Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 32

Coca tea

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Coca tea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? I would like to simply attach the article somehow so the 3rd party could simply read it,and get that feedback instead of listing all the edited's,and who keeps editing it to the non factual/false knowledge.The reason is that this person has friends as editored and I fear thery would therefore be bias as I strongly feel this person is abusing her power as a editor. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Paitalona (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Assam#Etymology}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? yes,,thru the talk page ,nothing,this person just threatns you,but list nothing to do w/factual proof about the article How do you think we can help? Simply read the article,use what is pointed out as referrrnce points in the article and put it back out to the public as the factual knowledge it is because it is verifiably 100 percent true. I really do not think it proper editing power to threaten folks w/nasty words if they don't know the laws on wikipedia Paitalona (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Coca tea discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Libelous and repeated mischaracterization of reason for leaving the State Department and incident with video store owner

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Gregory Stanton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Repeatedly since a malicious neighbor posted it, and now again, an incident involving Gregory Stanton in 1998 has been mischaracterized as leading to his dismissal from the State Department. Contrary to what is alleged, Stanton did not drive his car into a video store owner and push him through a plate glass window. The car hit the plate glass, the video store owner did not even touch it. It is also false that the State Department dismissed Stanton because of the incident. In fact the head of psychiatry at the State Department testified at Stanton's sentencing that a State Department psychiatrist in Bangkok had misdiagnosed Stanton and placed him on an inappropriate medication at triple the usual strength. The psychiatrist testified that Stanton's mania in the incident (the only incident of mania in Stanton's entire life) was a normal reaction to such misdiagnosis and wrong prescription. Because of these extenuating circumstances, the judge gave Stanton no jail time for the incident. When the Personnel bureau at the State Department tried to dismiss Stanton for the incident, Stanton appealed to the Foreign Service Review Board and won the case, and the Board ordered him reinstated. He left the State Department in 1999. The portrayal of Stanton's conduct in the incident, the legal outcome, and the effect on his State Department career is libelous. It has been removed from Wikipedia before, and should be permanently barred. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Gregory H. Stanton (talk · contribs) Buddy Silverman, the neighbor (talk · contribs) Another unidentified user who has reposted this erroneous libel (talk · contribs) I think the dispute involving the looks of his yard with Buddy Silverman has long since been resolved. I have no idea what animus the new poster may have against me. I will try to notify Buddy Silverman, but do not know his user name. I do not know the name of the user who has re-posted this libel. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Gregory Stanton}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? It was resolved with Buddy Silverman years ago, I think. How do you think we can help? You can notify me of Buddy Silverman's username, so I can officially notify him, though I can do so personally nearly any day. And you can notify me of the user who has reposted this libel. You must permanently eliminate this libel from the Wikipedia article about me. If it is not deleted, I will insist that the entire entry about me on Wikipedia be taken down. 129.174.233.95 (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Gregory Stanton discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I note that the info under complaint was introduced in this diff by Australian Scholar (talk · contribs). I'm not sure this is a dispute so such as a WP:BLP issue. Info in the paragraph is not entirely backed up by the reference. I tend to think the paragraph should be rewritten so as to be limited to that which the reference provides. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - I've removed the material from the article until more information is gathered. Also, I posed a notice at WP:BLPN inviting BLP experts to weigh-in. --Noleander (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Comment I think it is unfair to ascribe any bad faith to User:Solarra returning the material, all he/she did was revert an IP's unexplained deletion of apparently properly referenced content. Reversions such as that are routinely done all over WP. The IP failed to leave an edit summary explaining the deletion. Unexplained deletions by IPs are almost always simple vandalism. Roger (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I don't see any mention of user Solarra above. But your comment sounds right. --Noleander (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC) It looks like the IP editor is now attacking other editors not involved in this issue - See this diff. BTW None of the Users involved listed above are correctly identified. Roger (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC) The problematic material was added by User:Australian Scholar in this edit. We can assume that the editors who are concerned about the material are unfamiliar with WP policies & practices; and particularly that they do not know how to parse the article edit history to find out exactly who originated the problematic material. So, accusing other editors like the one named in your diff above is an understandable mistake. Also, the user that originated this DRN may be unfamiliar with how to identify & list editors, so not much weight should be placed on the fact that the list of editors is wrong. If the material in question does turn out to be unfounded, then it must be excluded, of course, and editors that attempt to insert it should be cautioned. --Noleander (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC) It looks like User:Australian Scholar only edited for a couple of weeks in Feb 2012 ([1]) and is no longer editing. So, now that the material has been removed from the article, the problem may be resolved. --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I had a little look - and commented at the BLPN - I agree with some of the general complains from the subject, the assertion that he was removed from his position due to the incident and general weight issues, and wouldn't replace anything about the incident myself unless additional sources were presented than the Proquest sales archive of a single article. - Youreallycan 18:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sondra Locke

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Sondra Locke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? I added a sentence to the article in an attempt to end an endless discussion on the talk page. It was reverted within minutes and I did not replace it. The edit summary by the reverter didn't make sense to me so I thought I would try this venue next to avoid any edit wars. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Erikeltic (talk · contribs) Canoe1967 (talk · contribs) Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) Nobody Ent (talk · contribs) Flyer22 (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Sondra Locke}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? How do you think we can help? I would just like opinions on whether my edit should stay according to policies. Canoe1967 (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Sondra Locke discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I am a clerk/mediator here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I see that this issue has been discussed at length at Talk:Sondra Locke. Alas, you did not include several participants in that conversation (Qwyrxian, Ent, Flyer22 -- there may be more). Please add their names under "Who is involved in the dispute?" and notify them using the DRN-notice template. Once everyone involved is notified, we can start attempting to resolve the dispute. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC) I added them to the list and notified them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC) This will be my only comment on the matter as the issue has been beaten to death repeatedly and has involved no less than 10 sock puppets all "supporting" the same position as Canoe's. First, some back story; the article has conflicting reliable sources that give two different birth years. Either one or both of these years is wrong. It's not our job to decide which date is better when the two sources are reliable (especially when it's a BLP). We do not do original research as Canoe has tried to do. Finally, as editors we do not editorialize BLPs. Canoe did just that here [2] after having tried the first two "don'ts" beforehand. The bottom line is that I reverted his addition, because an editor's personal commentary is inappropriate -- especially in a BLP. Furthermore, bringing that revert up as dispute resolution, prior to any discussion of the added editorial/ content/ commentary is, IMHO, inappropriate as well. Thanks. Erikeltic (Talk) 19:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC) There has been no discussion regarding this edit on article talk page. Nobody Ent 19:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC) The edit in question states, "Various reliable sources state two different years for her birth and no claim has been made that Locke herself caused the discrepancy." In addition to the article's talk page, the central issue has been discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Ignoring the numerous socks of a banned editor, we have (to the best of my knowledge) Canoe1967 and two other editors supporting the use of primary sources to pick one of the sourced dates. The solid consensus, AFAICT, is to include both dates. Having established this, Canoe1967 now want to add a "warning" about the dates. Canoe1967 added it and it was removed. Here's discussion on the matter: "Various reliable sources" is original research; we have decided they are "reliable" sources based upon our usage of the word "reliable". That "no claim has been made by Locke herself caused the discrepancy" is also original research; for all we know there is an article on the front page, above the fold, in a major newspaper with full color photos and a banner headline that we missed. No one on Wikipedia (to my knowledge) claims she caused the discrepancy. Further, the statement creates a dispute to counter. Where did the idea that Locke caused the discrepancy come from? Canoe1967's mind, it would seem. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Look this isn't brain surgery chaps. There are a bunch of secondary sources giving a 1944 dob and another bunch giving a 1947 dob. There is also a marriage licence recording her name, her 1944 dob and the name of her husband. The objection to the marriage licence as a source is that secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. However, all the information can be attributed to secondary sources, none of it needs to be attributed to the primary source! The primary source merely establishes which set of secondary sources are correct in this instance (since the secondary sources that give the correct date and the name of her husband can be matched up to the marriage licence—after all, how likely is it that there is more than one Sondra Locke were born on the same date married to a guy with the same name?). The allegations of synthesis are not relevant because synthesis is when you take two sources, and take content from them to create a claim that is not backed up entirely by one of the sources; this isn't the case here because all the claims are backed up entirely by the secondary sources. The marriage licence isn't being used as a source for the claims, it serves in a corroborative capacity for the secondary sources that have been chosen. It seems to me a sub-set of editors are gaming the policies and guidelines to include inaccurate information, which are really designed to prevent editors interjecting their own theories into articles—they are not there to compel us to include clearly inaccurate information. There is an equivalent case being cited (Audrey Tautou), but in that case there is no compelling reason to opt for either date. In this instance, it is pretty obvious the 1944 date is the correct one. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC) How do you think we can help? I would just like opinions on whether my edit should stay according to policies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Except, Canoe, the whole reason we reject primary sources is that they have no editorial oversight, and are harder to verify the accuracy of. In the case of the marriage license, I don't trust that 1) the license is a real, accurate copy of her accurate license and 2) if it is, that the information is accurate. When you get a license, they don't, in many states, require you to prove your DoB. This is the whole point behind how Wikipedia works--we rely on other experts (those who do research and who have editors that oversee to make sure they've done their research). We don't rely on our own ability to analyze primary documents. The article must retain both dates of birth, per WP:V and WP:OR. This is not gaming policies--this is the fundamental basis upon which WP works. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Looking closer at the sources you will find that the MSN one states 1944 and sources the Hal Erickson Rovi source that states 1947. The ABC source is broken now, but it was just a feed from The Associated Press. I may see if my library has a copy of the book and see how it is sourced. I emailed Rovi and the book publisher to have them check their sources. My email was kicked back from Associated Press because I wasn't on their inbound mail list. I may look for another email for them or have my local paper inquire.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Canoe1967, please see WP:IDHT. I have told you several times: you can email whoever you like, but there response cannot influence our discussion in any way. Information must be verifiable to readers--some email you get from some publisher does not do that. We are not researchers. We are not biographers. We are encyclopedia writers, and that means we summarize what RS say. If you want to figure out the truth about her age, write a book, or a blog post, or whatever, but back away from the crusade here. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC) You are missing my point. If the sources change their dates then we can change ours. They may all end up with the same date, except the book. If they all use that, then we can go with that date. Or have 3 sources for one date and only the book for the other. Then it can go back into consensus discussion again which was ignored the last few times and just caused edit wars. If even one reliable source changes their date that would be a good argument for another consensus discussion. Hal Erickson (author) is used as a source for both years in two different sources. I just created a new article for him and am still trying to find his email. I may email his publisher and see if they can help. I did find an email for the The Associated Press and sent one that may change the ABC source.Canoe1967 (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC) I got an email back from one very reliable source that used government records. They probably won't change their date. One down, two to go. The book and Rovi/Erickson.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I don't believe Mr. Erikson had editorial control over birthdates at Rovi, so I struck through his name above.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 13, 2012 at 21:11 (UTC) Reason: Resolved. Everyone agrees to show both dates unless better sources are found, Canoe1967 is doing a great job of verifying / obtaining sources. Thank you for the compliment. You can actually close this thread. I am far closer now to getting better sources or having the existing ones change their dates. Once this happens we can start a new thread on the talk page of the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is just this one article.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Joe Paterno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? The first paragraph regarding the Sandusky scandal ends with this sentence, "Despite the gravity of allegations against Sandusky, none of the men involved, including McQueary, Paterno, Curley or Schultz, notified state police.[39][40]" I have two disputes with the statement. First, neither reference substaniates this statement as it is written. Second this statement includes a number of individuals who could feel injured by the statement and is potenially libelous. My reasons for these concerns are on the talk page under the section "Misrepresentation of References". Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Joelwhy (talk · contribs) DWright (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=It is just this one article.