Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 6

Menahem Lonzano

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. Menahem Lonzano (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? Menahem Lonzano was created in 2008: [1], and was described as being a "Palestinian Masoretic and midrashic scholar". In Nov 2010 an IP removed the word “Palestinian”: [2] In April 11, I add category “Palestinian rabbis”: [3] and Debresser removed it: [4] On May 1, SD re-adds this category: [5] and later on May 11, Debresser removes it again: [6] In June 11, after a month and a half of debate I re-add the cat: [7] and Debresser immediately removes it again: [8] After a successful Afd, I link “Palestinian rabbi”: [9] and Debresser reverts: [10] 10 days later after consensus is reached at wikiproject, I re-link: [11] and Debresser straight away reverts: [12]. I am not sure how to go about his when Debresser says adding "Palestinian rabbi" is against consensus, while there were 6 people involved with the word Palestinian on this page. Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, SD and I opted for the term, while an IP, a blocked sock and Debresser removed it. That is besides all the other editors who have edited the page in-between and have left the term, (Sbowers3, Attilios, FeanorStar7, מרכז מידע הר הזיתים, Davshul, Ulric1313, Dsp13.) So if I do my math right, that makes 10 against 1. Still no consensus? Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Chesdovi (talk · contribs) Debresser (talk · contribs) Debresser continues to revert "Palestinian" from all pages, including new articles such as Tachlifa the Palestinian. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism after an Afd on Palestinian rabbi passed as Keep. In that thread, the ony person to oppose use of the term was Debresser. How do you think we can help? By explaining to Debresser that the term "Palestinian rabbi" has been accepted by a majority of the community at the Afd discussion and can therefore be used on all relevant pages. Chesdovi (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Menahem Lonzano discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Debresser now extended his non-use of Palestinain to towns! He believes that stating Timnah was a "Palestinian" town is "irrelevant": [13]. He also is remving the word "Palestine" from every article on a Jewish rabbi: [14]. Chesdovi (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Relocated from statement of dispute Hasteur (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Debresser has just referred to the use of the word "Palestine" as "propagana" which quite amazes me. Does he have an impartial view on the matter, as he claims, or does this slip up reveal an admission of a so far denied POV by someone who now seems to be a "pro-Israel" editor? Who else would call use of the word "Palestine" "propaganda"? Chesdovi (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Relocated from statement of dispute Hasteur (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC) This article is part of a long and wide conflict, as can be seen in detail in my post on WP:AE#Chesdovi. Please do not let Chesdovi fool anybody as though this is an issue involving only one page, or that I would be the only editor disagreeing with Chesdovi. Chesdovi is trying push a certain POV with manifold edits through all namespaces, introducing the word "Palestinian" where it is out of place. Part of this can be witnessed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, which Chesdovi has turned into the "Palestinian Herald". Note that this editor is currently under an edit restriction from WP:ARBPIA, which I think should be a red flag here, even though it seems from WP:AE that Chesdovi's edit restrictions do not apply here, because of the limited scope of WP:ARBPIA. In my opinion, the way to solve this conflict is that Chesdovi should voluntarily stop editing any and all articles with the word "Palestinian" even near it. After things have cooled down a little, let's say in another month or three, he could open a discussion at WP:CENTRAL where he could try and establish consensus for his innovative and so far non-consensus edits. For the moment, his many non-consensus edits and exhausting discussions at all possible venues (his talkpage, Rfc, Cfd, Drv, Afd, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, and various article talkpages) have so much worn out editors, that nobody even replies to any of his posts involving the term "Palestinian", causing Chesdovi to falsely claim consensus, apparently. Debresser (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Hi there, and sorry for the delay in responding to this. If this discussion was limited to the original article in the complaint, then I would attempt to find a compromise here, but there seems to be a history of dispute between the two editors involved, and the general issues seem to span a wide range of articles. For these reasons I think this dispute is likely outside the scope of this noticeboard. I agree with EdJohnston and T. Canens' comments over at the arbitration enforcement thread that the articles Chezdovi is editing don't appear to be directly related to his topic ban, but I think that carrying on these two discussions in parallel would not be very efficient. I propose that we talk about this at the arbitration enforcement thread so that everyone can air their grievances and we can all come to a more informed resolution. In any case, I will leave a note at the arbitration enforcement to let them know of the existence of this thread. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, I see that this was the thread already mentioned by Hasteur on the arbitration enforcement page, and that it got re-opened when all the old threads were manually archived this morning. I think I'll reinstate the close, as it is basically what I said in the above comment anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Menahem Lonzano resolution The making of this request would appear to violate Chesdovi's topic ban here background here against editing "all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces". Chesdovi's interpretation of this ban to mean only those articles, discussions, and other content specifically about that conflict is currently the subject of a new request for arbitration enforcement against him here. If that request should be determined in his favor, then he should feel free to relist this discussion here, but until then I am going to close it as improperly filed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:35, 25 August 2011 (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.

Boleto

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. Boleto (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? SudoGhost argues that the content I wrote was copied and pasted but he fails to point out from where the copy was taken. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) FranciscoLuz (talk · contribs) SudoGhost (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? See article discussion page How do you think we can help? Decide whether or not the content I wrote violates any copywrites and prevent SudoGhost from deleting it. 187.6.5.140 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Boleto discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Didn't notify SudoGhost. I have resolved this for you.Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC) IP Address, can we assume that you are FranciscoLuz? Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Hopefully this is the correct section to reply in, if it isn't, feel free to move it. However, the Boleto article has been plagued with copyright violations introduced by User:Francisco luz since it was created, and half of the page history is revdel'd as a result. The article's talk page is filled with discussions about the user's insertion of copyright violations, and the user has been blocked twice for copyright violations. Each and every edit previously made by User:Francisco luz and the user's sockpuppets have been copyright violations. When 100% of a user's previous edits are copyvios, it makes it unlikely that subsequent edits are not also copyvios, especially when the edit is so similar to previous edits. It is for this reason that I removed the inserted material. It is my understanding that copyright violations are a serious matter, and in that regard, it is better to remove and discuss than to simply leave it there. - SudoGhost 20:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC) I assume you're not replying to me, but to the general issue. I've moved the posting here. If I'm wrong, feel free to move it back Hasteur (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Apparently personal attacks are an important part of the dispute resolution process. - SudoGhost 00:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Ignoring the WP:NPA issue and the possibility of WP:SOCKPUPPETry for a moment, I'll point out to Francisco luz that theirs is the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that their edits are NOT plagiarism or copyright violations, and that such proof is provided by properly citing references. This is doubly true in this case, since the editor in question has a demonstrated history of editing in violation of copyrights, based on their block history. Returning now to the question of sockpuppetry, I'd say it's pertinent because it was the IP user in question that actually opened this discussion. Should it be demonstrated that the IP is not Francisco luz, no harm, no foul. If, however, a Checkuser determines they ARE the same user...well, it wouldn't be the first time someone got hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. Finally, on the matter of WP:NPA, I see the IP user has already received a warning regarding that issue, and hopefully that warning will be heeded. If it isn't, this discussion may well be closed early due to the blocking of the originator. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC) So is there anything we can do to work towards a resolution here? It's been a few days and Francisco luz still hasn't responded in any way, so I'm not sure what needs to be done from this point. - SudoGhost 04:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I don't really have anything to add to what Alan wrote, so I think if there's no reply from Francisco luz by tomorrow then I'll close this discussion as stale. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Well I think at this point it can be considered stale. - SudoGhost 00:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Boleto resolution Closed as stale. Feel free to post again if further issues come up. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:34, 31 August 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists)

