly not essential, but I found it interesting primarily because it was discovered only recently by scientists from another part of the world.

I'd considered starting a discussion on the user's talk page, but as s/he seems to change IP addresses frequently, figured it would be ignored. Hopefully with IK's intervention we can put this issue to bed. –StellarD (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for the cave mentions that the hydrologists were employed by the Omani Water Resources Department for research in the area at the time of the discovery; noting down that they were receiving their paychecks from the Omani government in the listing perhaps would make it less controversial (?) for the anon user, and more informative for the others.

On another note, the same WP article also enlightened me about the origin of the name of the cave. Vidimian (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's irrelevant information for travelers. —The preceding comment was added by 169.53.189.14 (talk • contribs)

Why is it irrelevant? It's no more nor less relevant than lots of other background information of at least passing interest that is put in travel guides. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This edit by the vandal/troll (see Hajar Mountains) has been reverted, with the article protected. Now, we can discuss this question instead of dealing with someone who insists on their way "just because". So, is it or is it not interesting that American hydrologists discovered this cave? Does anyone except for the dynamic IP user think it's best to delete this info? I don't greatly care either way, just that no one person should arrogate to him-/herself the unilateral power to dictate wording. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the local history for Bimmah Sinkhole (listed under 'See' in this same article) could be considered to be equally irrelevant for travelers, yet the anonymous editor has chosen to ignore that bit. Mentioning that the hydrologists were employed by the Omani government also would seem to be irrelevant – I assume that the editor really doesn't like that it was Americans who discovered the cave. We could write simply that the cave was discovered in 1982 by hydrologists; however removing a single word simply to placate a particularly nasty vandal/troll could I think possibly set a bad precedent. Many articles on this site could be perceived as slanted or biased and can be undoubtedly improved, but I think this is best done in with a cordial, non-combative approach. Regarding my own opinion on the wording, as the author I am obviously biased, but have no problem with removing it if a different consensus is reached. –StellarD (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mention that, but I have the same suspicion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)