}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I discussed my concern in an existing section and the author ignored me. I set up a section to discuss his references not substantiating his statements. The author then responded to me but did not consider my concerns. I politely and in a detailed manner explained why I think this statement violates Wikkileak's policy against original research and that the statement is potentially libelous. The author insists he referenced this statement where it is clear the author has not. The author ignored my concern that it is potentially libelous. How do you think we can help? Review the article and discussion. If you find the author has not referenced this statement properly and share my concern it is potentially libelous, then ask the author to remove the offensive statement and provide instruct on possible alternative ways to rewrite the sentence to complete the paragraph. If you have found the sentence improperly referenced but do not share my concern it is potentially libelous, then instruct the author to properly reference the statement. 71.48.141.230 (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC) It is just this one article. discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I am a volunteer clerk/mediator here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I have no prior opinion about this and did not know who Sandusky or Paterno was until today (my favorite spectator sport is chess...). In my opinion, "Despite the gravity of allegations against Sandusky, none of the men involved, including McQueary, Paterno, Curley or Schultz, notified state police" is far too editorial and not nearly encyclopaedic enough. There might be a place (Check WP:WEIGHTto be sure) for a mention along the line of "person X criticized them for not..." but it should not be in Wikipedia's voice. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC) The phrase "despite the gravity of the allegations" is probably unecessary editorialising, but there is no misrepresentation of sources regarding his failure to contact plice. That's in the source. The IP says that the source does not specifically say "state police", just "police". Well that would ceratinly include the state police, so I see no problem, but just remove "state" if it's so important. Paul B (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC) (See updated version below) ::Looking at those sources I see: CBS Sports: McQueary: Not mentioned in this source, listed first in the paragraph we are looking at. Paterno: Fulfilled his legal requirement to report suspected abuse. wasn't charged, grand jury didn't implicate him in wrongdoing. State police Commissioner editorialized that he had a moral requirement to do more. Curley: Charged with failing to alert police, lying to a grand jury. Schultz: Charged with failing to alert police, lying to a grand jury. Spanier: Possible target of investigation, not mentioned in the paragraph we are looking at. NBC Sports: McQueary: Not mentioned in this source, listed first in the paragraph we are looking at. Paterno: Lauded in the grand jury’s indictment, praised for learning of the 2002 incident and immediately reporting it to Curley. No other mention in this source. Curley: Charged with failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a minor, perjury. Schultz: Charged with failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a minor, perjury. Spanier: Grand jury determined that the he signed off on the course of action taken by Curley and Schultz. Not mentioned in the paragraph we are looking at. (See updated version below) These are some rather serious failures to follow the sources, and it is troubling to see a statement here at DRN that "there is no misrepresentation of sources regarding his failure to contact police. That's in the source" when one of those four names is not mentioned in either source and a name that is mentioned prominently in the source as "signing off" on not telling the police is not mentioned. Also troubling is the use of the word "he" instead of "they". I gather from what I have read in the one day since I heard of any of these people that Paterno is somewhat famous. That doesn't mean that we can ignore the other names in the paragraph we are looking at as if unsourced allegations are OK if the target isn't famous. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC) I'm somewhat confused by this dispute given that the failure of these gentleman to report to the police is well established in multiple sources already cited in the article (and via Grand Jury testimony and multiple indictments entered both in the media and legal record), but to put this matter to rest I've added additional sources from Sara Ganim in the Patriot News that link to both Paterno's grand jury testimony and the indictments of Curley and Schultz, both of which corroborate the statement (Ganim, as you may not know, recent won the Pulitzer prize for her coverage of the Paterno/Penn State child abuse scandal). I also question your statement that the text "Despite the gravity of allegations against Sandusky" qualifies as editorializing - as a reminder, Sandusky is charged with child rape and multiple counts of child sexual abuse. That the charges against Sandusky carry significant gravitas is self-evident, unless you have some other characterization of "child rape" or "child sexual abuse."AVR2012 (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) The reason that "Despite the gravity of allegations against Sandusky" qualifies as editorializing is not because the charges are not serious - if you wrote those words in a statement about Sandusky, nobody would questioning it. It is editorializing because you have decided (you, not a reliable source) that this is relevant to the question of whether Paterno immediately reporting it to Curley was sufficient. The sources give two different opinions, both of which are editorial. The grand jury lauded him. The police commissioner criticized him. No reliable source establishes that the seriousness of the charge is relevant to the question of whether he should have done more. (I personally think he should have, but I still insist that you cannot insert it into the article with no citation backing it up.) A much larger problem is the gross violation of Wikipedia standards that you are defending. We don't allow statements like "none of the men involved, including McQueary, Paterno, Curley or Schultz, notified state police" followed by two citations that do not mention McQueary. Especially when another citation[3] has him claiming that he did notify the police. And in the same statement that has a totally ununcited accusation against McQueary, you let Curley and Schultz off easy. They didn't just fail to notify the police. They were arrested and charged with a crime for doing so. The fact that you and others who are familiar with the topic allowed such a basic violation of WP:V as naming McQueary with no citation to back it up -- and that you are now defending that editorial decision -- calls your neutrality into question. You should step back and ask yourself why you are defending an accusation against someone who is not mentioned in the citations attached to it. I know nothing about sports. Do you have something personal against McQueary? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Whoa! Yikes!! You seem to have very strong feelings about a subject you've "never heard about." If your objection (from as much as I can tell) is that there's no mention of McQueary's failure to go to police, this can certainly be remedied given that it is so much part of the story is is practically legend by now, but I'll provide yet ANOTHER source (although many of them are already cited in the article). No, I have nothing personal against McQueary - read the grand jury testimony if you have questions about what he did. By the way, while I appreciate your feedback but quite frankly you should familiarize yourself with the subject matter before launching such a missive as a defense. To the extent that most of the nation is already aware of the issues at hand and this is new to you, I question your ability to accurately assess sources or statements in this article.AVR2012 (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Btw, the grand jury did not "laud" Paterno's actions. Please familiarize yourself with the record before commenting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVR2012 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC) I've added an additional cite referencing McQueary's testimony addressing the fact that he did not contact the police. That being said, there are numerous references prior to this that you should already have been familiar with that discussed Mike McQueary's involvement. In regard to your complaint about whether the parties "did enough," see the added paragraph in the orginal article about changes in state law in the aftermath of the scandal. I also get a sense that you did not read the original article in its entirety - please do so. AVR2012 (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Not sure what source you added, but the last cite in the string after the sentence at issue doesn't mention McQueary, either. And your arguments directed at Guy are misguided at best. One doesn't have to be familiar with a particular subject to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Indeed, sometimes it's better if one is not familiar with the subject. You have a sentence followed by cites. One or more has to support the sentence. We shouldn't have to look elsewhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC) The only thing I feel strongly about is that when Wikipedia says that someone didn't call the police, the citation that follows should actually say that he didn't call the police. I really don't think that is too much to ask, and I don't see why some people have a problem with me asking for that. In the above list I made an error. looking at this version I listed CBS Sports and NBC Sports, references 38 and 39. I should have looked at 39 and 40. Of course reference 40 doesn't say that McQueary failed to call the police either. Again referring to the version I looked at when I wrote that the exact words of reference 38 are "As for how all of this will affect Joe Paterno? The coaching legend was lauded in the grand jury’s indictment, praised for learning of the 2002 incident and immediately reporting it to Curley." Now, what was that about familiarizing yourself with the record before commenting again? This refusal to follow Wikipedia's standards for verifiability is very troubling. I am seriously considering suggesting a topic ban for every editor who has indicated that he supports Wikipedia saying that McQueary failed to call the police and that he doesn't care whether the citations support that. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Just checked the two new citations added. One doesn't say that McQueary failed to call the police and the other doesn't mention McQueary at all. What a shock. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Of those listed above, the CBS report is one that is most obviously a reliable source. Our account should follow it unless there is another source of equivalent or better quality. The NBC account is more of an op-ed piece. Also we should bear in mind that news sources covering a story as it evolves necessarily lack hindsight. In due course, they should be complemented by or replaced by more detailed studies. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Analysis of Citations I just went through the 4 citations that are currently after the passage plus the one directly before it. Here us what I found: Wikipedia: ['38'] "Despite the gravity of allegations against Sandusky, none of the men involved, including McQueary, Paterno, Curley or Schultz, notified state police." ['39'] ['40'] ['41'] (Link to version examined) NBC Sports: ['38'] McQueary: Not mentioned in this source. Paterno: Lauded in the grand jury’s indictment, praised for learning of the 2002 incident and immediately reporting it to Curley. No other mention in this source. Curley: Charged with failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a minor, perjury. Schultz: Charged with failure to report suspected sexual abuse of a minor, perjury. Spanier: Grand jury determined that the he signed off on the course of action taken by Curley and Schultz. CBS Sports: ['39'] McQueary: Not mentioned in this source. Paterno: Fulfilled his legal requirement to report suspected abuse. wasn't charged, grand jury didn't implicate him in wrongdoing. State police Commissioner editorialized that he had a moral requirement to do more. Curley: Charged with failing to alert police, lying to a grand jury. Schultz: Charged with failing to alert police, lying to a grand jury. Spanier: Possible target of investigation. police withholding details. New York Daily News: ['40'] McQueary: No mentioned of not calling police. Paterno: Followed the law by alerting his superiors at Penn State (one of whom was the head of the university police). Curley: "Charges related to the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case" - No specifics. Schultz: "Charges related to the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case" - No specifics. Spanier: Not mentioned in this source. Patriot-News (via pennlive.com) ['41'] McQueary: Not mentioned in this source. Paterno: "reported" the abuse (does not say to who) Curley: Not mentioned in this source. Schultz: Not mentioned in this source. Spanier: Not mentioned in this source. Wikipedia: McQueary: Did not notify state police. (Claim not found in citations, omits cited fact that McQueary says that he did notify police.) Paterno: Did not notify state police. (omits cited fact that Paterno notified the head of University Police - Schultz.) Curley: Did not notify state police. (Proper citation, but omits him being arrested and charged for same.) Schultz: Did not notify state police. (Proper citation, but omits him being being arrested and charged for same.) Spanier: Not mentioned in this part of Wikipedia article. These are obvious sourcing problems that should have been addressed by the editors working on the page long before this reached DRN. Instead, I see Paul B (talk) [4] and AVR2012 (talk) [5] [6] defending the practice of Wikipedia making accusations against living persons (see WP:BLP) that are not in the citations (see WP:V) and adding adding other citations that do not support the accusation while falsely claiming that they do. This is a serious violation of Wikipedia's policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC) "Instead, I see Paul B (talk) [40] and AVR2012 (talk) [41] [42] defending the practice of Wikipedia making accusations against living persons that are not in the citations". What a load of crap. How dare you accuse me of "defending the practice" of making statements "that are not in the citations"? I clearly said that the statement should follow the citation. Do not make false allegations. Paul B (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I make no false claims - each article has links to testimony supporting the sentence. After reading all of the above, I'm gleaning that "sources" by definition do not include the links they provide (despite the fact the links are embedded in them). You should be more helpful as a "dispute resolution volunteer" with newer editors such as myself in clarifying these issues- that would have saved us a lot of time. In any event, I've now amended the sourcing so that the source itself (irrespective of embedded links) is corroborative.AVR2012 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC) It is very easy to find sources which say that Paterno did not contact the police [7] [8], but note that some pro-Paterno commentators are now saying that he did contact the police [9]. I find their argument rather strained, but it should nevertheless be included. The argument is that he had a meeting with Gary Schultz, a senior vice president at Penn State U, in which he raised the issue. According to this view, since Schutz supposedly "oversaw the university police as part of his position", this counts as contacting the police. IMO, "overseeing" the campus police does not mean you are the police, so I think it's rather a strain to call this contacting the police, but it's nevertheless an argument being put forward that should be included. Paul B (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC) The citation you added says: [A] McQueary claims to have talked to police. [B] Campus and borough police say they have no record of that. [C] The grand jury that charged the other two with failure to report found McQueary's testimony to credible and did not charge him. Once again the new citation does not support saying -- in Wikipedia's voice -- that McQueary not reporting is an established fact. It could be used for a statement that states point A and B above as "McQueary claims that he talked to police" and "State College Police Chief Tom King said McQueary didn’t make a report to his department and Penn State spokeswoman Annemarie Mountz said campus police also didn’t have any record of a report filed in 2002 by McQueary." --Guy Macon (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I just checked the page and I see that yet another citation that does not support the claim has been added, and now Curley and Schultz -- the only people that were charged with not reporting the abuse to the police -- have been removed! I am now asking you to voluntarily self-revert the unsourced accusation that McQueary failed to report the abuse to the police, and to not re-add it unless the addition also includes a citation supporting the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mercury Tower topping Shard