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. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists) (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? Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) (Andy) boldly added a note at MOS:RJL about how to add coordinates in a road junction list. It was removed shortly thereafter by Rschen7754 (talk · contribs), citing no consensus. Among roads editors, consensus has been that since roads are a linear feature and coordinates are single points; the two do not go together well and coordinates should be avoided on roads until there is a good way to handle them. WP:LINEAR, a page which Andy created and Tagishsimon (talk · contribs) has helped draft clearly states there is no consensus in the first sentence, and has since its initial edit. Noting WP:LINEAR, I added a note on an example on the MoS page that does include coordinates. It was removed by Andy and reverted by Rschen (successive edits). Attempts on the part of the roads editors to compromise and have some coordinates in articles have been rebuffed. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) Tagishsimon (talk · contribs) Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) Fredddie (talk · contribs) Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) Floydian (talk · contribs)  The first two users are from the coordinates project, the rest are from either the U.S. roads project or the Canadian roads project. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? There have been numerous discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates and WT:RJL. Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) took Andy to ANI regarding his reverting Rschen's attempts to close the discussion. ANI's involvement ended by Rschen being told he should have found an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. How do you think we can help? We need some people to speak into the situation and restore calm and order, and ensure that a true consensus is obtained and followed. Current discussions are degrading into incivility and personal attacks rather than getting anywhere. If this isn't the right venue, clear guidance on where to go from here would be much appreciated. Rschen7754 05:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Hmm, this is a tricky one. Although I do see some comments that aren't as civil as they could be, it looks like the issues have been discussed in a relatively calm fashion. The discussion also looks fairly comprehensive, and I don't see any clear consensus emerging. I saw the point made that discussing coordinates in MOS:RJL would possibly preempt consensus from the various roads wikiprojects and from the coordinates wikiproject, and I think we should be careful to avoid this. As I see it, there are two ways we could go from here. The first is to open up the debate to a wider forum to try and get more editors participating from the various wikiprojects that are involved, in the hope of estabilishing a broad-based consensus; the other is to stop the debate and go with the status quo of deciding on an article-by-article basis. Which one we go with depends on how palatable they are to the editors involved. Please let me know if you all agree with my take on these discussions. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Hmm. To be honest, I don't 100% agree with "I don't see any clear consensus emerging" as it's turned into 5-6 editors against 2 editors (though I'm aware it's not a vote and all that). But otherwise, it's a fair assessment. As far as the first option, I've spammed noticed to all of the highway projects on the national level, and the coordinates project was notified already, so I'm not sure what else to do, short of a RFC. --Rschen7754 08:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Yes, I take your point - the numbers certainly aren't even. Let's wait and see what the other involved editors think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I agree with your assessment with the same caveat Rschen mentioned. –Fredddie™ 17:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Your (initial) analysis is spot on. Having failed to achieve a change to the status quo through misrepresentation, and failed to get ANI to support his attempt to prematurely close a discussion not going his way, Rschen7754 appears to have resorted to forum shopping. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I disagree completely that this is forum shopping. The discussion, if you can call it that, on WT:RJL has been going nowhere for days. We can continue running around in circles or we can get some fresh eyes on the discussion and get some resolution. –Fredddie™ 18:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I've seen forum shopping, and this isn't it. --Rschen7754 18:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC) As the discussion was also signposted from one of the VP pages, I tend to think about as much has been done as could be done to interest other wikipedians. I do not expect any different outcome from this new angle of attack. I'm sorry that Rschen is unsatisfied that there is not a consensus to ban or severelly restrict the use of geo-coordinates on road junction lists, but that seems to be where we are. I've seen forum shopping, and this does look, smell and feel like it. But perhaps I'm mistaken. Right now, for me, WP:V and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS appear to trump anything cooked up by a cabal on the RJL MoS talk page. Thus even were we to be able to move from a no consensus position to some other position favoured by Rschen, it would not make a ha'ppth of difference. A manual of style should not be used to restrict the addition of objectively encyclopedic information - which is to say content - but rather should be confined to, err, style. The hint is in the name. Neither should a MoS page be used to prevent content from being verified by reference to reliable sources such as a map. There's no possibility that I'll compromise the referencing of fixed geographical points merely because Rschen and other perceive that it makes their precious tables "cluttered". --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC) To clarify: "you believe that your interpretation of WP:V and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS somehow entitles you to override the consensus process because you believe that you are right." --Rschen7754 19:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I thought we were, at least, agreed that the discussion was closed as no consensus? Or else we would not be here, n'est pas? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC) That's what we tried, until a certain editor reverted over that. --Rschen7754 20:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC) You tried to close as "no consensus for using coordinates on highway articles", which was a blatant misrepresentation. I reverted you, and your appeal to WP:ANI to undo my revert was unsuccessful; as was your attempt to insert that misrepresentation into the MoS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Apparently option 2 is not viable to Pigsonthewing: [15]. --Rschen7754 21:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Option 2 would be fine; the issue about my change to WP:RJL is separate to the one about whether or not to show coordinates on articles about roads. This whole farrago arose from your deliberate efforts to wrongly conflate the two. And the edit you cite rejects an attempt to sensor debate, not to restore the status quo. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Section 2 The status quo is that there is no bar to adding coordinates to road junction lists. The RJL MoS page has for a long time shown the M5 example. Your attempt to change that has failed, Rschen. How many more fora will you drag us through before you have the good grace to concede? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) First of all, what happened to the other editors sharing my opinion? Why are you singling me out? Secondly, the status quo is that there is no bar to adding coordinates to road junction lists, with the exception of countries that don't want them, such as the United States. It is clear that there is no consensus to add them to U.S. articles at this time. And no, you won't find the United States ban in RJL, because it was decided at WT:USRD back in 2008. I think the UK solution is a responsible solution, and I think that variants of it might have worked out well in the United States. But when certain editors insisted on tagging every single junction in the United States (of which there may be over 1,000,000 - nobody really knows), the attempts to compromise fell apart. RJL may not ban coordinates altogether, but it does ban coordinate columns. Like my fellow editors, I plan to disengage for the sake of disengagement, because I think it would be good for all parties to take a month or so to cool off. This does not imply that I agree with your position (I very strongly disagree with you), and any attempts to take this as such or as a silent consensus will be met with a link to this diff, proving otherwise. --Rschen7754 22:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I'm singling you out because you brought this debate here. Why do you think I'm singling you out? You're right that RJL does not provide a column for coordinates; that's very unfortunate. It is a loss for our readers; not something to be proud of. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC) It's not fair to single him out. It wasn't solely his decision to bring the discussion here. Why exactly should RJL provide for a coordinates column? What difference does it make if the data is in an inline reference, located in the notes column, or in a separate column? What benefit is there? –Fredddie™ 01:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Then whose decision was it? And where was it decided? Link, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I thought I asked a question first. You can't change the subject if you can't answer the question. On the handy little chart on your user page, Andy, changing the subject would be underneath the triangle. So, I'll ask again, what difference does it make where the coordinates are located? –Fredddie™ 22:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC) You did indeed ask a question before I did; but you didn't address it to me. Now, will you answer the question I asked you before you asked me one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Your usage of semantics is sickening. You can find the answer to your question by checking the first edit to WP:RJL in 2006. I'm unchecking this page from my watchlist. I have better things to do. –Fredddie™ 23:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Somebody was deciding to bring this to DRN in 2006?! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Well, the benefit is this. If we are to add coordinates to every junction, then to do so in a new column does not increase the length of the page. If we do so in inline references, then we end up with a list of coordinates which is roughly as long as the original table. I leave it to you to work out which of those two options is saner. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC) There is no exception for countries that don't want them, because countries have no voice. Presumably, you mean Wikiprojects; and we have an explicit policies (WP:OWN; WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) that projects can't form their own consensus; as has been pointed out to you several times recently. Why do you refuse to accept this? In the absence of a Wikipedia-wide consensus, as in this case, all that remain are article talk pages - a compromise reference to which you recently removed from WP:RJL. WP:RJL does not "ban coordinate columns"; it merely neglects to include them in its list of example columns; despite the fact that there are good roads articles which use them. This, too has been pointed out to you recently. Please provide evidence of your remarkable assertion that "certain editors insisted on tagging every single junction in the United States". And please cite your "decided at WT:USRD back in 2008" claim. this November 2008 discussion there reached no such conclusion. Nor, incidentally, did this July 2010 WikiProject Highways debate. I'll also reiterate what I said on your talk page: I take your protection of {{Jcttop}}, immediately after I raised a concern over its content in a debate in which you are involved, and in which we disagree, as an act of bad faith, and as an abuse of admin privileges. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, I gave the initial support for tagging every junction. The idea was shot down so fast, they started singing Bohemian Rhapsody. How is that not a resounding no? –Fredddie™ 01:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC) "How is singing Bohemian Rhapsody not a resounding no?" Really? FFS. And no, the idea was not "shot down fast". There were comments for and against and no conclusion reached. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry to butt in, but I think that this is not really such a good venue for any allegations of abuse of admin privileges. Not that many admins read this page, and allegations like that can be quite serious. If you want to follow it up, then I think a good idea would be to ask for opinions on ANI and see what others have to say on the matter. If you do want to pursue it further here then I am open to that, but I think it should probably go in a new report to avoid being confused with the present issue - I'd like to keep this thread on-topic if that's possible. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC) It's part of the same issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Section 3 I think Rschen7754's idea of stepping back from the more general debate of coordinates for highways articles for a month or so is a good suggestion. It does seem that the discussion was advertised in all the likely places, and while it could be possible to get more editors involved in any further discussion, this would probably take some serious effort. I also see good arguments made for making decisions on a page-by-page basis, as some highways and highway features seem more amenable to coordinates than others. I also agree with Andy that his original edits to WP:RJL have become conflated with the wider coordinates question. Personally I don't see any problem with adding language about coordinates to the page, but to satisfy everyone we should be careful about how we word it. I'm thinking of something along the lines of "there is no consensus on whether to include coordinates in highways articles, and some WikiProjects including the US Roads WikiProject have traditionally advised against including them; however if there is a local consensus to include coordinates you can do it with the {{coord}} template". Would this be an acceptable compromise for everyone? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Support. I like it. –Fredddie™ 02:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Support. Wasn't my idea, but it sounds good :P. --Rschen7754 03:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC) [reply to Mr. Stradivarius] Please note my comment above: we have an explicit policies (WP:OWN; WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) that projects can't form their own consensus. Any eventual wording should not imply otherwise. The claim that "some WikiProjects including the US Roads WikiProject have traditionally advised against including them" is also disputed (note request for citations, above). I proposed on WT:RJL that the wording should be: At the present time, there is no consensus as to whether or not roads article should include coordinates; consensus should therefore be reached on individual article talk pages. See the M5 example for one way to include coordinates where such consensus is reached. (which was a compromise reached by several editors, but rejected by Rschen7754) with the addition of a reference to WP:LINEAR and I've seen no good reason given why that should not be the case. The wording which I originally added to RJL was: If including geographical coordinates, use {{Coord}} for each set; and one instance of {{GeoGroupTemplate}} per page. and I've seen no good reason why that cannot be used, also. Note the opening "If", which is entirely in keeping with both the current RJL examples and LINEAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC) "For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." - where is this "generally accepted policy or guideline"? --Rschen7754 19:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC) WP:RJL, WP:GEO, WP:LINEAR, WP:CONSENSUS, etc. Oh, and there are some requests for you to provide evince of your assertions, awaiting your attention, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC) WP:RJL does not mandate the use of coordinates; no matter how many times you claim it does, it does not. If it did, then all of the examples would have coordinates. WP:GEO is a WikiProject, not a guideline. By your reasoning, "Please note my comment above: we have an explicit policies (WP:OWN; WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) that projects can't form their own consensus." (I don't agree with this statement, but I point this out to show a contradiction in your position). WP:LINEAR is a draft of a guideline. Referring to WP:CONSENSUS is circular reasoning. By the way, it seems that you at the coordinates project are trying to enforce a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, since you don't have a guideline to back yourselves up with. And I ask you (again) where your discussions are mandating that all roads articles must be tagged. --Rschen7754 19:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Please cite evidence of me ever claiming that WP:RJL mandates the use of coordinates. Also, you seem to have overlooked the part of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that says Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.. Meanwhile, there are still some requests for you to provide evince of your assertions, awaiting your attention, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC) You didn't have to. My point is that in order for the consensus of WP:USRD to violate WP:RJL, RJL would need to mandate the use of coordinates. Okay, so where is your "community consensus on a wider scale" that we are supposedly overriding? --Rschen7754 19:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Then your point is false. WP:RJL, WP:GEO, WP:LINEAR, WP:CONSENSUS, etc. I forgot to mention MOS:COORDS, also. When do you expect to be able to provide evidence of your assertions, as requested above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Interesting how you somehow have the power to dismiss my points as false without proving how they are false. As for the second sentence... hmm we're going in circles now, are we? See my comment above, replying to you when you last mentioned those four links which aren't relevant guidelines. MOS:COORDS (which you should have brought to us earlier, as it's your strongest argument so far) mandates how coordinates are displayed; it does not mandate what coordinates should be displayed. And we've provided evidence several times above; interesting how you somehow have the power to dismiss my points as false without proving how they are false. --Rschen7754 20:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC) It's a fundamental of logic that negatives can't be proved; if you wish to claim a point, you prove it true. Still waiting for you to provide evidence of your assertions, requested above; vide: Please provide evidence of your remarkable assertion that "certain editors insisted on tagging every single junction in the United States". And please cite your "decided at WT:USRD back in 2008" claim. this November 2008 discussion there reached no such conclusion. Nor, incidentally, did this July 2010 WikiProject Highways debate. As soon as you're ready… Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I have proved my points; you have yet to find a flaw to disprove them. That's how it works. Look at WT:COORD, it's quite obvious. I would hate to have to find the diffs. Can we now agree that there is no "'community consensus on a wider scale' that we are supposedly overriding"? We're starting to go in circles again, and we've been asked to be brief and remain on topic at DRN. The purpose of this discussion was for you to explain your objections to Mr. Stradivarius' proposal. I've proved why they are not well grounded. Now, can we all agree to it and go ... work on articles? --Rschen7754 20:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC) No evidence to back up your assertions, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC) But there's none to back up yours. And I've provided my evidence already. I think we've said enough already, let's let other people decide for themselves. --Rschen7754 20:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I think that the discussion over the wording at WP:RJL is becoming too involved for this noticeboard. As a quick resolution is looking less likely, would you all be willing to consider taking this to another mediation forum? My first thought was formal mediation, but I also think an RFC could work if it is limited to this specific issue. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I would agree to formal mediation. My only concern is... is there a super long wait like there is with the Mediation Cabal to get a mediator? I have my reservations about an article RFC, but I would go with it if others wanted it. --Rschen7754 05:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, forget I mentioned formal mediation. I just realised that this dispute is not eligible, as the page in question is not a Wikipedia article, template, or image. Plus, it isn't clear whether being listed at this board qualifies as an earlier step in dispute resolution, which is another prerequisite. So our options seem to be the Mediation Cabal or an RFC. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Looking at WP:MEDCABAL, I see cases needing mediators all the way from July 28th, which is quite concerning. RFC might work and might not work, it's been hit or miss in my experience. I'd like to get some other thoughts though. --Rschen7754 05:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Section 4 It might be useful, if the combatants would agree, to go back to first principles and set out the arguments for and against coordinates in RJLs, perhaps as a precursor to bringing in additional eyes. I venture to suggest that we should all edit the following section without signatures such that we capture the essence of the disagreement in as terse a format as possible. We are not seeking, here, to come to a conclusion nor to forge consensus; merely to set out the arguments pro & con. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Arguments for coordinates Location is objectively a primary attribute of a junction (along with things like number, mileage, which roads intersect, etc, that are already in the tables). It is encyclopedic information. We should make arrangements by which we can collect, store and disseminate such information. Geo-tags enable users to verify the information in the table by linking them to a map against which they can check. Geo-tags enable users to visit maps to see the junction. This is useful. Providing information on a junction and denying users an easy means of seeing that location on a map deliberately degrades the service we are capable of offering. ILIKETHEM Allows emission of metadata (microformats, KML) which can be passed to other services devices Not causing any problems in articles where currently in use Currently allowed by WP:RJL WP:GEO, WP:LINEAR and MOS:COORDS Inclusion of coordinates in a road article is no bar to being a featured article: Ridge Route Rebuttal of the arguments for coordinates 1. Location is objectively a primary attribute of a junction rebuttal 2. Geo-tags enable users to verify information in a table rebuttal 3. Geo-tags enable users to visit maps, etc, to see the junction rebuttal 4. ILIKETHEM IDONTLIKETHEM 5. Allows emission of metadata (microformats, KML) which can be passed to other services/ devices rebuttal 6. Not causing any problems in articles where currently in use rebuttal 7. Currently allowed by WP:RJL WP:GEO, WP:LINEAR and MOS:COORDS rebuttal 8. Inclusion of coordinates in a road article is no bar to being a featured article: Ridge Route rebuttal Arguments against coordinates Coordinates clutter tables Coordinates make tables too wide There are too many junctions to tag with coordinates IDONTLIKETHEM The US Roads project does not want them; "decided at WT:USRD back in 2008" "certain editors insisted on tagging every single junction in the United States" Tagging junctions will be too much work Editors who want to add coordinates to roads articles have no interest in editing roads articles WP:RJL does not mandate the list of coordinates Rebuttal of the arguments against coordinates 1. Coordinates clutter tables Subjective view No more clutter than the use of groups of icons like, say, Readers troubled by seeing coordinates can hide them with a simple change to user.css one person's "clutter" is another persons incredibly useful information and/or functionality 2. Coordinates make tables too wide Subjective view We are able to control table width; better design is the answer 3. There are to many junctions to tag with coordinates If we've been able to add so many junctions, each with 5 or so attributes, it should not be beyond us to add an additional attribute. Time is not of the essence. 4. IDONTLIKETHEM ILIKETHEM 5. The US Roads project does not want them; "decided at WT:USRD back in 2008" WP:OWN,WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; Uncited and thus unproven assertion. To be clear, although a claim is made that a decision was made at WT:USRD in 2008, despite repeated requests, no pointer to that agreement has been provided. We are left to conclude that no such decision was made. 6. "certain editors insisted on tagging every single junction in the United States" Uncited and thus unproven allegation. Does not actually appear to be an argument against tagging with geo-coordinates 7. Tagging junctions will be too much work Subjective view; No editor will be forced to add a single set of coordinates It is difficult to understand why it is possible to list and describe each road junction, but is not possible to geo-tag them. 8. Editors who want to add coordinates to roads articles have no interest in editing roads articles Self-contradictory So what; WP:OWN applies 9. WP:RJL does not mandate the list of coordinates No one has claimed that coordinates are mandatory; but they are permitted Is not an argument against geo-coordinates I think you greatly misunderstand the point of this noticeboard; it's not to rehash the argument so that there's four subsections. That, and you've mangled half our arguments and presented a bunch of straw man arguments. No, I will not participate in this. --Rschen7754 18:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Secondly, you entirely distorted our position above. Our position is that we want to limit the number of coordinates, not ban them entirely from articles. But, since "certain editors insisted on tagging every single junction in the United States" as "If we've been able to add so many junctions, each with 5 or so attributes, it should not be beyond us to add an additional attribute. Time is not of the essence." certainly indicates, we were forced to advocate for our second choice option of adding no coordinates to the articles. --Rschen7754 19:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry to hear that you will not join in seeking to summarise the arguments, Rschen. Understanding the basis of the disagreement seems to me to be a good first step to resolving the disagreement. I'm sorry to say that I find your arguments tendentious and lacking good faith. Not least, you were the person who brought this dispute to this forum. I once again invite you to put your prejudice to one side and engage in the process. If there are good reasons why geo-coordinate should be banned or limited, you should be capable of making them. If this whole thing is merely based on your dislike of coordinates without a rational foundation, then I guess I can better understand your unwillingness to engage. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Because you've totally misrepresented our position. We, the roads editors, are not anti-coordinate. So why would I make arguments against coordinate tagging when I don't even hold that position? I, in fact, added coordinate tags to the article for my former high school. But, if done improperly, poor coordinate tagging is worse than no coordinate tagging. We would like to tag the articles, but we want to do it in an orderly way. Can we both agree on the following? It's not much, but it's a start. In some form, we want coordinates on road articles. Improper coordinate tagging is worse than no coordinate tagging at all. We need to be pretty darn careful on what gets tagged on a road article; we don't just want to tag random points on the road. Selecting what points get tagged on a road article may involve compromise; we can't just put coordinates every 500 feet. --Rschen7754 01:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I apologise. It is easy to misread your position as being anti-geo-coordinates, not least from statements such as "5. The US Roads project does not want them; "decided at WT:USRD back in 2008"'. I'm unsure what you mean when you talk of "Improper coordinate tagging". No-one has suggested that we should have coordinates every 500 feet, that I know of. The suggestion that has been made is that each road junction listed in the table of road junctions should have a coordinate. The basis of that suggestion is that these are to points of interest in a road junction list. I think you know that that is the nub of the argument, but if not, I would ask you to proceed on the basis of that understanding. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC) For example, look at Oklahoma State Highway 74. Tagging the midpoint would be a very bad idea here, because the road exists in two pieces. Also, look at California State Route 99. It would probably take several hours just to tag every single junction in this article, and for what benefit? Very few people will want to save the coordinates for the intersection of SR 99 and Laval Road - does anyone even exit there!? (Sometimes in rural areas, the DOT is required to put a junction at a certain location to provide residents access - that doesn't mean that the location is notable). A better option would be only doing 10-15 coordinates, tagging the most major junctions (and the most likely to be searched for) and the viewer can still get a somewhat accurate representation of the road. Basically, it's marginal cost and marginal benefit from economics. Will a first coordinate tag be worth the time it takes to find the coordinate on a map and insert it into the article? Yes. How about the second? Yes.... How about the 16th? Probably not, so we shouldn't add a 16th tag. One more example - Interstate 10 in California. Does it make any sense to tag every one of the first 8 junctions since they are so close together, when they all can be viewed quite reasonably on the same map? --Rschen7754 01:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Note: Floydian has twice removed others' comments from this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC) The comments I reverted are mine to revert. No response was made to them. Rschen added a note regarding other editors standing behind those comments. I reverted my comments before anyone responded, at which point Andy Mabbett took the liberty of highlighting them regardless. Now that I have twice reverted his insistence to point out my rebuked comments, he cries for the teacher and manipulatively plays it off as though I am removing somebody else comments when in fact I am removing my own. This discussion has descended into playground drama. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC) I've been following the discussion over the last few days, and I've come to the conclusion that this dispute is most definitely outside the scope of this noticeboard. After more thought, I am now of the opinion that a mediation cabal case that deals with all of these issues would not have enough structure to help everyone find a resolution. Instead, I suggest having two RFCs: one to decide the specific issue of whether coordinates should be mentioned in WP:RJL and, if so, how it should be worded; and the other to decide the more general issue of whether and in what circumstances coordinates should be used in highways articles. I think this will provide enough structure for the debate, and that it will also avoid confusing the two issues. (Of course, I stand by my earlier post that said further discussion on the general issue may be difficult; it may be that you decide against having a general RFC, but I still think we should be careful not to conflate the two issues.) I think the discussion on this noticeboard has stopped being productive, and as such I will ask an uninvolved clerk to have a look through this discussion and close it if they think that is appropriate. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists) resolution 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.

Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

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. Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (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 debate that is going on within the talk pages on whether it can be debated that mainstream science may have evidence to support the Book of Mormon claims. The initial editor believes that there is no evidence whatsoever within mainstream science, and thus cannot be debated, while I believe that there is (though little) and have provided what I believe to be debatable evidence. We appear to be at a stand off, with neither one feeling comfortable with the others point of view. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Lothimos (talk · contribs) Thucydides411 (talk · contribs) StormRider (talk · contribs) Darouet (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? We have had an exceptionally long discussion about this on the talk pages. I have tried to develop different resolutions that would meet both viewpoints and remain NPOV, however cannot seem to reach a consensus with Thucydides411. Both sides have presented extensive expert evidence, according to the bounds that Thucydides411 has specified. How do you think we can help? I believe the most benefit would be received from editors who are willing to read the discussion titled 'Archaeological Evidence' on the talk page and would be willing to add their take on whether this topic is debatable or not. I must apologize now, because it has been a lengthy discussion. I know that this is a religious issue, which means that people tend to be very opinionated, however I also believe that most editors believe in maintaining a NPOV and I am hoping that they would be willing to provide their editorial view on the discussion page. I believe this to be a simple dispute, thus this seems the most appropriate noticeboard to request resolution in. Lothimos (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 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 neutral in this dispute. Avanu has posed what I believe to be a cogent suggestion on the article talk page: I propose that you remove the Archaeological Evidence information entirely from the article. After all, this article is titled "Beliefs and practices" of LDS, not "Archaeological Proof for LDS Beliefs". There's no need to try and prove or disprove what people believe by faith, within the context of this article. That's not the goal of this article. While it may all be a 'load', the goal of this page is to provide information on what LDS beliefs and practices are, not a critique of them. -- Avanu (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC) While I disagree with him that there is no place for criticism on this page (an examination of other beliefs and practices pages will show that some have it and some do not), I do believe in this case that rather than wrangling over the exact language to be used that the current text : Much debate has taken place on the subject of whether archeology supports or denies the Book of Mormon's authenticity. The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, at BYU regularly publishes the observations of dozens of scholars trained in biblical studies, achaeology, classics, history, law, linguistics, anthropology, political science, philosophy, Near Eastern studies, literature, and other fields relating to parallels with the Book of Mormon and the ancient world. could be deleted in lieu of adding a "see also" entry at the beginning of the "Sacred texts" section which would read: See also: Genetics and the Book of Mormon and Archaeology and the Book of Mormon Those two articles fully flesh out the debates and the see also line would be less obtrusive than this one element of criticism in an article which is otherwise a straightforward description of LDS beliefs. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC) PS: I just noticed that the editor listing this request here did not notify the other interested parties and I have remedied that deficiency. Sorry that I didn't notice it before making the foregoing post. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I am fully in agreement with the suggestions of Avanu and TransporterMan. Thank you TransporterMan for alerting me as to this resolution. -Darouet (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I did mention this request in the talk section, however it didn't occur to me at the time to link back to it. Sorry about that. I will remember to do that in the future if the need should arise again. I agree with Avanu, and wish that I would have realized that earlier. It appears from both this page and the talk pages that the majority of the editors involved are comfortable with these suggestions. Thank you for your help. Lothimos (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC) I also agree with TransporterMan's proposed resolution. The articles Genetics and the Book of Mormon and Archaeology and the Book of Mormon provide a good overview of the subject, and are relevant to the Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints resolution 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.