Closed discussion

War of the Pacific

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. War of the Pacific (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? the article has multiple issues that have been explained in the talk page. Iraised 37 issues and only few of them has been resolved. The users Cloudaoc and MarshalN20 have deleted the tag. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Keysanger (talk · contribs) MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) Cloudaoc (talk · contribs) User Cloudaoc has never contributed with own ideas to the discussion. He simply follows MarshalN20. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=War of the Pacific}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? The talk page of the article has a long record of unfinished discussions How do you think we can help? reinsert the {{multiple issues}} Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC) War of the Pacific discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The list of raised issues can be read in User:Keysanger/liste.--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Witness (1985 film), Eric Carmen

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Witness (1985 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Eric Carmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? User 213.79.52.203 added their own, unsourced analysis (not denied) to the article Witness (1985 film). I and another user have reverted several times, but IP has reverted back each time. After observing this behavior, I had a look at the IP's history, and reverted their one other contribution (as being unencyclopedic), which IP has also reverted back. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? 213.79.52.203 (talk · contribs) Hobbes Goodyear (talk · contribs) Turgan (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Witness (1985 film), Eric Carmen}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Initiated Talk:Witness_(1985_film)#Analysis_of_lemonade_drinking talk page discussion. Warned user for edit warning, including link to discussion. IP defended OR by repeating OR. I asked for a single reliable source. No reply. How do you think we can help? Please help to stop this new IP editor from persisting with edits that are clearly in violation of WP policy and for which they make no effort to defend in terms of policy. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Witness (1985 film), Eric Carmen discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Closing note: I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. I'm sorry, but what you are actually reporting is a conduct dispute, not a content dispute, and this noticeboard is just for content disputes. Moreover, there's been no discussion at the Eric Carmen article and this noticeboard also requires substantial discussion before help is requested here. Finally, the IP editor did make a good faith (if mistaken) response at the Witness article and it's only been a day since then. While regular editors generally respond quickly, occasional editors may go a few days before replying. There is no hurry. If you want to make a conduct dispute, try WP:ANI and if they won't respond at Eric Carmen, try a RFC after satisfying the requirements in the footnote of the RFC page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2011 Egyptian revolution

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 2011 Egyptian revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? The issue is whether the revolution should be seen as lasting from 25 January 2011 - 11 February 2011, or rather from 25 January 2011 - present. It's now at the status of an edit war. I already made an RFC for it yesterday, no comment given yet; sorry if adding another request here is seen as spamming. I decided to try here as because it's a now a proper edit war. I feel that this is hindering the inclusion of info about current events in Egypt, whether in this article or in a new one. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? SuperHero2111 (talk · contribs) 175.137.55.62 (talk · contribs) 58.27.19.248 (talk · contribs) Junglejill (talk · contribs) Please note that I've listed myself because I'm the only registered user who expressed the same opinion as the IP editor(s) (that 2011 and 2012 protests are not a single event.) I haven't edited the article with disputed content, and don't intend to. Let me know if I should've included all editors who expressed opinions. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=2011 Egyptian revolution}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? The issue was discussed on the talk page - editors have stated their opinion, but haven't replied to each other, so no meaningful discussion has taken place. I've requested on the IP editor's talk page not to edit the article with disputed info. Maybe the new IP involved is the same user. I submitted this for RFC yesterday, no comment given yet. How do you think we can help? Let's try to reach some acceptable compromise so that current events in Egypt receive proper coverage instead of an edit war about what date should be listed in the infobox. ʝunglejill 07:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 2011 Egyptian revolution discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. To briefly state my opinion: I'm definitely not an expert on the subject. I don't strictly believe the article should only describe the period between Jan 25 - Feb 11; as far as I remember, 2011 protests continued well beyond that. It's obviously hard to pinpoint the exact moment the revolution "ended", as Egypt is still undergoing major political changes. This might be the case for years. I think it's incorrect to treat everything that happened between Jan 25 and the present as a single event. There has been a long lull in protest, which was only rekindled recently. Also, since the article is already long, the topic would be better served by creating separate a article for current protests. Maybe even a new article titled "Political unrest in Egypt following January 25" or "Timeline of civil unrest in Egypt following January 25", if this is not covered by Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution. In summary, while 2011 and 2012 events are related, in my opinion they are not the same event. ʝunglejill 08:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

International Technological University

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. International Technological University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Prospective students (and their parents) are searching for factual information regarding the university they are planning to attend. Referenced factual materials have been removed by the user "Jfeise" regarding the "Founder's Background" of ITU, as well as referenced facts regarding the chief academic faculty members of the institution. The public has the right to see the referenced facts and reputation of the people who make up the institution, so that they can decide if the university is credible or not. The user "Jfeise" censors factual data, which is contrary to getting credible information on to wikipedia. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Jfeise (talk · contribs) Orientalsoul (talk · contribs) factual information is that well referenced by articles, books and publishing houses should not be censored by Jfeise regarding the International Technological University page. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=International Technological University}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? How do you think we can help? The user Jfeise should be notified by many in this community not to censor factual data that has been posted and is of core relevance to the topic. Orientalsoul (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC) International Technological University discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Hello, and welcome to Dispute resolution. First of all this is not about censorship. Censorship is preventing un-glamorous facts from being reported. What your edits have done is to puff up the esteem of the institution and make the article effectively a advertisement vehicle for the institution. I have looked at the talk page and the content you've attempted to put in multiple times. That a Administrator has now fully protected the page suggests that there is a problem with the content you wish to add. Hasteur (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC) I don't see any dispute here. I reverted the addition of promotional material. jfeise (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC) In addition, Orientalsoul did not try to resolve any perceived dispute, e.g., by using the talk page of the article. jfeise (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC) The material being added by the complainant was indeed promotional and some was simply copied from the official website. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Indeed, there is very much a dispute here, Jfeise, because you label your own slanted postings as "the article", giving your views perceived legitimacy, but label other accurate and reference materials going against your agenda as "promotional". I am new to the wiki community, but now you have my interest. I have read history on such censorship tactics carried out in communist countries, where the "party line" edges out all opposing materials and voices. I guarantee you will find this impossible to do here at Wiki, as long as accurately referenced and verifiable postings are being censored by you and your friends/colleagues. Accurately cited materials will stay on that page, or this dispute will be raised to the next level of until accurately stated and referenced facts are posted and stay posted without your group's censorship tactics. No one here has the power of the party, this is America, facts will get out make its way to the public and be transparent. Orientalsoul (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Please read the line at the top of this section: "Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand." Thank you. I reverted the addition of promotional material. jfeise (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Ok, let's defuse the timer of anger here. Do not use language like now you have my interest. That kind of language suggests you're going to begin harassing the Jfeise. Ultimatums such as or this dispute will be raised to the next level of until accurately stated and referenced facts are posted and stay posted without your group's censorship tactics do not work on Wikipedia. We work by WP:CONSENSUS and based on our policies. This website is not a governmental institution and therefore not appropraite for comparison to Communist Countries, Party lines or censorship. While we do have transparency as one of our core policies, your edits are deliberately promotional on behalf of the institution. Want to make a website extolling the virtues of the University? Do it somewhere besides Wikipedia. You've now been told by yet annother user (and administrator) in Dougweller, that your material was inappropriate for Wikipedia. Now, let's have a pot of tea and see if there is some content that you feel should be added that does not fall afoul of WP:NOTPROMO. Hasteur (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC) I actually consider this whole complaint harassment. The complainant has not even tried to use the article's talk page to resolve any perceived dispute. Please dismiss this whole complaint as unwarranted. jfeise (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, this seems to be targeted harassment, at least in part. Although I've reverted Orientalsoul more times than Jfeise has, for reasons that I cannot discern, Orientalsoul has consistently named Jfeise as the only other party to this "dispute". --Orlady (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your response Hasteur and Dougweller, I will conform to policies that make sense, so the more that I know, the better I will build consensus in public view. One discussion I raised referred to the defaulted student loans that now have aggregated to over a trillion dollars, eclipsing credit card debt. This debt has been "derivitized" and sold off, just as defaulted sub-prime loans were. It is a mounting national crises facing how we fund and how we educate our own population. It is centrally relevant to a university such as ITU that educates significant numbers of graduates in the very hi-tech industries, presently leading the nation's economic recovery, and does so without aggregating more national debt. This topic is totally relevant to ITU and its style of operation. Yet, in your own "administrative" reading of my posts, instead of engaging in the content, such as this one that I have just re-articulated for you here, you have summarily labeled my posts as "promotional". How do you justify your blanket labeling of all of the topics I raised in my posts. I am afraid you are generalizing and doing blanket labeling Hasteur, and not specific to the content of the posts, whether you are an "administrator" or otherwise, it is still poor form and not transparent in its blunt labeling of refined topic matters. Orientalsoul (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC) First, this is not America, it is Wikipedia and it is in cyberspace. We have our own policies and guidelines which we hope editors will follow. In this specific case, I suggest you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Two of our basic policies are WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR - I mention these in relationship to your mention of the debt crisis. That would only belong in an article if you had reliable sources that discussed the university and the debt crisis. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC) The article talk page is the appropriate place to discuss suggestions for improvements to the article, not this board. Discussion was barely initiated on that page before Orientalsoul elected to bring the matter to dispute resolution. I can see plenty of room for improvement in the article, but boasts about the accomplishments of faculty members and the prestige of the school's commencement speakers are not consistent with Wikipedia policy and do not improve the article. --Orlady (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Fair enough Orlady, let's move to the talk page Orientalsoul (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Please view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Technological_University#Founder.27s_Background to follow the thread of this discussion. Thank you Orientalsoul (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Scjessey

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? I have been offended by the inexcusable conduct of a wikipedia account holder. This wikipedia account holder's word choice on talk pages and edit summaries and methods of handling and creating conflicts is clearly in violation of wikipedia policies and essays on WP:DR and described best as bullying. Specifically, this wikipedia account holder has a self acknowledged habit of using profanity and sarcasm to negative effect on wikipedia. This behavior seems to contribute to conflicts with other wikipedia account holders(Note: i do not want to be accused of mass canvassing in the process of trying to determine if others feel the same. That is why I have only tagged one wikipedia account holder) and I am personally offended by the rudeness and cannot take this lack of respect towards myself and other wikipedia account holders lightly any longer. The wikipedia account holder in question's pattern of conduct is creating a poor environment to accomplish the goals of improving the encyclopedia on wikipedia. I first became concerned reading comments on a talk page diff: [10] After reading this, I decided to politely ask this wikipedia account holder to refrain from using profanity. Instead, he reverted by new section and used more profanity in the edit summary. More Diffs displaying usage of profanity in edits and edit summary: [11] [12] More Diffs displaying violation of Staying cool: [13] [14] [15] Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Scjessey (talk · contribs) 24.163.35.69 (talk · contribs) No. No additional comments. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=User:Scjessey}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Yes. The events are described above. How do you think we can help? Dispute resolution Suggest wikipedia account holder to take a wikibreak and return with a peaceful and constructive attitude. 24.163.35.69 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC) User:Scjessey discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. This report looks awfully suspicious. I don't see evidence of any dispute between SCJ and any particular IP editor. We have had an uptick of socking and other weirdness lately on the Obama articles, where SCJ participates with his trademark bluntness. Or perhaps the editor has glommed onto SCJ from some other subject space. Without knowing which other IP or signed-in addresses the editor has used it's simply not possible to discern a dispute here, or distinguish it from a grudge attack from an old detractor (something that would trigger WP:DENY). - Wikidemon (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Department of Corrections (New Zealand)

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Department of Corrections (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Over many months a number of editors have been unable to reach agrement on NPOV issues related to Department of Corrections (New Zealand). User:Offender9000 appears to be a SPA with many hundreds of edits related to criminal justice in New Zealand and penal populism (a political theory relating to criminal justice). User:Offender9000 has been attempting to use Department of Corrections (New Zealand) as a platform for accusing a government department of failing to live up to its statutory obligations, after previously outting themselves as a author of a book on this topic (or maybe a similar topic, I've not read the book). Other editors (initially myself and SimonLyall; lately Daveosaurus) have been trying to craft what we see as a more balanced article. I withdraw because this is the wrong forum, as per Steven Zhang and Xavexgoem. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Stuartyeates (talk · contribs) Offender9000 (talk · contribs) SimonLyall (talk · contribs) Daveosaurus (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Department of Corrections (New Zealand)}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? The issue has been discussed at the on the talk page, several times on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject New Zealand, on COIN once twice and in a failed mediation How do you think we can help? User:Offender9000 is clearly a talented writer who could make substantial contributions to wikipedia if editting in areas in which they were capable of achiveing a NPOV in, therefore suggest a topic ban covering the New Zealand criminal justice system and the politics of justice issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Department of Corrections (New Zealand) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. (Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello. I'm a volunteer/clerk here on DRN, and I wanted to start things off with a few reminders. First, the suggestion of a topic ban is far beyond the scope of this noticeboard. We are not administrators here; we don't make or enforce bans (or any other administrative action) of any sort here. If you believe that user conduct could be an issue, this may need to go to WP:ANI, but I would suggest that we try and solve the problem here first - ANI threads are usually long and often result in bans or blocks for involved parties, but even if not, they are almost always rather unpleasant. If User:Offender9000 is indeed a single purpose account, I would like to hear his(?) side of the story before we delve too far into the issue. Offender, before you comment, too, I would like to suggest that you read this guideline about sources. Quoting from it: "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field." I'm not saying that to challenge your knowledge of the subject, but I'm just putting that in there as a note of caution that being knowledgeable about the subject does not make you privileged in editing the article. Sleddog116 (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC) On the matter of a topic ban being out of scope, my aim here is to resolve the issues, I don't really mind how we get there. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC) To Sleddog116: If you would like to hear my side of the story, if you have not already done so, can I suggest you have a good look at [the mediation which went on between Simon Lyall and myself]. You will see that there was a comprehensive discussion and that it was recommended to SimonLyall that he needed to "give some leeway. There was plenty of good information provided by Offender". The only reason there was no final resolution was because after weeks of discussion, SimonLyall withdrew from the mediation once a compromise solution was offered by the mediator. He refused to accept the compromise and said: "I'm sorry I don't have the time to continue this". Mediation requires an assumption of good faith in all parties. Withdrawing from mediation because you don't have the time, and then trying to start it up all over again two weeks later is not an indication of good faith. Also during the mediation Stuartyeates said: "I'm happy to let SimonLyall speak for me" and agreed not to edit the pages under discussion for six months. The six-months is not yet up and good faith requires one to stick to one's word. In the overview of this new dispute above, Stuartyeates says: "User:Offender9000 has been attempting to use Department of Corrections (New Zealand) as a platform for accusing a government department of failing to live up to its statutory obligations, after previously outting themselves as a author of a book on this topic (or maybe a similar topic, I've not read the book). Other editors (initially myself and SimonLyall; lately Daveosaurus) have been trying to craft what we see as a more balanced article." Daveosaurus specifically stated his main concern about NPOV was the accusation in the article that the corrections Department was in breach of legislation. He removed the information he thought was inappropriate. I took his comments on board and removed additional information on that issue. My understanding is that this is how editing Wikipedia articles works. It requires a willingness to compromise. However, as soon as the information was removed, two days later, these three other editors all get together and begin yet another pointless attempt at mediation. When the editing process is being conducted in an agreeable manner, there is no need to pretend there is a dispute. In regard to your suggestion that I should read the guidelines about sources, I would like to point out that there are currently 80 footnotes to the Corrections Department article. Only one of them makes reference to Flying Blind. Any discussion about whether it is a reliable source is clearly a red herring. Offender9000 (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC) When I said " I don't have time for this " I meant exactly that. I really didn't have time to spend hours answering Offender9000's comments ( note the length of what he says in each section of the mediation ). He has a lot more time, motivation and energy to spend on this topic than anyone else. I also did not start this dispute resolution, I don't really think it is useful since I doubt it will result in Offender9000 changing their behavior and I am not longer watching or editing the articles since my time and energy is better spent elsewhere on wikipedia. This is just another step in the procedure that will eventually either led to Wikipedia blocking Offender9000 from editing the pages or deciding he will be allowed to dictate how they look. It does not require my participation. The way I read Stuartyeates' offer was for all three of us not to edit the article for 6 months... - SimonLyall (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC) I urge editors to read The privileged nature of mediation. What was said in privileged communication cannot be used here or in any other WP fora. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor)Concerning the self outing, I seems that Offender9000 is here.Curb Chain (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Comment reinstated after removal in this edit. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC) If formal mediation has been unsuccessful in remediating the above dispute, then a request for arbitration should be filed. We use techniques similar to mediation at this forum, and I do not feel that we will have more success in resolving the dispute than the Mediation Committee had. I'll close this thread in about a day, but RFAR is the way to go here. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 23:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC) First of all, I was very explicit that mediation cannot be brought up in other fora. This especially applies to failed mediations. Second, it was clear from the start that the 6-month voluntary topic ban applied to everyone, and it's weird to suggest it only applied to the person who brought it up. 1) If you go back and read what was said, it was an unconditional offer to withdraw for six months in which he said "I" am happy not to edit for six months. He made no mention of anyone else agreeing to it. 2) The person who made the offer was not even supposed to be commenting anyway. I agreed to participate on the condition that I only had to mediate with one person. He agreed to let SimonLyall speak for him - but then broke that agreement. Offender9000 (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Third, I've brought this up before the committee; this is uncommon, and I'm not sure how to proceed. Fourth, RFAR is too early. RFC/U would probably be a better venue. Please close this discussion. Once formal mediation is being used as a cudgel, you have completely lost the argument. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC) How is it remotely possible to continue discussing this issue without reference to what has already been said? Other editors make comments which indicate they have not been following the discussion and the only way to answer their queries is to summarise the key point which applies to their query. Otherwise one has to 'litigate' the point all over again which is a further waste of everybody's time - on top of the months of already wasted time going through a failed mediation. In saying that, I am happy to delete the 'offending' material if that would help.Offender9000 (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC) First, let me make clear that a Mediation Committee Mediator is a different kind of animal than a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Mediator. The Mediation Committee is the last stage of formal content-dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is one of the first stages of content-dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia. They have formal procedures. We are far more casual. That's because we, by design, have no actual power. We aren't administrators. You can blow us off and ignore everything we say with impunity. Our goal is to help you resolve your conflict, not to step in and settle it for you. See Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#Formal and informal and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes. Keeping that distinction in mind, please read Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#The privileged nature of mediation. Notice how strongly that is worded? Every so often you find some "don't even think about doing this" Wikipedia policy that the folks at the top are not kidding about. WP:BLP is one. This is another. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nattukottai Nagarathar, Ariviyur Nagarathar

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Nattukottai Nagarathar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ariviyur Nagarathar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? There is a community called Ariviyur Chettiars and not Aruviyur Nagarathar, author is just quoting a book and like a marketing material created this page. author for a long time is not responding to the talk page. This user split up Nagarathar page into 2 (i.e Nattukottai Nagarathar, Aruviyur Nagarathar) for his own benefit and marketing purpose. Google search result shows less than 1000 pages for Aruviyur Nagarathar, that too, looks like a clone of the wiki page at most places. In this case, it should be called spam/marketing/false information. I suggest the author to move Aruviyur Nagarathar to Aruviyur Chettiars. I request the author to remove the flicked information (sections) of Silapathikaram & Business community from Nattukottai_Nagarathar to Ariviyur Nagarathar... Please quote references, just one book not even quoted by any government sites or leading journals - cant make a standing reason for all this page. Looks like the page Ariviyur Nagarathar does not have any contributions other than 2 or 3 people when compared to the others true information over wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuveerappan (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Alangar Manickam (talk · contribs) Muthuveerappan (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Nattukottai Nagarathar, Ariviyur Nagarathar}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Tried the talk page of Ariviyur Nagarathar, user does not respond and wiki bot suggestion like de-merging and deleting was not accepted by user. How do you think we can help? Please set a deadline for the user to respond or as per the wiki guidelines delete Ariviyur Nagarathar page and merge Nagarathars and Nattukottai Nagarathar muthu veerappan (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Nattukottai Nagarathar, Ariviyur Nagarathar discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Clerk's note: There are 3 highly-overlapping pages here: Nattukottai Nagarathar, Ariviyur Nagarathar, and Nagarathar. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Granai airstrike