Nazism

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. Nazism (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 editor (Darkstar1st), occasionally joined by others, is intentionally soapboxing and trying to destroy the integrity of both the article and the talk page, filling it up with obscure theories, non-RS comments, cherry-picked sentences taken out of context, and then deleting the actual RS in the article. When confronted on this, he talks in circles, and apparently does not understand the concepts of RS or Wikipedia in general, even though he's been a member for some time. I've had enough with him...as he is clinging to these wacky ideas that Nazism=Left Socialism...which is completely opposite of the accepted scholarly view of pretty much every educated person on the planet. He obviously has an agenda, and will not stop until there is some kind of "intervention." I've never had to ask for help like this before...but things are getting way out of hand. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Darkstar1st (talk · contribs) Bryonmorrigan (talk · contribs) TFD (talk · contribs) Saddhiyama (talk · contribs) One user noted that Darkstar1st is also doing this in other related pages, such as Strasserism. Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) I'm probably the user who noted the Strasserism issue. These articles aren't my usual turf, but in less than a day I've already seen some relentless POV-pushing by Darkstar1st, with cherry-picking of words from sources and no account of their context or meaning. It's not an impressive sight. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Both I, as well as TFD and Saddhiyama, have attempted to discuss these issues with him, but he is both unwilling and frankly...possibly "unable" to act in a rational manner. How do you think we can help? Anything would be great. He's ruining the work of a lot of people, and wasting all of our time by making us go through and undo all of his edits. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Nazism 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 come across Darkstar1st in the past. In this case he is persuaded that nazism is a form of socialism and has set up multiple discussion threads across a number of articles and presented numerous sources, none of which he has apparently read, that he believes supports his views. With his lengthy experience, he is aware of Wikipedia policy yet chooses to ignore it and waste the time of other editors. TFD (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Nazism *is* a form of socialism. This is a historical and ideological fact. The article clearly states this several times, so this can hardly be what the dispute is really about. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC) No. This is 'fact' according to some ideologies. If the article states this as fact, it is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC) No, it is fact, full stop. Sorry. Seems like a dogmatic Darkstar1st has run into some dogmatic socialists that doesn't like the truth. This is as such not a content dispute but a failure of people to compromise because of dogmaticism from all sides. The best resolution here would probably be a topic ban for all of you, but I doubt that is going to happen. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC) I think we'd need to go to sources. The National Socialist Party is considered by the sources with which I am familiar a fascist rather that socialist organization, but I would not be surprised if other sources disagree. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC) I think that OpenFuture misunderstands the problem. 'Socialism' isn't a fact, it is an ideology (an idea in people's heads). There are no 'facts' regarding socialism beyond the fact that people believe in the concept - or don't. 'Truth' doesn't come into it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Fascism is also sprung out of socialism. I think I have understood the problem spot on. Dogmatic people with opposing dogmaticisms, who all are right in some way, and therefore refuses to listen to the other side, who are also right in some way. Start listening to each other and you'll undoubtedly come to a consensus. It is as factual as any social science issue can be, but yes it is of course possible to view tat as not being factual at all, you are right. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC) How exactly is that supposed to help anyone "come to a consensus"? Insisting that anyone who disagrees with you is 'dogmatic' is hardly a constructive approach. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Right, so stop doing that, is what I'm saying, and start listening to each other instead, as both sides here have valid points. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC) The idea that Socialism=Fascism or that Fascism/Nazism is in any way connected to the Left...is nothing but pseudohistorical gibberish, and is not accepted or promoted by any reputable sources. It's a modern Newspeak myth created by uneducated American Conservative talk show hosts to redefine the worst villains of the Far Right as being "really" Left-Wing, and is not even remotely applicable to Wikipedia standards. It would be funny if people weren't so gullible as to believe this kind of nonsense, which is comparable to Holocaust Denial. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC) You're totally wrong. Nazi/NSDAP =National "socialism" and Mussolini was a Socialist. Hilter referenced many times: Anglo-Saxon/Jewish "Capitalism" and was against it. MickeyDonald (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC) The above is a good example of the unsourced POV warring that the Nazism article is continously being subjected to. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC) This above is terrible editing by Saddhiyama and is a bad example of an editor. We cannot collaborate on on bettering the encyclopedia with POV editors who refuse to read the credibly sourced pages on Wikipedia that show that Mussolini was a Socialist and that the "S" in NSDAP stand for "socialist". Please stop POV editing, it hurts Wikipedia. Shame. Read the sources yourself. MickeyDonald (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC) And regardless of the indisputable fact of DarkStar1st being completely wrong in terms of history and politics...what he's done to the page, and also the talk page, is inexcusable, and a clear violation of a multitude of Wikipedia rules. These rules have been pointed out to him, but he continues to spam up the talk page with mountains of cherry-picked, irrelevant nonsense, treating it like a forum, and trying to drown out any dissent to his obscene conspiracy theories. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC) 1. I thought the point was that Nazism is connected to socialism, not that Nazism is connected to "left". Those are different concepts. 2. If Darkstar1st is such a horrible vandal, what is this doing here? Start an RFC or an Arbcom case or something. This is for helping to settle disputes, not dealing with vandals or disruptive editors. I'm not sure where is best though, although it sounds like you need an RFC. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC) This is what happens when an editor is enamored of a particular source and demands to use it regardless of logic. Hayek's book was highly controversial even at the time (see this critical review for an example) and has very few supporters today. If the article has a section for discussing unorthodox viewpoints, it is not impossible that Hayek could be mentioned. However, citing him as a source of fact in the starting paragraphs is completely unacceptable. WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT both apply. Zerotalk 06:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC) The issue is related to misuse of reliable sources in a large number of political articles, and the fault is not only on the side of Darkstar. When "quoting out of context" is used by one side, it is bad, by another side it is good, there is a continuing problem on many articles on Wikipedia. The issue of "fringe" is also a continuing problem, indeed, but in many articles, and this article is by far from the most problematic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC) I don't want to comment on Darkstar1st's behaviour as I have not been paying attention to his specific edits. What I would like to do is give some more general comments concerning the problems we have on these articles. For as long as I have been vaguely keeping an eye on some articles related to Fascism and Nazism I have been seeing a regular stream of IP editors and disposable accounts who take it as almost axiomatic that Nazism, and sometimes also fascism, are of the political left. The root of their apparent belief seems to be a non-mainstream understanding of the nature of the concepts of left and right in politics from which they extrapolate their line on Nazism by a mixture of non-mainstream sources and outright original research. Admittedly the concepts of left and right have shifted throughout the history of their use and are not perfectly defined. There is legitimate disagreement on their precise definitions and usage but this attempted radical redefinition of left and right, which turns established usage on its head, is not part of that legitimate disagreement. The editors pushing the POV have been, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively from the USA and it seems to me that there is a deliberate programme of language change going on there which does not seem to be a natural language shift but one driven by an American right wing political agenda. The agenda is to reassign all odious historical movements of the right to the left so that the left is tainted and the right gets to cover itself in flowers and kittens and never admit that it has a dark side, just as all things have. Wikipedia is not meant to be at the vanguard of language change, particularly not one that seeks to encode political assumptions into the language and render existing terminology useless/meaningless in a manner comparable to Orwell's Newspeak. The one thing I have found very hard to work out with the hit and run editors is whether we can assume good faith with them. Are these editors aware that they are engaging in propaganda or have they simply never read any mainstream history about Fascism and Nazism until they stumble over it on Wikipedia? Is somebody pointing them in our direction? The steady stream of IP editors makes me wonder. Each one turns up pushing the same arguments as the last, has the consensus explained to them on the talk page, argues for a bit and then melts away to be replaced by another IP editor. It is a bit of a Groundhog Day experience and it consumes time that we could be spending on more productive things. Intentional or not, it is disruptive to Wikipedia. Looking at this from the outside, in the UK, it is all very bemusing. It is interesting to see some longstanding editors making similar points. I am happy to assume good faith with them although that doesn't stop me regarding OpenFuture's comments above as very fundamentally mistaken. I don't want to pick him apart line by line but he is entirely wrong to suggest that those who disagree with him are all "dogmatic socialists". Mainstream thinkers on the right recognise Nazism and Fascism as the darkest side of the right but as the left has learned to accept that Stalinism and Maoism are the darkest side of the left. I respect his right to hold a non-mainstream opinion but he should read WP:TRUTH. The line on Nazism, which I was taught at school and which is followed by mainstream academics of varying political hues, is that Fascism and Nazism are of the right although they also incorporated some elements from the left. This the line taken by the Nazism article (except when it is being messed up) and is the line it should continue to take as its main thrust, unless academic consensus changes, which is highly unlikely. Notable, non-mainstream views can be included with appropriate weight but must not be over-covered or passed off as mainstream. I suggest that this is where more discussion would be productive, rather than constantly, fruitlessly, revisiting the broad thrust of the article.--DanielRigal (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC) (ec)"Mainstream views of left and right" is indeed one of the primary issues - with many current authors from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. on averring that the "left-right spectrum" is not easily applicable to some groups. In fact, the debate about the linear spectrum is mainstream. Schlesinger, by the way, is not generally associated with the "American right." So Wikipedia should, indeed, note that the whole idea of a simple spectrum is now questioned widely, and such questioning is mainstream and not "fringe." [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] and on and on. With the mainstream now questioning the use of a linear spectrum, I suggest that its emphasis be depracated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Yes, talking about "left" and "right" is in general pointless as it doesn't have any meaningful definitions. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Yet again: I agree that claiming that Nazism is on the left is complete nonsense. But that is very different from saying that it is a form of socialism. Those claims are not equal at all, and must not be treated as equal. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC) None of the sources I have read categorize nazism as form of socialism. TFD (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Now we have provided you with plenty of sources on the topic, which reasonably should close this. The issue here isn't the view of Nazism, but the failure to keep the debate constructive on Talk:Nazism. Darkstar1st is only one of the culprits in that failure. IMO this can be close d now. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC) You have provided no reliable sources. You seem stuck on the Communist theory that Nazism developed from German Conservatism and are confused by the fact that liberals called Conservative policies "socialist". You are even providing Lenin as a source for your opinions. TFD (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Hi everyone - I notice that this thread has been inactive for a few days. Are you still having issues with this? We still may be able to help. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Yes, I would appreciate it if you would look at Talk:Nazism. Another editor who has not posted to this discussion thread has expressed his concerns to me.[22] TFD (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC) As an involved editor I can third the complaints about the talk page spamming of Darkstar. Furthermore the editor has a tendency to post discussion posts about article subject related matter directly on the talk page of the involved editors, instead of keeping them at the article talk page, making it even more difficult for editors (involved as well as uninvolved) to follow developments. On a related note, following my removal of original research I recieved this message from Darkstar, which I found to reveal a fundamental lack of knowledge of the most basic principles of Wikipedia on Darkstars part, both relating to distinction between primary and secondary sources as well as the concept of original research. I find it particularly disturbing in that most of Darkstars editing seems confined to "finding sources", and that even after all this time of engaging in disputes over sources (apparently since 2005) he has still not learned the most basic concepts. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC) I have now read the talk page, and at the moment it does not seem like a very productive environment for discussion. I tend to agree with the editors above that Darkstar1st is causing disruption on the page, although I do think that he is genuinely trying to improve the article. As I see it, the issue is one of confirmation bias - when you are convinced of something it becomes easy to dismiss evidence that doesn't support your claim, and harder to accept contrasting evidence from others. I have certainly been guilty of this in the past, but of course we want to avoid this type of thing as much as possible on Wikipedia, and just going on as usual doesn't seem like it will help here. Judging from this 2010 ANI report, Darkstar1st's pattern of editing hasn't changed much over the last year. Have you considered opening an RFC/U? That might provide the right venue to air out all of these claims and provide some balanced and considered conclusions on how to proceed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Sounds like a good idea. Especially since Darkstar1 keeps up the habit of spamming incoherent requests for addition of questionable sources all over the talk page. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC) This entire discussion is odd - if one reads the talk pages fairly, one will see a bit of "I know what is truth"-ism going on, where Wikipedia, for good or ill, looks only at whether a claim is verifiable as being published in a WP:RS. Several editors seem to think if they state a source is "fringe" (mainlybecause it contradicts what they are absolutely certain of) that therefore such a source can not be used unledd clearly marked "loony." So far, I have not found WP:Loony source at all -- and I fear that those who so insist on labelling sourced they do not like is the main problem here. In the case at hand, there is strong and convincing evidence that reliable sources claim the National Socialists did, indeed, have a strong socialist platform from 1923 (formation of what was later called "Nazi") to about 1933, but that somehow the socialist part was put on the "back burner" upon accession to power. But some editors assert the OED was wrong in setting the date before 1931 for the term "National Socialist" <g>) Mainly on the basis of what they know to be the truth. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC) You are misrepresenting the problem. That there was an element of socialist rhetoric and a left-wing presence in the Nazi party in its early phase is not what is the issue here. That much seems reasonable clear from the scholarly sources, and I don't think any editors would dispute that. The reason this issue has come to the dispute resolution page is because of a small group of editors, mostly Darkstar1, spamming the talk page with an odd assortment of cherry picked sources on the clearly stated objective of adding to the article as fact that Nazism was a socialist ideology. This being mostly based on the claim by Hayek in his Road to Serfdom, carried on by other members of the Mises Institute and similarly libertarian pundits. As I and others have shown, using reliable academic sources, this is no longer the consensus of contemporary academia, and Hayek and company is largely regarded as obsolete in connection with this subject. I would not even object to a section describing this part of the historiography on the subject, but the problem is that it is not being used as such by the involved editors, it is being treated as WP:TRUTH and the sources added to cite general claims of that nature in the lead and in key sections of the article. This is clearly POV editing, and the spamming all over the page, by an editor with scant knowledge of the basic policies of Wikipedia is disruptive and extremely non-constructive. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for this cogent statement - I don't think I have anything to add right now except that I agree with it (and I remember having to read Hayek many years ago as part of a course). Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC) If there's no objection, I'd like to close this thread. I think this particular dispute is of too wide a scope for this noticeboard to handle efficiently, as there appear to be multiple issues - some conduct issues, and multiple content issues. I mentioned RFC/U above, and I still think this would be a good venue to air the conduct issues. However, after some more thought, I also think the content issues would benefit from being clearly identified and undergoing mediation separately. Steven Zhang has said that he will mediate informally on the talk page, and this seems like a good next step to me. I'll also keep an eye on the page myself, and I'll close this thread later on today unless anyone really wants it to stay open. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Nazism resolution 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.