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Granai airstrike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Two editors disagree about whether the article should be placed in the category "massacres in Afghanistan." Others have been involved in this dispute previously. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Darouet (talk · contribs) Randy2063 (talk · contribs) Gregcaletta (talk · contribs) Iqinn (talk · contribs) Dlabtot (talk · contribs) Only Randy2063 and I are currently discussing this; others have in the past. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes (except Iqinn, who was apparently banned). N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Granai airstrike}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? We have tried to discuss why we believe this event was or was not a massacre. Randy2063 has stated the event was not a massacre because it was an accident (intent is required). I have not commented on the intent of the military forces, but have stated that some Asian news sources have described it as a massacre. We have tried to discuss the definition of "massacre" and have reached an impasse. How do you think we can help? Perhaps you could help us develop clear criteria for accepting a definition of the word massacre. A mediator would also be helpful to keep the discussion on track, and help with communication problems between us both. Darouet (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Granai airstrike discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I am a clerk/mediator here at the Wikipedia dispute resolution noticeboard. As a starting point, could I get all parties to read Talk:List of events named massacres (Section: Criteria for including events in this list)? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I think it is a silly dispute. The article presents the facts: the United States killed approximately 86 to 145 Afghan civilians, mostly women and children. I don't think many readers will have trouble figuring out whether a 'massacre' took place. Whether or not the article is placed in the category "massacres in Afghanistan" ... who cares? It won't change the facts, nor the conclusion people draw from those facts. Dlabtot (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Nothing in wikipedia should be able to change the facts, but if Randy2063 would like to remove the article from the category, I'd like him to discuss it with third parties. -Darouet (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC) By the way Guy Macon, thanks for providing the criteria for listing events as massacres. For my part I find them reasonable. -Darouet (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, it's a silly dispute. Real "massacres" are supposed to be deliberate. We already have a category called "Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" for incidents like this one. But some people love the emotional power they think they get from the word "massacre". If there wasn't any emotional power, everyone would be happy with the other category. But the word "massacre" says a lot more. It clearly implies that the pilot wanted to kill civilians. Darouet (who initiated this dispute resolution) even said that he believes it was deliberate, although there's nothing to suggest such a thing. As we all should know, this simply isn't true. We have an article falsely claiming that a living person (albeit unknown at the present time) had committed a war crime. -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Do you have any arguments that might convince us to adopt your "deliberate" criteria rather than the criteria listed on Talk:List of events named massacres#Criteria for including events in this list? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Deliberate intent is a requirement in common English usage. We don't call the Titanic's sinking a massacre. We don't even use the word for the more obvious cases of negligence. As for the criteria listed in that talk page, this event fails those tests. That page even includes it in WikiProject Crime. This hasn't been ruled to be a crime. My reasoning is the same as that of the press. The mainstream press usually puts "massacre" in quotes on the occasions that they used it for this event. It is generally called a "massacre" by people who support the other side of the war, but they're not reliable sources. -- Randy2063 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Are you saying, Randy, that you accept the criteria found by Guy Macon, with the stipulation that we also prove that the pilots or other military personnel intended to kill the women and children they killed? If you want to argue outside those criteria and include definitions as well, how will you convince me or others that "deliberate intent is a requirement in common English usage?" From my reading of the definition of massacre, indiscriminate killing is what is required. It is clear that the pilots intended to kill somebody, and the military has stated that they accidentally killed the wrong people. One major difference between the sinking of the Titanic and the airstrike at Granai is that the captain of the Titanic didn't aim at the iceberg with the intention of fighting an insurgency, and in the process accidentally wipe out a village (he never had intent to kill anyone). The U.S. military did intend to kill people, but as they state themselves that they failed to discriminate between civilians and combatants. Ultimately a clear set of criteria independent of our own personal definitions will be more helpful in resolving this. -Darouet (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor)I'm also a clerk/mediator here on DRN, and I'd like to suggest something here: it seems to me that we're talking about proving this pilot's intent (or premeditation). At Wikipedia, that is not what we do. I realize this is a categorization dispute, but it seems to me that this would be the time to turn to outside sources. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I'm saying that I've looked at the examples and dispute that any of them apply here. The crew of that aircraft didn't aim at women and children. Just as the captain of the Titanic didn't intend to sink his ship, the pilots didn't intend to kill children. Before it can become a matter of proving they wanted to kill innocents, we have to see if anyone seriously believes they wanted to kill innocents. We have no RS that say it happened that way. Reporters use "massacre" in quotes because they can't say it themselves. We should go by proper journalistic standards. I know that's tough to do in this environment but Wikipedia likes to bill itself as striving for these standards. -- Randy2063 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC) In Anglo-American law, I believe, one who intends an act is presumed to intend the likely results of that act. I'm just sayin'. —Tamfang (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Two cents from Greg I haven't been involved in this debate and haven't read all of the above but I'll give my two cent for anyone interested. The pragmatic side is that anyone interested in researching "massacres in Afghanistan" might be interested in this so it could be useful to them to include this in that category (I'm assuming that's what categories are useful for? I've never used them much myself). But other items in that category should be checked to see what the rule has been so far for inclusion to be consistent. I'm not sure what level of intent is required for a "massacre" and whether that level of intent was met in this incident, not could the reliable sources even be sure of that one. Policy is probably fairly clear that it needs to be described as a massacre by at least one reliable sources. The Times is cited in the article but there is a paywall so I can't verify. If it does describe the event as a "massacre" then that should make the decision easy. If we need to go to your "Asian" sources, then you can check those sources at the reliable sources noticeboard for the description of "massacre". Gregcaletta (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC) The Times story ("Whistleblowers on US ‘massacre’ fear CIA stalkers") uses the word "massacre" in two places. One is in their story title, which I've always been wary of because titles are often not written by the reporter. Regardless, as you can see here, the title puts the word in quotes, which means the newspaper isn't calling it an actual massacre. The other place they use the word is in this sentence: "It is said to concern the so-called “Granai massacre”, when American aircraft dropped 500lb and 1,000lb bombs on a suspected militant compound in Farah province on May 4 last year." Note, again, that they put the word in quotes. It is called a "massacre" by people who support the enemy (yes, Assange admits that he does). If Wikipedia wants to support that standard, it should say so. -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I'm glad that we're consulting the sources rather than debating intent, and I think we have a consensus to do that. From the Asian Tribune, "In Afghanistan, meanwhile, U.S. soldiers and unpiloted drones have killed thousands of civilians over the last few years, including nearly a hundred people at Granai alone and another forty seven civilians at a wedding party in Deh Bala. As of yet, no one has been punished for any of these massacres."[16] From CBS News: "Manning also found a video and an official report on American air strikes on the village of Granai in Afghanistan's Farah Province (also known as "the Granai massacre"). According to the Afghan government, 140 civilians, including women and a large number of children, died in those strikes."[17] From the Hindustan Times: "Meanwhile, the whistleblower magnet WikiLeaks.org is releasing its second blockbuster video (NYSE:BBI) of the season - footage of the May 4, 2009, massacre in the Afghan village of Granai, where heavy bombing killed at least 100 civilians, most of them children." [18] From the Washington Times: "On May 4, American bombers killed as many as 147 Afghan civilians, 93 of them children, in an air strike in western Afghanistan that locals call the Farah Massacre."[19] Reprint by the BBC Monitoring Europe: " 'Parliament should meet as soon as possible on the Afghanistan issue, because an exit strategy is necessary for the withdrawal of Italy's troops from a conflict which leaves no glimpse of an end.' In the view of Claudio Fava, the coordinator of the national secretariat of Left, Ecology, Freedom (Italian: Sinistra Ecologia Liberta), 'the Farah massacre is a massacre foretold.' " (Sorry, I don't have a weblink. "Text of report by Italian leading privately-owned centre-right daily Corriere della Sera website, on 9 October") Reprint by The Australian: "Mr Assange claims surveillance has intensified as he and his colleagues prepare to put out their Afghan film. It is said to concern the so-called Granai massacre, when US aircraft dropped bombs on a suspected militant compound in Farah province on May 4 last year. Several children were among the dead." [20] (Originally from the Times) I think these reliable sources clearly demonstrate that many people, including but not always the writers for these papers themselves, call the event a massacre. And I strongly object to the idea that anyone who calls this a massacre "supports the enemy," whatever that means, exactly. -Darouet (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC) May I suggest deferring the question of proving they wanted to kill innocents until someone provides a logical argument for using intent as a criteria instead of the Criteria Wikipedia uses now? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Darouet: All of those are either opinion pieces (including from extremists) or they're quoting an extremist. Guy: What's Wikipedia using now other than RS? Right now, it appears that your only rule is that some RS is quoting someone (even a propagandist), and then that's enough. How far does that rule go? If someone who supports the Taliban calls President Obama a murderer, does that mean we can put him in a category for murderers? I don't see how. Or do your standards only slip if the military is being libeled? Perhaps you should change the name of the category to "Things that anyone calls a massacre." You can't even call this one an alleged massacre. -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Randy, the criteria upon which we agreed state that inclusion "is based solely on evidence in multiple reliable sources that a name including the word 'massacre' is one of the accepted names for that event." As examples, the criteria use these: "The killing of the students was described by local media as the 'High School massacre.'" "When the army's operation was debated in the National Assembly, the Prime Minister angrily attacked the widespread anti-government protests for calling Operation Clearout 'the Newtown massacre.'" As you can see from the second example, the Prime Minister does not believe the event is a massacre, but it is called so by "widespread anti-government protests" and reported by a reliable source. Clearly, the term extremist is a relative one (though I would never be so presumptuous, I could imagine that some might even mistakenly think you were an "extremist"), and isn't a fair way of evaluating sources. All of the sources above are established, even venerable ones, and in only one case are they even quoting somebody. In that case, the BBC (or Corriere della Sera) is quoting someone from the "Left, Ecology, Freedom" party. They're on the left; they're not "extremists." -Darouet (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - The criteria for categorization is simply whether WP:Reliable sources describe the airstrike as a massacre. We do not look at intent. When the sources are mixed (some call it a massacre, many do not) we have to use some judgement. Categories have a stronger requirement for sourcing than lists or than text within an article. The reason categories have strong requirements is because there is no way for an entry in a category to be accompanied by an explanation or footnote to give the reader context or nuance. Contrast with Lists, where an entry in a List can be accompanied by supplemental information to give context and nuance. Since only a few sources describe Granai as a masscre, and many do not describe it as a massacre, it probably should not be in the Category. However, there is a compromise solution: include the Granai airstrike article in the List of massacres in Afghanistan and include the list in Category:Massacres in Afghanistan. That way, readers browsing the categories will see the List article, and see Granai within that List. Indeed, this compromise is already in place: Granai is in the List, and the List is in the Category. So, the only action that should be taken now is to remove Granai airstrike from the Cateogry. --Noleander (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC) BTW, some Google stats on how commonly the airstrike is called a massacre: "granai airstrike -massacre" is 43K ghits; "granai massacre" is 77K ghits. That means 43/77 or over half of all references in Google do not include the word massacre. --Noleander (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC) And, just to clarify: I agree 100% that the "massacre" sources & material should be included in the article itself. My comments above are limited to the issue of whether it belongs in the Category, where no context or nuance can be provided to the reader. --Noleander (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure if using different criteria than those discussed above is better (it may well be appropriate). I think it is clear that the descriptions by sources listed above meet the criteria for inclusion into a list for massacres (actually those criteria are not especially stringent). The criteria proposed by Noleander are also those used for naming articles, and are perhaps too stringent as criteria for inclusion in categories (though I'm willing to admit I might be wrong, as I actually don't know). For instance, placing an article like the Granai Airstrike in a massacre category is not equivalent to placing it in a war crimes categories, which strongly implies that the perpetrators were war criminals (and that is a major BLP problem). From the perspective of news sources, a search using the news database "LexisNexis" for "Granai massacre" yields 6 non-duplicate articles (The Australian, The Sunday Times London, CBS News, Antiwar.com, 2 from Pacific Free Press), Whereas "Granai airstrike" yields 5 (Tulsa World, Hindustan Times, Weekend Australian, New York Times, and International Herald Tribune); none of those include the term massacre. A similar search for "Farah massacre" yields two articles (BBC Monitoring Europe and Washington Times), Whereas "Farah airstrike" yields 6 (Sunday Times, Pajhwok Afghan News, New York Times, the Frontrunner, Washington Post, International Herald Tribune); none of those include the term massacre. For any horrific event (we all can agree this was one), there will be plenty of news sources describing it. In this case all would be obliged to write about the airstrike. But even if many came to consider the event a massacre (and many do in this case), not all sources, in describing the event, would also call the event a massacre. That 34/77k google hits do describe the airstrike as a massacre might or might not qualify it to be the title of the page on Wikipedia (that was discussed on the talk pages). However I would think that it especially would qualify it to belong in the massacre category. -Darouet (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, those are some good points. This Categorization is not a black & white issue: it is a borderline case. I posted a query on the WP:Categorization talk page, asking for others to provide more input. This reminds me of a situation I saw a couple of years ago, where the consensus was to remove (!) several notable persons from List of atheists when the persons said "I don't believe in God"; because the requirement for those lists is that the person must say "I am an atheist". And those were Lists, where a footnote explaining context/nuance was available. --Noleander (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC) You can call me an extremist all day. ("Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.") I might even say that half the Guantanamo lawyers support war crimes, but I don't go around tagging their articles with the war criminal category. (That was an exaggeration; it's probably only about one out of ten.) Perhaps real massacres aren't taken as seriously as they should be. I see what you're thinking about massacre and war crime being different, but I think they're too close. You must have some of the same feelings or you would have been satisfied with the "civilian casualties" category. That may be the main problem. Maybe you think this is some kind of a moral stamp of disapproval that doesn't require legal review. But I think it requires something more. The press must think the same thing when they use quotes around the word. I'll see what Guy says about whether it would be appropriate to call President Obama a murderer based solely on what an enemy of the U.S. says. I don't think counting google hits works that way. The way Google works, not every hit is going to actually use the word. See Google bomb. -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Arbitrary section break You want to know what Guy says? Guy says that Wikipedia's criteria for whether to call Granai a massacre is at Talk:List of events named massacres#Criteria for including events in this list. Each of you has three choices. You can attempt to get Wikipedia's criteria changed (Go to Talk:List of events named massacres if you wish to try) You can accept Wikipedia's criteria and edit the page accordingly, or you can refuse to accept Wikipedia's criteria and end up warned and, if you persist, blocked. This issue is settled. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Well, I'm sorry if I hit some kind of a sore spot. I'll keep what you said in mind for whenever I return to more frequent editing. -- Randy2063 (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Well, I think for my part that I'll edit the page according to those criteria. Thanks for helping us locate them and for your patience with us. -Darouet (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC) The statement "I'll see what Guy says about whether it would be appropriate to call President Obama a murderer based solely on what an enemy of the U.S. says." did annoy me, and I apologize if I reacted too strongly. I think it does bring up an important issue though. When that was written, nobody expected anyone to pop up and say that it was an accurate paraphrase of their position. I know the feeling well - sometimes I think that if I write a really clever zinger like that everyone will see it and immediately see that I am right on the issue. In reality, it causes the opposition to dig in their heels and impedes any attempt to come to an agreement. One thing that may help is for all parties to agree to go through a process where each of you states a paraphrase / depiction of each others position and then discuss and rewrite until both sides agree that the other side has accurately portrayed their position. To do this, you need to decide to not play any games like telling them that they must believe X because they believe Y or in any other way refusing to accept what they say about their own position. This process takes an annoyingly long time, but how can you ever reach agreement if you are fighting a strawman? Having said that, I am inclined to close this as being resolved. Does anyone disagree, and if so, what can DRN do to help resolve the remaining issues? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I think there are two big differences between including a massacre in the List of events named massacres and including in a category such as Category:Massacres in Afghanistan. First, the list is restricted to events that have "massacre" in the name (vs simply are massacres); and second, Lists always can be more liberal about what they include, because they can contain footnotes etc. So the criteria for List of events named massacres may provide some good guidance, but they do not precisely apply to a categorization issue. For instance, an event may be considered a massacre by all sources; yet still not belong in the List of events named massacres because its common name does not include that word. Conversely, an event may be in a List of massacres because it is borderline/marginal (according to the sources) massacre, yet it may be omitted from the corresponding category because that borderline information cannot be expressed in a Category (but can be in a list). But, if the parties are willing to accept the more restrictive (avoiding the categorization) for this particular dispute, that is fine with me. --Noleander (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC) For example, a few events that are in a massacre category, but would not belong in that List are: Cananea strike, Yekatit 12, and Negro Rebellion. --Noleander (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Many of the items in the massacre category suffer from the same problem. I have gripes but I didn't want to stick around this long. The main sticking point for me is that this is a significantly lower standard than that used by the Times in the reference. They only put the word "massacre" in quotes. I don't think the BBC or the NYT used the word at all. BTW, Guy: That wasn't simply a stinger. I really wanted an answer to that question. But in retrospect, I suppose the standard of "murderer" was set by a different group of editors. This will be a much bigger problem if the pilots' names are ever leaked, and it becomes a definite BLP issue. -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I find Noleander's argument to be compelling, and I retract my formerly stated opinion; I am now convinced that we cannot blindly apply the criteria from a list to a category. So, where can we find an objective set of criteria for inclusion/exclusion in the category? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not aware of any specific WP policy on massacre categories. The generic guidance from WP:Categorization says "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." I think for this particular dispute, that generic guidance suggests that the category should be avoided. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Technically, both the Cananea strike and the Yekatit 12, which are categorized as massacres, would fit the criteria put forward by the list. The "Cananea strike" is also known as the "Cananea massacre," and the "Yekatit 12" event includes the "Graziani Massacre." I don't know if other sources besides that given also refer to Cananea as a massacre, though for the Yekatit article, the source provided is scholarly. The advantage of the list criteria provided previously is that they don't rely on our arguing about whether something really is a massacre or not, and instead compel us to demonstrate that, according to reliable sources, an event is considered a massacre by many people in some way. I understand that we can't place footnotes on a categorization, but please forgive me for pointing out that there will almost always be "two sides to every massacre:" massacres are by nature controversial. We have well demonstrated that the event we are discussing here, the Granai airstrike, is also known as the "Granai massacre." If categorization is to be uncontroversial, is some greater level of controversy than that inherent in any massacre decided by the presence of a dispute on the talk pages? Or the identification of a controversy in reliable sources (scholars from Armenia and Turkey debate the Armenian genocide endlessly, whatever you'll make of that. I doubt there's substantial debate outside Turkey). I'm sorry to give you all a hard time, but for reasons that have already been reviewed above, if the indiscriminate destruction of a village full of women and children is called a massacre both by locals and by many reliable sources, but cannot be categorized as a massacre, then the category of massacre may simply be an inoperable one. And that can be OK, actually, because there are lists, this is an encyclopedia, and in the end we have to work out a reasonable framework for classification. But I would suggest that the presence of many "massacre" categories means that Wikipedia has not yet determined the massacre category to be intractable. That could change. Lastly, relating to the issue of footnotes, I really don't think that most readers who read this page, and see the massacre category, will be confused as to why it is so classified. -Darouet (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Reliable sources say that critics of the U.S. side of the war are calling it a "massacre." Democracy Now isn't exactly NPOV. I don't doubt that ignorant local villagers would be calling it a "massacre." They were probably told that the pilots had been targeting the women and children. That's an even lower standard than I'd been crediting this argument with. It might be easier to just change the name of the category, and get rid of the "civilian casualties" cat altogether. But then it would be hard to find an NPOV name that's still judgmental enough for you. -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Although I am no longer convinced that the list criteria apply to categories, if we do apply it, Talk:List of events named massacres#Criteria for including events in this list specifically allows non-NPOV but reliable sources. Look at the fourth item in the table of examples. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC) You're saying that NPOV doesn't apply to categories. I think that page is wrong. If they're right, then you need to change this at WP:NPOV so that everyone knows about it. You can't have one set of rules for things called "massacres" and another set of rules for everything else. -- Randy2063 (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC) You are doing it again. You wrote "You're saying that..." followed by something I did not say. This behavior is inappropriate. Don't do it again. I don't think that WP:NPOV says what you think it does. If you look at the history of Talk:List of events named massacres you will see that a lot of thought by a number of editors went into the wording chosen. In particular, read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Naming. As for your theory that we cannot call something what its opposition calls it, It is found nowhere in WP:NPOV or any other Wikipedia policy. As far as I can tell, the only people who call a certain series of events in WWII a "holocaust" are strongly opposed to killing millions of Jews. Yet we still use that label. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Neutral third opinion: "The Granai airstrike, sometimes called the Granai massacre,[reliable source] refers to the killing of approximately 86 to 145 Afghan civilians" - This is a clear cut case. It belongs in the category. It's in Afghanistan, we have reliable sources calling it a massacre. It's a done deal. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Guy, you most certainly did say it "specifically allows non-NPOV but reliable sources." I was just rephrasing it. If my rephrase was wrong then you should have explained what was different. The reliable sources, in this case, aren't calling it a massacre. They're saying that it's been called a massacre by critics of the U.S. side of the war. But I'm not going to waste a weekend arguing over this. Clearly, the "civilian casualties" category isn't inflammatory enough, and this kind of stuff will pop up again and again regardless. -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC) The difference between "NPOV doesn't apply to categories" and "Talk:List of events named massacres specifically allows non-NPOV but reliable sources." Is that the first assumes without evidence that WP:NPOV forbids the use of non-NPOV but reliable sources for this purpose (or perhaps you are claiming that WP:NPOV forbids the use of non-NPOV but reliable sources for any purpose.) This assertion is not backed up by anything in WP:NPOV BTW, it is not my responsibility to monitor your posts and correct the places where you put words in my mouth. It is your responsibility to refrain from doing so. If you are incapable of paraphrasing without setting up a strawman, don't paraphrase at all. And you certainly should not defend your misstating of other editor's positions. And, given your misunderstanding of WP:NPOV, I suggest that in the future you quote (not paraphrase) the exact wording of the portion of WP:NPOV that you believe supports your position. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC) As I understood it, non-NPOV sources can be used if attributed. This is, after all, what the Times did when they put "massacre" in quotes. I just didn't think that counted for a category. I'm sorry if you didn't like my rephrasing. If you'll recall, you had suggested, "One thing that may help is for all parties to agree to go through a process where each of you states a paraphrase / depiction of each others position and then discuss and rewrite until both sides agree that the other side has accurately portrayed their position." Obviously, you didn't think I did this very well. And for that, I'm sorry. IAC, as I indicated earlier, I'm done with this one. You can have it. -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Please excuse my absence. Is this issue settled? One point I'd make about the discussion above is that the sources previously cited are not a priori in violation of NPOV. I would not expect the Hindustan Times to agree with spokespersons for the American military every time a village was bombed; there is no reason to automatically believe that would be the "neutral" attitude, even if one were an American editor (and I am). Categories for massacres are by nature controversial, and perhaps we should not have them. But if we do choose to have them, based upon the number of newspapers and columnists who have addressed the airstrike at Granai, it seems as though that event belongs in the massacre category. I am not even convinced, at present, that its name should have been changed. -Darouet (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 14, 2012 at 20:16 (UTC) Reason: Participants seem to be saying that this is done and there have been no new comments in 3 days. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pantheism, Classical Pantheism

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Pantheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Classical Pantheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? An individual is trying to control "pantheism" related pages to suit his interests for his particular group (The World Pantheist Movement) that has its own idea of what pantheism means to them. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Naturalistic (talk · contribs) Allisgod (talk · contribs) user Naturalistic wrote a book and created a category of pantheism called "Naturalistic Pantheism", which is represented by his group, "The World Pantheist Movement". In a nutshell, it is a New Age environmental atheist group. Pantheism is a term most scholars attribute to philosopher Baruch Spinoza, who had a viewpoint very different than this 'new' variety of pantheism - he was a deterministic theist. It was also coined by a man who would have said that this 'new' variety of pantheism is not pantheism at all. User Naturalistic has set up the Pantheism wikipedia page for the purpose of promoting his new version of pantheism and his organization. Recently I have attempted to make edits and he quickly deletes them and demands citations and when i provide valid citations he removes the content and/or reorganizes the page to protect his interest of promoting his group (and perhaps selling his books). I have reviewed the history of the page and others have given up fighting him in the past - he is an educated person with a lot of time on his hands and the page seems to be fulfilling his interests. I cannot compete with the guy and need some help. He is an intelligent guy and frankly a bit sneaky. He accuses the other person of point-of-view bias when it's really him with the the POV bias; he pretends to compromise when he has not compromised at all;he very carefully does everything with the interest of protecting his brand and controlling the Pantheism pages. In fact, he is attempting to redefine the word pantheism and bury the other (more reasonable) perspective. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Pantheism, Classical Pantheism}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? exhaustive discussions and editing actions lead me to believe he will do anything to control the page's content. How do you think we can help? The content on the page is not easy to understand, but we need moderators to help stop his overwhelming control of the pages. He is trying to define the word to suit his agenda and crush the more reasonable perspective. Allisgod (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Pantheism, Classical Pantheism discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Clerk's note: What you are talking about is a claim of ownership. That is a conduct matter, not a content matter, and this noticeboard is only for content matters. If you have one or more particular edits which you would like to discuss, which have already been substantially discussed at the article talk page, please feel free to raise them, below, but this thread will be closed in 24 hours unless you care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC) PS: If you wish to pursue the ownership claim, instead, please use WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U to obtain the opinions of other editors, or WP:ANI to seek banning, blocking, or other sanctions. TM 14:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC) PPS: Also, please notify the other editor and update the "Have you informed..." question, above, if you wish to pursue this request. TM 14:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rape culture

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Rape culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (I apologize for the not-quick explanation. This is a pretty complex and lengthy issue.) Rape culture has long been a contentious article, but in the past issues have been resolved via active talk page discussion that generally stayed cool. See the four sections starting with Talk:Rape_culture/Archive_1#Prominent_Incidents for some examples that have occurred in the past year or so. There was a running debate over neutrality of the article that was resolved - including removal of the {{NPOV}} tag - after discussion between multiple editors. This January, Media-hound began writing lengthy talk page posts which questioned the neutrality of the article and whether it included an appropriate global scope. Some of these complaints were certainly legitimate, particularly that at that time the article included no discussion of rape culture in any countries other than the US and UK. I attempted to reply to the first of these messages. However, I didn't have unlimited time (nor did other editors) and I wasn't able to reply to the steady stream of posts. Many of these contained large blocks of information about rape culture in different countries - good information, but needing someone to turn them into article sections. (As an aside, I have certain personal psychological issues which sometimes prevent me from being able to deal with things involving rape. Media-hound has stated they believe this is an excuse for me not wishing to talk about the article. I'm not comfortable discussing these issues on public pages here; email me if you need more details.) Media-hound continued to post lengthy messages, which begun to take a harsher tone. They repeatedly accused other editors and myself of perpetuating systemic bias and demanded that their suggested content be immediately added. In addition, they posted a number of messages which were simply impossible to reply to - see, for example, this one, which bounces from topic to topic, and this 29,626-character post. They were told several times that messages that long were very difficult to reply to. With the exception of a large (and mostly very good) section on India, Media-hound has made relatively few large edits to the page. However, I have contested several of their more recent edits. Chief among them has been the "origins and usage" section of the article. Media-hound has repeatedly focused on a 1975 film as the supposed first use of the term, including intentionally minimizing the importance of a 1974 usage that definitively predates the 1975 use. This has included the outright deletion of several referenced paragraphs (with a completely false claim of original research). Media-hound repeatedly cites WP:SILENCE, assuming that if no one replies to their talk page posts (even if they are difficult to parse and well-nigh impossible to respond to in any sort of a complete manner) then that's a tacit approval. While that's a plausible interpretation of policy, it ignores that they have alienated a number of editors. Kaldari (an highly experienced editor and admin) stated that they no longer attempt to pursue discussion about the article due to Media-hound's "aggressive and confrontational" style. (diff) Media-hound has repeatedly accused me of WP:OWNERSHIP (I don't believe I own the article, but fully admit that I do tend to be defensive about it) and having a conflict of interest (which I do not). I've said it before on my talk page and I will repeat it here: I have no academic, political, or financial connections to anything related to this article. I am a member of a local group that aims to educate fraternities about rape; however, my work with this article predates the existence on that group which is presently on hiatus. I have indirectly accused Media-hound of a COI of their own - as I mentioned above, they have promoted the 1975 film above other possible origins of the film. Additionally, their editing has bordered on the dishonest at least once, when they changed the wording of a direct quote (see changes under line 13 in the diff). That made me, for the first and only time, suspect bad faith on their part. (That edit also shows their insistence on referring to rape culture only as a concept, and never as a term - which goes against previous style in the article as well as general usage (in which rape culture is both a term and a concept). After I partially reverted the above edit in which they deleted cited content, they left a particularly long and difficult to follow message in which they accused me of biting the newbies and other rude editing behavior. (I believe I've been mostly fair (if occasionally a tad testy) through this whole dispute, although I did have one edit summary that was intended to be joking but I realize afterwards was a bit rude.) Since this, they have more or less ignored anything I've said about content issues, and they've heaped a lot of criticism particularly on me. What sparked me coming here was this latest reply from Media-hound. They'd posted an RFC complaint about the origins and usage section, claiming it contained original research and was unverifiable. Okay, fair enough, it needed a bit of reworking. I made what I considered a pretty good edit where I cited every statement and added a lot of detail. Media-hound replied with a harsh response in which they repeatedly accused me of POV editing. I made what was clearly a good-faith edit in which I attempted to fix specific issues they had mentioned - and my thanks was accusations. It feels like Media-hound is attempting to prevent me from making any edits to the article. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) Media-hound-_thethird (talk · contribs) Kaldari (talk · contribs) Mmyers1976 (talk · contribs) Media-hound-_thethird and myself have been the two primary editors involved in this dispute. The other three editors may or may not wish to participate here, as they have not been as involved in contentious discussion. Kaldari, who has been an active editor of the page in the past, may not wish to comment - they expressed in this diff that they were no longer participating in discussion due to the confrontational style. Mmyers1976 has contributed to both the article and the discussion, but they have not been active - including responses to talk page messages - in 2 months. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Rape culture}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? There's been a whole lot of talk page discussion. The vast majority of it has been on Talk: Rape Culture; some has additionally been on User talk:Pi.1415926535. It has, as I've mentioned above, just gotten ugly. How do you think we can help? I'm looking for a couple different things here. One is that I want to establish some method of actually being able to communicate. I simply cannot respond to extremely long talk page posts - and clearly, neither can other editors. Second, some manner of civility. I believe that I've tried to be fair and polite. But every single edit or reply I make earns me a rant from Media-hound accusing me of systemic bias, original research, or worse. Their tack from day one has been to create confrontation and accuse other editors of failures. They've never said "I think the article is incomplete; perhaps we can discuss adding sections on other countries;" instead, they yell when their demands are not immediately met. It feels like they are assuming bad faith of everyone, particularly me. Third, there is the ongoing content dispute, which has several parts. The current issue involves the "origins and usage" section, particularly the section about Susan Brownmiller's work. Media-hound feels that it is original research, while I feel that it is a well-cited section that outlines how multiple authors believe Brownmiller's work was a major part of early work about rape culture. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Rape culture discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. There was an RFC on this issue a short while back. (Apparently initiated by User:Media-hound-_thethird) I came to the talk page with the hope of offering an opinion, but I'm afraid I couldn't figure out what was going on. I found Media-hound's style of writing to very ... difficult to understand. It may be that miscommunications are a big a part of this dispute as anything else. APL (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Editors should not contribute to talk pages in ways that alienate other editors, it is disruptive of the collegial process of editing. Walls of text are a hostile way of contributing to discussions, and should not be countenanced. What cannot be said succinctly should not be said. Rather, if there is an extended contribution to make, editors should make the smallest element of their extended contribution first and wait (at least a week) before proceeding if discussion is not occurring. (Similarly, contributing too often, and in reply to every other editor's post is just as hostile as walls of text). If editors are not able to comprehend what other editors are saying, they should say so politely, examples include asking other editors to restate themselves using bullet points, or in a single paragraph of no more than three sentences. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Some comments and questions: Much of the problem here seems to be one editors failure to communicate but writing long indigestible comments. I'm not sure DRN is the right place to handle that, and I'll also say that in my experience it's usually very hard to establish a working communication with these editors, although it's certainly worth a try. However, I also have a question. If Mediahound contributed a largely good section on India, where is it? If the section was good, and it has been removed, Mediahound would rightly feel that his contributions were overlooked, which would contribute to the length of the angry rants. As such, my immediate feeling here is maybe that the failure to communicate from Mediahound is worsened by a failure to listen. Of course, it is impossible to say if this feeling is wrong or right without reading through all of the discussions, which is not feasible. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC) The section on India has yet to be inserted into the article. It's in user-space, but is discussed here: Talk:Rape_culture#Section_on_rape_culture_in_India_In_Draft_-_WIP. APL (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Zeitgeist Movement