United States - foreign relations and military

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. United States (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 following is from the 'Discussion page' Firstly, I would like to say thank you for acknowledging the said work that I have provided and therefore am quit pleased that information, properly sourced, can be shared for the whole world. Secondly, I'm not so sure that we had agreed to to fixing the issue and am therefore quiet surprised that you had gone ahead and added information without our mutual agreement. As you had quoted above that with all editing articles, "to discuss the matter here and abide by the consensus that develops over whether the addition should be made", I would have to oppose your work which you have included without my "consensus". In addition, you mentioned in your above correspondences "The weight given to Philippine-U.S. relations in the addition was clearly undue and disproportionate to the other countries mentioned" but as I have mentioned earlier, "I have shared the same amount of information relating to the History between the PI and the States as with the UK and the States". Continuing on, you mention in your above corresondences that the small section has "unchallenged edits to the article in the interim which your edits inappropriately erase". I suggest that since my portion is appropriately 'referenced' that it be at the fron of the 'unchallenged" portion so as not to confuse the readers about the sources used should they decide to look it up and only find information pertaining to the US-Philippine' history which does NOT include the countries seemed favoured by yourself to be ahead of a perfectly well referenced source with the word 'Philippines'. To conclude, I have forwarded this argument and discussion page to wikipedia editing forums so I can also understand why it is that, in your view and clearly shown in the above correspndances, that you seem to want to disregard the relationship that the Philippines and the US has which does stem prior to WW2 and also runs deep with what is the 'Golden Age' of US politics and foreign relations. --Zabararmon (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Zabararmon (talk · contribs) DCGeist (talk · contribs) It has come to my attention that DCGeist has been trying to exclude information regarding the above, referenced country and gone against what he has said I should do which is to follow a 'Consensus'. I was shocked to find my referenced contribution to be added a) Without my 'Consensus' as he likes to put it b) It was added in an area which he says should not be touched, repeatedly, by myself as it is 'unchallenged' however I find not only my referenced contribution right in the middle of the unchallenged article, but without my 'Consensus'. c) It also clearly states in your disputes page for people to go 'Cool and easy' towards new users but judging by his tone above its sounds rather offensive and un-professional of an editor that is to keep an unbiased, cool minded view of articles for editing. Can someone please look into this, please? Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I have tried to resolve the dispute in the discussion page but it seems that mr DCGeist can't seem to agree with a 'Consensus' and goes ahead to edit the article....... How do you think we can help? Please check that I have done the correct thing and answer my question to see if my editing the referenced Philippines portion towards the fron of the "unchallenged" contribution of countries is appropriate. It seems that Mr DCGeist has a habit of not going ahead with his arranged agreement as mentioned in the 'Discussion' page. I am not about favouritism but I am about facts. I have provided academically, referenced facts that are being challenged and thrown about inappropriately. I do not wish to exclude other countries, but I have provided my referencing regarding the Philippines relationship just like someone has provided referencing relating to the UK. It would not be fair for my refereneced article to be thrown in the middle of an "unchallenged" piece of contribution that Mr DCGeist has mentioned is inappropriate, in the discussion page. Zabararmon (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC) United States - foreign relations and military discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. One very important point: The basic assumption stated above—that I "seem to want to disregard the relationship that the Philippines and the US [have]"—is obviously false, as I agreed to and facilitated the inclusion of the Philippines in the relevant passage of the United States article. Aside from that, I believe the thread in the article's Talk page speaks for itself. I'll monitor this dispute resolution thread for input from third parties.—DCGeist (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC) To Zabararmon: I have reviewed the talk page discussion and the edits to the article, and it didn't seem to me that DCGeist was rude at all. He did have good reasons for reverting your edits, and to me it seemed he explained them very courteously. I can appreciate that it is frustrating to have your edits undone, especially for new users who are still learning about the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but I'm afraid that this is part of the deal of having an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. It also seems that DCGeist shares your view about the USA having strong ties with the Philippines - the dispute here seems to be about how the information is presented, not the accuracy of the information itself. It is perhaps unfortunate that you chose the United States article as one of the first ones to edit, as this article is already well-developed, and any changes need to be in full compliance with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to be beneficial. This means that you are much more likely to get your edits undone there than at a less-developed article. DCGeist obviously has a good knowledge of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and he has already explained the relevant ones to you on the talk page. I suggest chalking this one up to experience - as you spend more time here you will get a better feel for how policies such as avoiding undue weight can affect how we edit articles. I know this is probably not what you were hoping to hear, but I hope this reply has been useful. Of course, if you have any questions, feel free to ask them here or on my talk page. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC) DCGeist, it seems we are at a complete disagreement and your arguments are a failure at best. "You failed to convince one single editor beside yourself that ..." I am not trying to convince a single editor of any changes made. It seems that the only editor in challenge of this is yourself. Please re-asses your this point. "I discussed that change with you extensively and in good faith, I agreed to support an edit to the...." It wasn't objectively discussed or appropriately, hence my argument that I would take it to 'Dispute resolution notice board' for further clarification and included are further discrepancies of your justification and "Discussion of extensively good faith" (i) "It appears that left you (extremely) dissatisfied. I see from your recent edit that you now wish to place the Philippines...." Please refer to my notices, posts and arguments above for reasons. It seems that you need further excuses to hijack a perfectly good argument and justification. (ii) "I'll return the Philippines to the middle of the string of names, following the three majority-English-speaking countries (a logical sequence, I believe)..." Please, have a much better argument than that, as its extremely weak. The population of the Philippines is 94 million, the combined population of Canada and Australia is 70 Million. English is one of the official languages in the PI with 93% (UN statistics) speaking the language, introduced and indoctrinated by the former colonial masters, the US. Your justifications seem very racially biased. I will not adjust this article at all and will, once again post these arguments on the notice board as referred above. I'm amazed that for a credible 'editor' you're not looking at the arguments objectively as the debate I have created can't be easily argued by yourself. I will also ask a few, more credible, editors to view this and will await their answers. Till then, I too wish you luck with editing and hope we can come to a more, realistic and 'educated' decision on this said article. --Zabararmon (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabararmon (talk • contribs) Mr. Stadivarius. In repect to him being impolie, it was in reference to a personal email we sent each other initially when I didn't know how to 'Discuss' or use the 'talk page'. but that has nothing to do with this article and should be ignored. Furthermore, after looking at your profile on wiki, I have come to realise that you're a language teacher in Japan. Thats great and I hope to give more to humanity when I complete my post grad studies. Moving on, I ask that you look into the current argument and double check my UN references regarding english spoken in the PI. If I am mistaken, please feel free to correct me. It is unfortunate that I had chosen the United states as my first article, however, I find it important to contribute facts and referenced sources. I have no quarrel with other countries at all as I have stated in previous discussions. My only quarrel is the constant evasion and excuses by DCGeist. Please refer to my reason for putting the Philippines infront of the other countries, above. Thanks for your input and hope that I have more clarity on this subject. -- [User:Zabararmon|Zabararmon]] (talk • contribs 12:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Zabararmon, you are not a good person. You have, with absolutely no basis, accused me of racial bias. There are few uglier things you could do in the context of Wikipedia or, indeed, in the world outside. And just like in the world outside, your ugly behavior here has consequences.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC) United States - foreign relations and military resolution 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.