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Requesting discussion of two specific disputes: 1. The Lead section should contain the phrase "A global system in which all resources become the equal and common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet.", because this is the most important core idea and key fundamental principle of TZM, and the basis from which all other TZM ideas/ positions are developed. This central idea is verified by the following quotes from reliable sources: The Huffington Post: "... the world's resources would be considered as the equal inheritance of all the world's peoples ..." The Venus Project: "... a holistic socio-economic system in which ... all resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few ..." The Palm Beach Post: "... In this world, we all are equal because the planet's resources belong to everyone, not a select few ..." Requesting discussion of only one specific dispute: 2. The 'Criticism' section contains factual statements that should be removed entirely, or, at best, moved to the 'Criticism' sections of the three Zeitgeist movies, including statements and views that come from reliable sources but that represent (or that point to) extremely small minority viewpoints. Substantial minority views should be represented in the article; but these are not substantial nor prominent minority views. (Antisemitism is not mentioned at all in any of our other reliable sources [NYT, Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Orlando Sentinel, 5 RT TV interviews, two reliable Israeli financial papers and a reliable Israeli financial TV channel], and conspiracy theories are discussed briefly, and dismissed, in these reliable sources.) Thus they should be removed entirely, or moved to, and debated in, the articles on the three movies. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk · contribs) Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) Bbb23 (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=The Zeitgeist Movement}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? We have discussed on the talk page, without progress. How do you think we can help? Please discuss the two one dispute. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC) the Zeitgeist Movement discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I have no history with the article. My involvement came about because of this discussion at ANI. Post-ANI, I attempted to set the editors on a course I felt would be most amenable to improving the article in a neutral, consensus-driven fashion. That discussion is on the article Talk page in this section I created. Apparently, Ijon is unhappy with at least some of my suggestions and felt it would be better to come here. At this point, I have nothing else to add.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I'm very happy with all your suggestions and grateful that you got involved as your contributions were helpful, neutral in tone, and fair. I'm requesting discussion of one specific dispute relating to the Lead section, and one specific dispute relating to the Criticism section. And there has not been, nor is there now, consensus on the article talk page. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor)If filer does indeed request general improvement, he should use an rfc, as a DRN is a forum for specifics.Curb Chain (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Bbb23 did a good job of sorting through the talk page, seeing where the consensus was and restoring a neutral tone to the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I revised the DRN; I'm now requesting discussion of only one specific dispute relating to Lead section, and one specific dispute relating to Criticism section. And again, I'd like to reiterate that several editors have expressly requested that their names not be used to imply that there is any sort of consensus on the article. The only consensus existing right now is that there is no consensus. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC) I think the proposed summary of the hypothetical and impossible resource-based economy is as good as any, and it is supported by several sources. IjonTichyIjonTichy also wants to remove criticism because he doesn't like it. That's of course not a good reason, the criticism should stay, it is also from a reliable source. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC) The proposed addition to the lead is the key core principle of TZM; without it, the Lead (and the article as a whole) do not do a good job. And suggesting that I'm not acting in good faith does not contribute to this discussion. "Impossible" (your word) is close to the criticisms of utopianism and practical difficulties in a transition to the TZM-proposed global system. These accusations were discussed in the NYT, Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Globes, TheMarker, TheMarker TV, and 5 RT TV interviews. The dispute regarding the criticism does not involve the reliability of the source. It involves the weight that should be given to allegations that only represent extremely small and insignificant minority views -- not substantial or prominent minority views. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC) I'm sure you are acting in good faith. You just tend to conflate "I don't like it" with "Not according to Wikipedia policies", even though these are separate things. It is not an "insignificant or minority view", it's not even a view. The source reports that the organisation has been banned from studiVZ for what studiVZ percieves as antisemitism. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC) "The original documentary that launched the Zeitgeist movement has been criticized by journalist Michelle Goldberg as being anti-Jewish. Zeitgeist concepts in that 2007 documentary have been criticized as steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories." Goldberg and Tablet are reliable. But their reliability is only a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for inclusion. The issue is weight. WP policies clearly state that views (or statements of fact that point to the views, etc.) that are (or represent) a significant, substantial and a prominent minority should be considered for inclusion in the article. But extremely small, marginally small, negligible, insignificant minority views (or statements of fact, etc.) should not be included. Accusations of anti-semitism do not have sufficient weight for inclusion: they were not mentioned or discussed in our reliable sources. The NYT, Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Globes, and TheMarker regularly and extensively report on overt and covert anti-semitism around the globe, helping expose the ugly disease of anti-semitism, rooting it out and attacking it. If anti-semitism was of substantial minority significance to TZM, these reliable sources would have discussed it in detail. But they did not even mention it. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC) You are contradicting yourself. First you admit that the sources that does either accuse or report accusations of anti-semitism are reliable, then you claim that these accusations are not mentioned in the reliable sources. The fact is of course that they *are* mentioned in reliable sources. Your statement that the reliable sources who are uncritical to TZM must have mentioned this for it to not be a fringe view are baseless. Such a standpoint would make it practically impossible to add any form of criticism of anything to Wikipedia, as you can always find a reliable source that doesn't mention a particular form or criticism. I think your efforts of washing away this criticism is a dead horse. We need to discuss how that section should be formulated instead of trying to remove it, because this criticism has reliable sources and is clearly not a fringe view, but one that is shared by several critics of TZM. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Your statement that the reliable sources who are uncritical to TZM must have mentioned this for it to not be a fringe view are baseless. Such a standpoint would make it practically impossible to add any form of criticism of anything to Wikipedia, as you can always find a reliable source that doesn't mention a particular form or criticism. end quote OpenFuture. This seems very basic and apparent, and the other editors that have returned that information to the article are in consensus on that. How is it that citations are supposed to agree with one another? Critical thinking comes from disparate views. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry about causing confusion, my mistake. I will try to be more clear next time. But there is no contradiction. I admitted the accusations are based on reliable sources. When I said these accusations are not mentioned in the reliable sources, I meant they are not mentioned in NYT, Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Globes, TheMarker, TheMarker TV, and 5 RT TV interviews. These sources are critical to TZM; they discuss allegations of utopianism and difficulties in transition to the proposed system (very close to what you characterized as an impossible system), reduced work incentives, and even the 9/11 conspiracy theories. But they do not even mention anti-semitism. Thus, (a) The 9/11 allegations by Jesse Walker are redundant, and (b) the anti-semitism piece in Tablet, although reliable, is not prominent or significant minority, but a negligibly small, fringe, insignificant minority, and thus should be removed. The accusation I'm washing away substantial criticism, or substantial minority-view criticism, is baseless. All the material in the 'Criticism' section, except the Tablet and StudioViz accusations of anti-semitism, and the Jesse Walker 9/11 conspiracy, were contributed by me. And again I reiterate: there is no consensus. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC) When everyone except one editor agrees, that's a consensus. At this point you are the only one who wants to remove the criticism about anti-semitism. Please understand that the addition of this does not make Wikipedia claim that TZM is anti-semitic. It's only reporting on the accusation; from several reliable sources; that TZM is anti-semite. Trying to remove criticism that is voiced by several reliable sources is against Wikipedia policies (except possibly on BLP's). --OpenFuture (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Tablet is a reliable source. If the accusation of anti-semitism is only against the movie, it needs to be removed and placed in the article on that movie. However, Tablet not only accuses the movie; Tablet directly, repeatedly accuses TZM of being an anti-semitic cult. Michelle Goldberg's opinion isn't weighty in relation to internet phenomena, social protest movements, or economics — she's a journalist at best; she lacks any of the field significance that would lend her opinion weight. Thus, the Tablet hate- and fear-mongering piece is not weight-worthy in relation to TZM. That is a weighting issue, not a reliability issue. 14:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC) I don't necessarily have a problem with Ijon's suggestions for the lead, but the problem with the article is more fundamental than whether the lead needs to be modified. The article does a piss-poor job of explaining what the movement is. For example, Ijon cites to a quote from The Huffington Post. That same HP article is currently cited in the lead for the material that is currently there. The HP has much better material that explains the history (at least up to 2010) of the movement, who started it, etc. Yet, none of that is in the body of the article. I learned more about the movement from the HP article than I did reading the WP article. In addition, the WP article states there was a split in 2011. We haven't discussed pre-split material and suddenly at the beginning of the body we are in a split? Rather than fighting about whether the lead needs to be tweaked or the criticism is undue, let's focus on getting the basics in the body of the article about the movement itself. After that, we can address the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the body anyway, and ensure that criticism of the movement is balanced and properly weighted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC) my previous 'Mission' section (which was completely deleted) was based mostly on extensive verifiable citations from the HP piece, as well as citations from our other sources. I invite editors to (very substantially and deeply) revise this section (for neutrality, substance, whatever you feel needs revision) for inclusion in the article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC) I wasn't involved in the article when it was deleted, but in glancing at it, I can see why it was. It's incredibly long and reads like a promotional piece for the movement. It's full of "in the movement's view" and similar phrases, although sometimes it lapses into the colloquial "we" as if it were written by someone affiliated with the movement. The article needs a section that sets forth the history and views of the movement in a concise, well-sourced fashion (shouldn't be called "mission"), not a polemic that attempts to disguise its promotionalism with disingenuous "in the view of the movement" qualifiers. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but, frankly, I cringed as I read it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC) All the references to "we" are meant to imply we, the global society, or us, humanity. Not "we" as in we, TZM members. In numerous comments on the talk page I indicated it was something like a rough draft. The only good thing about it was that it was based on verifiable citations from the reliable sources. That's why I invited editors to edit it and I suggested that editors be brutal with it and edit it mercilessly. I fully anticipated that the final version would be very different than this rough draft. It was a (clumsy, perhaps) attempt by a newbie editor (me) to move the editing process forward, after the process has not progressed for years (I'm not exaggerating, take a look at the history page of the article). At least this (ugly) edit helped attract a bunch of new and talented editors to the article, who are now, under your guidance and suggestions, helping bring our article closer to an encyclopedic entry. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC) How about this 'Mission' section? (Of course, the new section title would not be 'Mission'.) Automation seems to be highly important to the movement. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Ijon, who is nothing if not responsive and energetic (), has made this same suggestion on the article Talk page, and I responded there.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC) "The article does a piss-poor job of explaining what the movement is." - So does the movement itself, which is a big problem for Wikipedia with these kinds of fringe "movements". --OpenFuture (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC) It is what it is, and we have to deal with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC) The Zeitgeist Movement (Zeitgeist is 'the spirit of the times' in German) is a global, end sand box Ijon version beginning. The opening line is wrong. The view of promotion is apparent. The movements view fails as a way to explain the information, but is made to sound like Wikipedia represents the official view without critical thought. Stop returning the same information over and over against consensus. Open Future accused you of vandalizing the article a while ago probably because of returning anti consensus material. I agree with him now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Earl, this is NOT the venue to resurrect accusations of editor misconduct and particularly accusations of vandalism. Your comment is not helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Earl is referring to an old version in my sandbox. (a) My sandbox has nothing to do with the article; (b) The 'Lead' section in my sandbox is irrelevant, because I clearly referred only to my 'Mission' section. The accusations of vandalism are baseless and without merit, and not constructive to this discussion. In response to Bbb's suggestion, I posted a proposed rough draft on the article's talk page. I recommend editors not waste their time (or mine) on attacking me for the draft - instead redirect your energies to vastly improving the draft. Tablet is a reliable source. If the accusation of anti-semitism is only against the movie, it needs to be removed and placed in the article on that movie. However, Tablet not only accuses the movie; Tablet directly, repeatedly and obsessively accuses TZM of being an anti-semitic cult. One issue is that Michelle Goldberg's opinion isn't weighty in relation to antisemitism — she's a journalist at best; she lacks any of the field significance that would lend her opinion weight. Another key issue is that accusing TZM of anti-semitism is not a significant, prominent minority view; it is only an insignificant, negligibly-small minority view. WP policies allow for inclusion of prominent minority views, without giving them undue weight; but the policies are against negligibly small views, because they are not worthy of an encyclopedic article. Thus, the Tablet hate- and fear-mongering piece is not weight-worthy in relation to TZM. That is a weighting issue, not a reliability issue. The dispute on anti-semitism is only beginning, and is nowhere near ending. Thus I restored the "undue weight - discuss" tags, because they must remain until the dispute is fully resolved (by this DRN, or by further dispute resolution processes, up to arbitration if necessary). IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Ijon, unfortunately, your proposed draft is a non-starter, as I commented on the Talk page. You have to stick to secondary sources. The weight tags are not supported by anyone but you, so I've removed them. There is no "arbitration" for content issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not the only editor who opposes the anti-semitism accusations. Two other editors (Reinventor098 and 82.153.143.237) have been trying to delete the entire anti-semitism paragraph over the last few says, as you can see from the article's history. I do not agree with their tactics - I would rather they join the conversation on this talk page instead of deleting. But the fact they are deleting implies I am not the only editor. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC) If I may chip in, I do think weight is an issue here. The Tablet article is an opinion piece, not a reporting of facts. The issue of the reliability of the journal as a provider of information is separate from that of the value of this journalist's expressed opinions. Paul B (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Nice to hear another voice. Actually, one of the things Ijon objects to is Goldberg's criticism is not directly of the movement but of the movie (although many believe the movies and the movement - there's a mouthful - are intertwined). He believes the criticism therefore belongs in the movie article, not the movement article. At the same time, assuming for the moment that the criticism does belong in the movement article, it's no different from any other criticism of a movie, which is, as always, subjective. It's also part of a pargraph on antisemitism because of the other material in the paragraph. Now, normally, I would argue that including criticism of the movie in the movement article has a WP:COATRACK aspect to it, but then we get back to the supposed intertwining of the movies and of the movement (the movies are supposed documentaries made by the movement's founder). I hope that completely muddies the waters. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Criticism of a movie as a work of art is quite separate from criticim of arguments that happen to be presented in movie form. The first is "subjective", yes, but the second requires expertise if we are to use it. It's not a "review" of the movie ("I give it three stars"), it's a review of claims made in it, or rather of claims alleged to be implicit in it. I have to confess a dislike of this kind of claim about "implicit" antisemitism, which based on a fundamentally false logic (Jews have been said to be behind X by antisemites, therefore any criticism of X is really "hidden antisemitism"). Yes, antisemites claim that Jews are behing global banking, does that mean anyone who criticises global banking is really secretly criticising Jews even if they never mention them? The issue is whether this comment is significant enough to include. I don't think one article cuts it, but obviously a case can be made if there is more material on these lines. Paul B (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Paul, I understand your point and would normally agree with it. However, I think your argument is blurred somewhat when the review is of a documentary. I didn't see the movie and can't comment on whether Goldberg's criticism was as simplistic as you appear to make it out to be.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC) I agree, it is refreshing to hear a new voice. "The original documentary that launched the Zeitgeist movement has been criticized by journalist Michelle Goldberg as being anti-Jewish. Zeitgeist concepts in that 2007 documentary have been criticized as steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories." Both of these sentences are directly sourced to Goldberg's piece in Tablet. The second sentence is a direct quote from the Tablet piece. Bbb23 modified the second sentence, so now the paragraph reads: Zeitgeist: The Movie, has also been criticized by journalist Michelle Goldberg as being anti-Jewish. Goldberg describes the movie as "steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories." Does anyone seriously believe the original second sentence (accusing TZM concepts, not the movie) is not going to rear its ugly head again (and sooner rather than later) in the TZM article? Tablet is reliable. But Goldberg uses economic arguments (TZM's criticism of the giant, multinational, trans-national banks) to conclude TZM is an anti-semitic cult. But she is not an authority on the banking industry, economics, cults, internet phenomena, or antisemitism. And her accusations of cult or antisemitism were not corroborated by any of our other reliable sources: NYT, Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, TheMarker, Globes. The NYT, HP, PBP, TM and GS have and extensive track record reporting on (a) antisemitism and (b) criticism against global banks for malfeasance, causing the financial crisis, etc. Yet the NYT, HP, PBP, TM and GS, while reporting on the Zeitgeist movement, and while criticizing TZM (for utopianism, 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc.) have not even mentioned antisemitism. The issue is weight-worthiness, not reliability-worthiness. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC) As I pointed out at the RSN (days ago) and the talkpage of the article (today), there is a peer-reviewed scholarly article "Grauzonen der Antisemitismusforschung, oder: Versuch, den ‚Zeitgeist' zu verstehen" [Grey areas of anti-Semitism research, or: an attempt to understand "Zeitgeist"] that explicitly discusses anti-semitism and the movie.[21]. With that information to hand, trying to exclude a discussion of the topic in the article based on WP:WEIGHT is a total non-starter. --Slp1 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) This peer-reviewed scholarly article: (a) admits the first Zeitgeist movie does not even mention the word 'Jew' or 'Jewish', (b) conflates the movie's criticism of international banks with anti-semitism, (c) conflates protests against the World Economic Forum in Davos with anti-semitism, (d) conflates organized anti-globalization protests with anti-semitism, (e) conflates criticism of Ariel Sharon and Donald Rumsfeld with anti-semitism, (f) conflates the Z movie with the Z movement, (g) conflates the movie's criticism of large multinational banks with the movie's criticism of Christianity, (g) conflates the movie's 9/11 conspiracy theory with anti-semitism, (h) conflates the movie's criticism of the financial industry with Nazism. This 2010 paper calls for other scholars to continue to investigate the connection between the movie and anti-semitism. Yet it seems that in the last two years no scholars have bothered to answer this call. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC) The question is not if they are wrong or right. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide to remove a notable opinion because it is wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not disagreeing with Wikipedia policies or guidelines. But it is interesting to see how Goldberg's piece in Tablet is essentially a cheap imitation of this peer-reviewed piece. Both of these pieces are classic examples of the kinds of published "work" which Norman Finkelstein has been fighting against for decades. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 16, 2012 at 08:59 (UTC) Reason: It appears that the issues have reached the point where further discussion on talk page is a better solution, no comments here for three days The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

X-ray computed tomography

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. X-ray computed tomography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? The issue is about adverse effects of CT scans, and typical radiation doses of CT scans. I have contributed to that section, and an other user:Jmh649 deleted my contributions, without discussion, without asking for refs, and without giving time to provide refs, and without stating phrases that are not according to rules, and without allowing time to correct them. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Jmh649 (talk · contribs) 79.179.224.214 (talk · contribs) Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs) NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) Bluerasberry (talk · contribs) Yobol (talk · contribs) The user Jmh649 do not understand radiation dose units, and yet he deleted a lot of subject matter related to it, and instead has wrote an error, namely mGy=mSv for xrays, which he quoted from a web page, which is not even a primary research. This after deleting my contributions, that were accurate, because he claimed they were from primary sources. In addition, after I was referred to the rules, I did not find anything in the rules preventing the use of primary sources, and found that the rules were just about the way that primary sources should be used. Instead of helping me achieve the semantic requirements, the user opted to delete everything I have contributed. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=X-ray computed tomography}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I have asked the user Jmh649 to resolve the issue at the talk page, and after that he has wrote his issues with my contributions. I have replied with an answer, and he went on and deleted my contributions again, without answering to my reply. How do you think we can help? I don't know, I am new to wikipedia. My last version is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&oldid=496795977#Adverse_effects . You will be able to see that the adverse effects section, and typical dose section in the the current version is under-representing compared to my last version, and is also structured wrong stating "contrast" as an adverse effect title, instead of stating the adverse effects related to contrast - immediate death, pseudo allergic response, kidney damage, etc. You will also see in the 'Typical scan dose' section, that Jmh649 deleted the most relevant doses, which were quoted from a research, and instead wrote an error in the title of the table column mGy=mSv. This error reflect over the lack of understanding of the subject matter of Jmh649. I don't understand how someone that doesn't understand the subject matter, allow himself to delete other people contributions, and without even reading the referenced articles. I think that the referenced articles were not read by Jmh649, since their content directly contradict the 'mSv=mGy' error that Jmh649 wrote. Jmh649 also does not understand that CT cause patients' bodies to absorb ionizing radiation, and for that reason deleted adverse effects of ionizing radiation from the section, since the references did not include the word CT, btw at least one of them did mention CT: "Irradiation of the brain with dose levels overlapping those imparted by computed tomography can, in at least some instances, adversely affect intellectual development. Although formal diagnostic protocols do not advocate computed tomography in cases of minor head injuries, clinical practice dictated by legal and financial considerations does not always adhere to these protocols. The risk and benefits of computed tomography scans in minor head trauma need re-evaluating." I think that the article should be reverted to my version, since in one day 200,000 people undergo CT examinations in the US alone, and denying them from knowledge of adverse effects such as quoted above is evil. After that, I think that if the text don't conform to wikipedia's standard, then a point to point discussion over its content should be conducted at the talk page until all the research referenced in my version regarding adverse effects would be appropriately expressed in the wikipedia article. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC) X-ray computed tomography discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I am a volunteer clerk/mediator here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I have no particular connection with this subject, but I am an engineer with experience with other kinds of medical diagnostic equipment and I have been CT scanned. I have some preliminary thoughts before I jump into the meat of the dispute 79.179.224.214, it looks to me like this is the situation we are in. You clearly want to do the right thing and improve the article (I see no signs of self-promotion or vandalism). It also looks like you are new to Wikipedia and somewhat unfamiliar with our standards, and have made a few mistakes. (No problem, we all have done the same.) I think we can work together and craft something that meets your concerns and which conforms to Wikipedia's standards. This, of course, depends on whether you are willing to work with us and learn not only our policies, but the reasoning behind them. If you are willing to do that, your reward will be gaining the ability to help an audience that is literally millions of times larger than the audience you could reach with a website, blog, or even a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal. Wikipedia would benefit as well; we need more editors with experience in these areas. Regarding the difficulties you are experiencing, one problem is that you are reading various policy pages that others are referring you to with an eye towards justifying the changes you want to make. This, naturally, biases your interpretation. Another problem is that all of those policies were written and edited using the same techniques that were used to create the rest of Wikipedia, which means that the quality varies from "crystal clear" to "as clear as mud". Finally, Wikipedia's policy pages are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are a convenient way to inform new editors what the longstanding consensus is on various issues, but they are a (possibly flawed) description of the consensus, not the consensus itself. Someone who has been around longer and has seen the policies applied in various situations naturally has a better feel for what the consensus is than a newbie who is just looking at the policies for the first time. A procedural note: I see that under "Who is involved in the dispute?" you list only yourself and Jmh649, and you have correctly noted that Jmh649 has not discussed this on the talk page. However, several other editors have been discussing this with you, and you did not list them. You need to add all of those names above under "Who is involved in the dispute?" and notify them. Later, we will look at the edit in question in detail. Please look at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&diff=496795977&oldid=496791930 That is the edit we will be discussing. It may be helpful to click on the Delta button at the bottom to see another way of seeing the edit, and of course there are "Revision as of" links at the top that will show you the article before and after the edit. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC) I have added all the people I that commented over the disputed matter to the list here, and I have informed them about the dispute on their respective talk page. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC) user 79.179.224.214, thanks for exploring Wikipedia and seeking out this process. This dispute began on 9 June and now after 2 days you are taking the issue here. I would not have called this a dispute; it seemed like a discussion to me and there is still active talk and open questions on the talk page. I propose that dispute resolution be postponed until the discussion on the article talk page is finished. It is more useful to have discussion on the article's subject on its own talk page than it would be to have it here. Also, I see no reason stated as to why the discussion should be here rather than there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Blue Rasberry, I apologize, that I have invited you to the dispute late. Please understand, that I thought that only I and Jmg649 are the parties to this dispute. This dispute entry was started on 04:07, 10 June 2012, due to an advice, that I have received. The talk page version at the time was 02:56, 10 June 2012, and my perception of the dispute was as stated in this dispute entry. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC) The additional names were added at my request. There is no requirement that anyone respond, but I wanted everyone involved to be notified. In my opinion, in this particular case it is useful to have a discussion here in addition to any discussion on the article's talk page. As a clerk/mediator at the dispute resolution noticeboard, I have given 79.179.224.214 some advice that he is not getting on the article talk page (see the top of this section) and which, I believe, will resolve this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC) I read your advice. I am not sure if I understand from it what you want me to understand. For example, did you imply, that the policy pages (like WP:MEDRS) are irrelevant, and what is relevant is what long time editors think? More to the point, is the claim that primary research can never be used true or not? 79.179.224.214 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Not at all irrelevant, nor do the opinions of individual long time editors trump written policy. What I was trying to say was that when several long time editors disagree with you about the interpretation of a policy, there is a possibility that you have gotten it wrong. Or not. I apologize for being unclear. The other question you ask is more interesting. I am going to outdent to give it more room. Ah. Much better. The question at hand is: "Is the claim that primary research can never be used true or not?" First, let's look at the edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&diff=prev&oldid=496795977 In this case, because it was all in a new section, we can take a shortcut. First we can click on the "Revision as of 20:21, 9 June 2012" on the upper right: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&oldid=496795977 then append the section to that: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray_computed_tomography&oldid=496795977#Extensive_DNA_damage Which makes it easy to scroll down and look at references 10 through 15, which the section cites. Before even getting in to the "primary research can never be used" claim, I see a problem, and you should see it too if you look. Compare the references cited by your newly-added "Extensive DNA damage" section ([10] through [15]) with those from the existing "Cancer" section ([26] through [34]) -- or with the citations used in hundreds of other Wikipedia articles. Do you see the difference? The cancer section has cites like "Estimated Risks of Radiation-Induced Fatal Cancer from Pediatric CT" and "CT scans on children 'could triple brain cancer risk'" -- clearly cites to reliable sources talking specifically about the effect of CT scans on humans. Forget about primary or secondary for a moment. They are reliable sources talking specifically about the effect of CT scans on humans. Your new section has cites like "The line is a linear fit to the data points with a slope of 35 DSBs per cell per Gy." and "DNA double strand break repair in brain: Reduced NHEJ activity in aging rat neurons" The first is about an experiment done with cells grown in a medium and the second is an experiment done with aging rats. So, how do I know how the experiments done with cells or rats apply to humans who get CT scans? Simple! All I have to do is to take the word of some unknown person who edits Wikipedia from IP address 79.179.224.214! Do you see the problem? If, as you claim, those experiments with cells and rats apply to CT scans of humans, why is it that you cannot find a reliable source that says that? Why, it almost sounds like you have done some original research! By an amazing stroke of coincidence, Wikipedia has a policy that covers this exact situation. It is called WP:PRIMARY and it says: "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Original analysis of the primary-source material... sounds a lot like what I described you doing above concerning cells and rats, doesn't it? OK, let's look at a modified version to your question: Is it true that someone told you that primary sources can never be used? I looked at every single comment on Talk:X-ray computed tomography, then I went back and searched for all uses of the word "primary". The only person who has said anything about primary sources never being used is you. Nobody told you that. You made it up. Wikipedia has a page about that as well: Straw man. As I said before, if you are willing to work with us and learn not only our policies, but the reasoning behind them, you will be able to become a productive part of Wikipedia. Alas, it is generally true that the amount of time spent explaining Wikipedia's policies to someone is inversely proportional to the odds of them ever becoming a productive member of the Wikipedia community. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC) With regard to "The line is a linear fit to the data points with a slope of 35 DSBs per cell per Gy." - The interactions between DNA molecules and X-rays is a matter of physics, thus it does not matter where the DNA molecules are located. It only depends on the structure of the DNA molecule, and the nature of the X-Ray, regardless of the location of the cell containing the DNA molecule be it in the body, or out of it. Since the DNA is the same and the X-Ray is the same, the number of DSBs per Gy would be the same. I have begun to search secondary sources for the same data (btw google show that that article is cited by more than 800 other articles), and I have found similar numbers stated for in vivo, by what I think are secondary sources, and I have asked for confirmation, that they are indeed secondary sources, on the article talk page. Here are the articles: "Radiation induces thousands of single-strand breaks per Gray, but only about 50 double-strand breaks.", "20–40 DSB foci per nucleus per Gray of radiation for a mammalian cell", and "For X-rays, on average 20–30 DSBs are induced per Gray". It is true that in this experiment the DNA molecules were in cells grown in medium, but in other experiments the DNA molecules were in peripheral lymphocytes that were extracted from human blood, after the human has undergone a CT. See here. About the rats's neuron repair mechanism, maybe that is not as obvious as the X-Ray interaction with DNA, but that source was just to support that the repair mechanism is faulty. There are many other sources, that support that the DNA repair mechanism is faulty in humans, but I was not asked specifically about that source until now, and I understood that I was told off, that I can't use any primary source, because my contribution was deleted and in reply to my question I was told: "All of the refs supporting this text are primary research papers", "The issue with your additions had to do with the references. The references where simply not appropriate", "The same thing as with all the content in question. It was not supported by proper references.", "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss.", and "For important medical information we use ideal sources." the last in reply to me saying "It does not state that non ideal sources can't be used". For this reason I asked "More to the point, is the claim that primary research can never be used true or not?", I am not sure if I got an answer to that. Note, that the last question semantics doesn't state that any one made that claim, yet I want to know if that claim is true or false, in order to know if the deletions have merit or not. Having said that, and looking into the definition of straw man, I think that what I was told "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss." is pretty much saying you can't use primary sources period. Thus, no straw man. After I have defended the honor of the mighty 79.179.224.214, I humbly request, please answer. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC) You see, no body has questioned the content of the articles, until now, they just deleted it, and said it is not proper, not appropriate, primary. Is this article a secondary review? (see e.g. page 25 that include a table, that concentrate many other researches that were reviewed.) 79.179.224.214 (talk) Primary sources can be used, but not the way you are trying to use them. They are to be used for things that are uncontroversial, uncontested, directly stated in the source (no interpretation or other use of your own knowledge or expertise allowed) and they have to be reliable sources. For example, you can use http://www.robinwilliams.com/ as a source for a claim that actor Robin Williams was born in Chicago (http://www.robinwilliams.com/content/biography says that explicitly, and the Robin Williams website is a reliable source on the topic of Robin Williams). It may very well be true that the other editors on the page did a poor job of explaining Wikipedia's policies to you, but they did give you links to the actual policies, and everything you need to know is contained in those policies. It is your responsibility to find out what Wikipedia's policies are and to follow them. The only responsibility someone who reverts your changes has is to provide a link to the relevant policy (and, of course, the policy has to actually apply). They don't have to explain the policy to you. Your explanation above about DNA molecules and X-rays is a prime example of the wrong thinking you have fallen into. It violates WP:OR (specifically WP:SYNTH) and WP:V, (also see Wikipedia:Attribution#No original research)) and so cannot be used. Again, look at what you want to insert into Wikipedia and at the references you are citing, then look at what is already on Wikipedia and the references supporting that. Surely you are capable of seeing and understanding the difference between the two. What conclusion do you draw from them being so radically different? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC) But I stated: "Experiments showed that ionizing radiation cause DNA double strand breaks at a rate of 35 double strand breaks per cell per Gray", clearly the primary source state exactly that. Is that primary source unreliable? Is it controversial? Is there an other problem? Can it be fixed? 79.179.224.214 (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC) That particular statement cannot be retained unless you find a source that specifically states how that experiment relates to humans undergoing CT scans. That source would be acceptable if you were to try to add the information to our articles on X-rays or Ionizing radiation, but you would have to present it as what happens to cells in a growth medium, not what happens in humans. The primary source in question is not a reliable source on the subject of the effects of CT scans on humans, because it says nothing about the effects of CT scans on humans. If you want to fix the entire section, simply find reliable sources that specifically address CT scans, live humans, and DNA. Then write copy that reports what those sources say. This is what whoever it was who wrote the cancer section had to do, and this is what you will have to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC) You wrote "CT scans, live humans, and DNA". Does it have to be "CT scans"? Couldn't it be xray? I think, that the source of the xray is irrelevant. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I have already found what seems to be a review article regarding radiation therapy which state: "Radiation induces thousands of single-strand breaks per Gray, but only about 50 double-strand breaks.". Can that be used? 79.179.224.214 (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Radiation therapy and CT both use X-Rays, and subject patients to Grays of X-Ray radiation. And the review article states radiation, in general, which means all type of radiations. Thus the statement from the radiation therapy review should be considered to apply in the case of CT, imho. Btw, the numbers of the in vitro study, and this review are pretty close. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC) What is wrong with the following statement from that section? It is about living humans, CT, and DNA: A Study found, that the contrast agent increased the radiation damage to the DNA that was caused by CT examination: The presence of iodinated contrast agent during CT increased the double strand breaks levels in peripheral lymphocytes by approximately 30%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.224.214 (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC) About the table, Mr. Doc James has removed 3 columns from it. The mGy column is quoting the primary source verbatim, and shouldn't have been removed. I read WP:NPOV, and I think that for a neutral point of view, that column need to be included. The next column is based on a simple calculation, the mGy value divided by 3mGy/year, which is the background radiation giving the number of years of background radiation. Simple calculations are allowed according to WP:OR. The next column is based on calculations relying on the mGy column, and the DSB rate, which we are still discussing about. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC) About the cognitive decline section, it is based on a review article, which is quoted. One of the primary sources there state: "External radiotherapy to the head of infants with dose levels that overlap those from computed tomography may adversely affect intellectual development." "Irradiation of the brain with dose levels overlapping those imparted by computed tomography can, in at least some instances, adversely affect intellectual development. Although formal diagnostic protocols do not advocate computed tomography in cases of minor head injuries, clinical practice dictated by legal and financial considerations does not always adhere to these protocols. The risk and benefits of computed tomography scans in minor head trauma need re-evaluating.". I think that this support my view that the source of the ionizing radiation, be it radiation therapy or CT, is irrelevant for its effect. 79.179.224.214 (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Good find on those those "dose levels that overlap those from computed tomography" sources. As for your question about "Does it have to be 'CT scans'? Couldn't it be xray?" I have been thinking about that and looking at various policies and my answer is...I don't know. I am hoping that someone else might be anble to shed some light on that. As for the removal of the three columns from the table, I need to get back to you on that. I have a prior commitment that may keep me occupied for up to two days. I still strongly support your basic goal, which is to create a properly sourced section informing the reader about CT scans and DNA damage. That's something that I would want to know as a patient, but it has to be in the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC) OK. We will try to do the best possible. Until someone would shed light on that, I am trying to see the problem from other people's point of view ... suppose that we have established that xray cause a certain problem, and that CT emit xrays, and suppose that some patient go to do a CT, and ask the doctor, would I get that certain problem from that CT? it emits xrays, and xray cause the certain problem. And the doctor would answer him, oh no, it will not cause you the certain problem. And the patient would say, why not? it emit xrays, no? xray cause the certain problem, no? And the doctor would answer, yes xray cause the certain problem, but this is xray from a CT, and because this xray come from a CT, it will not cause the certain problem. So don't worry about it. And the patient would ask the doctor, are the xrays from a CT the same xrays as the one that cause the certain problem? And the doctor will say yes, they are exactly the same. And the patient would ask, well doctor, if they are the same xrays, then how come that xrays from a CT doesn't cause the certain problem, if it emit the same xrays that cause the certain problem? And the doctor would answer, isn't it obvious? It is because the CT xrays are from a CT. Duh. Here is an other story, suppose that we have established that drinking boiling water cause nasty burns, and that a certain golden cup has boiling water, and the patient would ask the doctor, would drinking the boiling water from that golden cup cause me a nasty burn? And the doctor would answer, oh hell no. And the patient would ask, why not? drinking boiling water is known to cause nasty burns, no? And the doctor would answer, because it is from a golden cup, duh. 79.182.215.205 (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Stories are interesting things, They can illustrate, or they can deceive. I could write a bunch of stories with endings like: "Because you are wearing SCUBA gear, being underwater for an hour is not fatal", "Because you were vaccinated, you won't get the disease", "Because the radiation is Alpha rays instead of Gamma rays, it won't give you bone cancer", "Because the X-Rays of are at 10^3 eV with an exposure time of 10 nanoseconds instead of the 10^5 eV with an exposure time of 10 milliseconds we used before, the risk of DNA damage is greatly reduced" or even "Because you are driving a tank, being shot at with a rifle is safe". Those would be stories where something does make a difference to go along with your stories above where something does not make a difference. So how do we determine with kind of story we are talking about? Because someone posting to Wikipedia from IP address 79.182.215.205 says so? That's not the Wikipedia way. If, indeed, they both have the same effect on DNA, why is it that you cannot find a source that says that? The person who wrote the section on cancer was able to do it. Why can't you? (By the way, I am purposely ignoring the fact that I can easily answer these questions from my own expertise designing equipment for producing radiation cross-linked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene; that would be Original Research.) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Well, I understand the concern, that maybe the effect of the same absorbed radiation dose from two types of xrays would be different. I think, that I will be able to find a source, that would demonstrate that the effect of the discussed types of xrays is about the same effect, if I would search for that. Perhaps I have already searched and found these sources, perhaps I have even posted them here, and just haven't quoted the relevant sections, and how it demonstrate the point yet. Note, that I have already found and posted for in vivo radiation therapy "Radiation induces"..."about 50 double-strand breaks." per gray, and for an in vitro study "90 kV x-rays"..."35 DSBs per cell per Gy". So the DNA damage per gray, with in vitro 90keV xrays, and in vivo radiation therapy is pretty close. AFIK CT xrays are 80 to 120keV, usually 120keV for adults. Thus, the used 90keV xray are in the range of keV used in CT. Thus the xrays used in CT produce about the same amount of DSBs as radiation therapy. Please give me the benefit of the doubt, and don't assume, that I can't find something, or extrapolate from that assumption, that therefor the 'assumed not found something' doesn't exist. I know that I am new to Wikipedia editing, and maybe I don't understand the rules, but FWIW I edit in good faith, I think that what I am trying to contribute is correct and important, and I am willing to search for better sources if it is really necessary, but I also think that I am confronted with unfair conduct, and at that case even good sources that I will find would be rejected. For this reason, first I want to understand why the sources that I have already found are not good enough. This will enable me (A) to know that I really need to search new sources, (B) to evaluate if new sources meet the criteria (C) to know that the game is fair and that searching for new sources is not a futile task, since it is going to be rejected regardless. Think of it - if one of the editors is invested in a CT facility, or acting on the behalf of someone who is invested in a CT facility, he would delete anything he can from the adverse effects section, just like Mr. Doc James did. Mr. Doc James gave me a wrong justification for the deletions, and thus threw me off track into a discussion of whether primary sources can be used at all. I think, that many of the sources, that back up the deleted contributions were adequate, but the contributions weren't edited in order to remove just inadequate parts, they were deleted in their entirety. Mr. Doc James has proved, by the insertion of the error Gy=Sv to the article, that he doesn't understand the subject, and that he didn't read the sources thoroughly, yet he allowed himself to delete without asking questions first. Can you understand why I might be just to suspect, that unfair conduct could be involved? 79.182.215.205 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC) I am not only assuming good faith, I am convinced of it. It is blindingly obvious that you want to improve the page. As for the behavior you describe, DRN only deals with article content, not user conduct. WP:WQA deals with user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the vote of confidence :) About the three columns, I suggest to first restore the two columns, that we know to be properly sourced. I found a paragraph from "Computed Tomography — An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure", which is a review, imho, that support most of my deleted DNA damage section: "Biologic Effects of Low Doses of Ionizing; Radiation Mechanism of Biologic Damage;Ionizing radiation, such as x-rays, is uniquely energetic enough to overcome the binding energy of the electrons orbiting atoms and molecules; thus, these radiations can knock electrons out of their orbits, thereby creating ions. In biologic material exposed to x-rays, the most common scenario is the creation of hydroxyl radicals from x-ray interactions with water molecules; these radicals in turn interact with nearby DNA to cause strand breaks or base damage. X-rays can also ionize DNA directly. Most radiation-induced damage is rapidly repaired by various systems within the cell, but DNA double-strand breaks are less easily repaired, and occasional misrepair can lead to induction of point mutations, chromosomal translocations, and gene fusions, all of which are linked to the induction of cancer.23". 79.182.215.205 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC) User:79.182.215.205 - you can stay on this board if you like, but it is my opinion that it would be better for you to return to the talk page of the article's subject and reference discussions there on this board. This dispute should stay open, but discussion about the article content should be on its talk page, while problems about fair treatment should be here. When you make proposals on content like you are doing here, they are unlikely to be read by people seeking information on CT if they are on boards other than the CT board. I also recommend that you make a user account because people are less likely to communicate with you when they have to go to the extra work of finding your IP as it changes. You have some IP addresses wherein people started conversations, and then those conversations are abandoned when you switch. Dispute resolution works better when more people participate, and I want everyone to have a chance to participate easily. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Hi Blue Rasberry. Personally I have no preference regarding the posting location. I have posted here because the mediator instructed us to discuss the disputed content here. 79.182.215.205 (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC) This noticeboard is for disputes that cannot be resolved at the article talk page level. If you can work it out on the talk page, that is far better than seeking dispute resolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 16, 2012 at 08:42 (UTC) Reason: Involved parties are working out content dispute on article talk page, behavior issues at WP:WQA. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.