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

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. Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (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 have tried to make this article more accurate by showing there are two sides to the information being presented. Each edit I made was reversed. I made adjustments to my revisions which included providing citations. This was met by calling my citations conspiracy theory. I then attempted to edit a singular opinionated phrase "poorly defined" used to describe the title of the entry. This too was reverted, and now the page is locked due to waring. All I want is for a fair account of what is going on in this country concerning this topic. Yes it is divided. But let's get both sides fairly represented. The comments made on the talk page for this entry tell it all. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Nutritiondr (talk · contribs) Yobol (talk · contribs) Jmh649 (talk · contribs) WLU (talk · contribs) QuizzicalBee (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Discussed on talk page and saw plenty of other posts concerning similar feeling. How do you think we can help? Not sure. It seems some people are only willing to have it their way. I am perfectly happy for both sides to be equally represented. I can't see anything unfair about that. Nutritiondr (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I'm sure the Helpful Pixie Bot will have a lot to add, being involved and all, but I think the initiator of this request needs to review WP:WEIGHT. "Equally represented" is not going to fly when dealing with WP:FRINGE articles like this. The initiator should also see WP:MEDRS as has been suggested already on the talk page to see what reliable sources we should be using in this article. Yobol (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The feedback provided to this editor is that they need to provide references per WP:MEDRS. One does not need to ref the lead as it is supported by the body of the article. Oprah is not a reliable source nor are articles from the 1980s.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Okay. What about current web citations concerning the fact that each bio-identical hormone is readily available from major pharmaceutical companies and corner drug stores (names them by brand), and that the practice of compounding (which was the original form of distributing drugs before Big Pharma) serves only to offer different strengths of those same FDA approved compounds which the "name brands" do not? What if we offer some insight into the FACT that there is controversy over this topic. Sure Oprah is not a credible source, but what about the published authors and medical doctors that were a part of that article? There have been studies, double blind placebo controlled studies, showing hormone replacement reversed osteoporosis PMID 2355952, tooth loss, sexual function PMID 7039447, stroke , cardiovascular disease PMID 8597464, and many others. *Yet there are scholarly articles saying the opposite... SInce when to articles trump studies? And since when do the New England Journal of Medicine and Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, etc. print conspiracy theories or WP:FRINGE studies/articles? I have reviewed WP:WEIGHT and have provided not even the tip of an iceberg of credible information from publications no person could possibly accuse of printing WP:FRINGE information. Nutritiondr (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I am requesting review articles published in the last 5 years preferably 10 years max. We can discuss those back on the article talk page if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The problem with BHRT is that it's extraordinarily asymmetrical in the medical literature. There is very little published in medical sources supporting BHRT, and a whole, whole lot of critical ones. That is why the article does not discuss the supporting evidence for BHRT, there simply isn't much. I have no issue with the page demonstrating the wonders of BHRT, provided adequate sourcing can be found. Otherwise it is undue weight. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Off-topic comment hidden, please do not import unrelated disputes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC) <span id="Off-topic comment hidden, please do not import unrelated disputes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)"> WLU and Yobol haphazardly removing citations? Similar behavior as seen in the article coconut oil. The best most detailed available sources on the topic were being reverted without thought in that case because the the narrowly focused (and now realized as questionable) saturated fat line dominating Western medical organizational policy (but only weakly supported by studies due to publishing bias if at all) was being pushed above of all other considerations. Before throwing Nutritiondr's edits under the bus I request that those disagreeing with his edits also cite the most relevant research of the past 5 to 10 years as well. If there is a lack of thorough review studies then it is appropriate to cite other material. WP:MEDRS does not prohibit citation of other non-medical sources and only gives a preference for medical sources for medical claims. Lambanog (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Funny I think people here are free to decide if the comment is germane or not. But your actions despite being an involved party pretty much highlight the concern. Lambanog (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I concur that WLU in particular should not be censoring this discussion. He does seem to be involved in a number of concurrent conflicts. For example, does anyone know which Wikipedia article he was referring to in his comment here? BitterGrey (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC) If anyone has a dispute with my conduct specifically, they are welcome to submit a request for comment on user conduct; I don't believe this is the place to debate my actions on more pages than just the BHRT one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Just we are clear, how many MEDICAL sources would you like me to cite to clear the undue weight issue? Give me the parameters of what will be acceptable and I will deliver. There is that much out there to chose from. Also, I think we need to decide how to weigh a published medical study which delivers facts against a published opinion which does not.Nutritiondr (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC) You would have to provide medically reliable sources, and secondary sources (that would be review articles, literature reviews, meta-analyses) that clearly discuss bioidentical hormones (i.e. you can not say "X study on Y hormone shows Z;[1] Y hormone is a bioidentical hormone[citation needed]) so as to avoid original research. The sources you provide above (which I've refactored where I could to use pubmed links) do not apply; they are quite old, they are not secondary, several are not pubmed-indexed and I can't find online, and quite simply they are drowned out by the much more recent, much more authoritative sources that are currently used on the BHRT page. In addition, they fairly clearly seem to say offer the type of synthesis that I describe above. Specific discussion of specific sources should probably occur on the BHRT talk page rather than here; if nothing else, the presentation of sources that haven't been discussed on the talk page as a way of resolving the dispute suggests that the request for dispute resolution is premature. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I've been editing the page here and there for several years, and have seen the edit wars that have been going on. The two sides are 1) an editor who is I believe a medical professional who has been extremely dedicated for several years in creating a page that includes only the most stringently proven information about bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. He has worked hard and provided many good contributions. Then 2) on the other side are a series of several editors who have been writing about the latest thought regarding bioidentical hormone replacement therapy--they tend to be people from the alternative or complementary medicine fields, though not necessarily (fyi: I'm not from any of these groups). The problems are rather subtle, I believe, so will take a bit of explaining. Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT) is a relatively new therapy (15-20 years or so is when it's really become popular in its current form), and there are some things relating to it that have been well-proven by medical studies, and other things that have not yet been well-proven but there may be indications of findings without yet strong proof. Some proponents of it are completely flaky quacks, while other proponents of it are legitimate medical professionals. There are some concerns about the traditional, standard medical hormone replacement therapy that supporters of BHRT have brought up and that were summarized on the page but that were deleted by the other side. There are a range of different supports for BHRT--some supports are crap, frankly (e.g. some BHRT supporters say that BHRT does not have the risks of breast cancer, etc., that conventional therapy has, because it's "natural". This claim is flatly untrue and is dangerous; popular BHRT advocate Suzanne Somers is a charlatan). Other supports are based on some sound science but are in the earlier stages of investigation simply because BHRT is a lot newer than that which it is questioning, plus at this point it's difficult to have any large-scale studies of any kind of HRT following the findings of the WHI Prempro study that revealed some dangers of Premarin&Provera, the main non-bioidentical hormones that the BHRT supporters complain about. There ARE legitimately positive things to say about BHRT, however, and the arguments that supporters make about them should be present on the web page, but they keep getting deleted by the other side, and things are edited in such a way and with such word choice that BHRT ends up seeming completely illegitimate and flaky and none of the points raised in its support remain. The Wikipedia article is about sharing the information regarding this issue, including what all of the different groups involved with BHRT say, not about writing the definitive medical review article to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The WP article has a slightly different purpose than a medical journal article that would be reviewing this issue, and by suppressing some of the legitimate perspectives of the BHRT supporters, the article shows bias and violates NPOV. A NEJM article will have a bias towards conventional hormone therapy, and that's appropriate for them, but this WP doesn't have the same purpose. So the very determined editing of the medical professional have been addressed at creating a certain kind of tone, and the scientific rigor is laudatory, but those edits go too far in suppressing what BHRT supporters say that are legitimate critiques and comments. As I said above, these differences are subtle, and can best be seen by comparing edit by edit the things about BHRT that have been deleted by the other side, but doing such a comparison is extremely time consuming. But the article is called BHRT, so it should have that information there. An example is the addition of the disputed phrase that BHRT is "poorly defined". Such a word choice makes BHRT seem shady; instead, the different ways that BHRT has been defined should be included, and the different camps of supporters and opponents described. There are many other examples but I think I have described the complex situation adequately here.QuizzicalBee (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I think that the advice of departing from the scientific consensus is wrong. If there is a scientific consensus, Wikipedia should render it as fact, not speculate about the soundness of some arguments used by fringe theorists. That would constitute original research. Oprah's medical authority, Dr. Mehmet Oz is a real MD, but he dabbles too much into alternative therapies, so he cannot be trusted to render the medical consensus. At best, he is an MD who has been mesmerized by fringe theories. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC) If the "pro" BHRT side has a point, they should make their point in the medical literature; to date, there is very little data presented in the form of peer-reviewed journal articles. Erika Schwartz has published one article with Kent Holtorf, and Holtorf himself has published a second one. I can think of a third article in which an uncontrolled set of 150 case studies were reported...and that's about it. There deliberately shouldn't be a sense of false balance in the wikipedia article because, as is clearly demonstrated by the large number of critical sources published in highly respected journals (most recently in The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics; [23]) there's no false balance in the literature. The minority opinion is represented through Schwartz & Holtorf, but the points made in these articles are themselves criticize by other sources. If there is a gradual accumulation of sources indicating the medical community is changing its mind, we can document that as they occur. But for now, there's an avalanche of high quality sources from well respected journals and medical organizations that offer science-based, well-reasoned criticisms of BHRT; the "pro" side has nothing comparable to offer. I'm also really, really sick of the conspiracy theory and one-sided COI accusations. They are rife on the talk page, and never a reason to alter any wikipedia page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC) One of the most important things that needs mention is that the only hormones that offer a synthetic version are progesterone, estrogen, and thyroid. All other available hormones whether they are compounded or purchased from the drug store like any other prescription are "bio-identical" by definition. Any doctor wanting to prescribe a man or woman testosterone, and is writing that prescription to be filled at a "Drug Store" rather than a compounding pharmacy, is prescribing a bio-identical hormone if they know it or not. People are getting hung up on the term 'bio-identical hormones" because it is becoming popular with fringe types, and there are outrageous claims being made. But that shouldn't change the leaning of the information. I have a full study, published in 2009, citing over 200 other studies, finding bio-identical hormones are safer than synthetics. Anyone want to fish through all of it and get something together? Nutritiondr (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC) What study? Your statements also agree with what most of the critical sources say - bioidentical hormones is not science, it's marketing. Proponents muddy the fact that bioidentical hormones are already available, in a variety of dosing regimens, and are expected to carry the same risks as "conventional" hormone replacement therapy. Bioidentical hormones is a term used in a specific way that is discussed on the wikipedia page. If you want to discuss it in a different way, if you want to say "all the experts are wrong and here is the data that I've assembled and interpreted myself to prove my point", you're engaging in original research and should not try to incorporate this into wikipedia. If you're arguing that the term "bioidentical" is misused on wikipedia, then you're essentially creating a new definition, which is somewhere between wikipedia isn't a dictionary and neologisms aren't defined here. If you're here to promote "bioidentical hormones" over "regular/artificial/manufactured hormones", then wikipedia is not a place to promote a viewpoint and we're not here to right great wrongs. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC) To Nutritiondr - I'm afraid I have to agree with WLU here. It is vitally important that we stick to a strict interpretation of our guidelines for medical sources to avoid giving fringe theories more weight in Wikipedia articles than they deserve. If you read our guideline on fringe theories you will find that any discussion of a fringe theory needs to be supported by reliable sources, and furthermore that the theory needs to be a significant minority to justify being included in the article at all. In the case of medical articles, that means that just one or two studies aren't enough to make a claim. You need to find evidence in reliable sources that summarize peer-reviewed research, such as medical review articles or textbooks. If you can find this kind of research, then you can make a good case for adding it to the article. If you can't, though, it's probably best to leave it out. I hope this advice helps, and if you have any more questions I'll be happy to answer them here or on my talk page. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy resolution 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.

Digital Signage Text but my reference keeps being removed

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. Digital signage // content Digital signage // content (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 some text to digital signage on Wikipedia The text is below There are methods for creating content for digital signage and certain guidelines to try to follow. Tips for creating Digital Signage Content. Here are some tips which can aid people in coming up with the relevant content for their digital signs: 1.It is first essential to choose the right color scheme in order to make the content on the electronic screens cohesive. The colors can be selected by first looking at the location where the digital signs are posted. People can make note of prominent colors and then choose one which would complement the location. 2.The second step is opting for attractive yet easy to read fonts for text as well as headings on the signs. To ensure that all the content meshes together and is consistent, people should use the same text style for all digital signage content. 3.The third step is deciding the size of the font. People should test out different sizes on the smallest monitor or screen they will be using for their digital signs. People should select the font which can be read from a distance even on the smallest screens and should select that size or larger if desired. 4.The next step is to make a list of the information and messages you wish to convey in your advertisement. After making the list, people can write short sentences regarding each topic. All the sentences and messages should be short and easily understandable. A longer message can be broken into short sentences which can be displayed in sequence. Different content creation tools are available which can aid in coming up with suitable content for your digital signage. 5.Now people have to select images which are suitable for the topics that are mentioned in the content. This image should have a separate portion for graphics and texts so that each can be displayed easily. With light backgrounds, people can choose dark fonts and vice versa. Image editing software can also be utilized if any problem in including the text. 6.All the pieces of the content are then scheduled on the play list and the images are set to fade out when each image leaves the screen. This was written by myself and is my own work from my website http://www.resusdigitalsignage.com blog I added the refernce at the bottom to the blog post on the website this keeps being removed, i dont mind having my information on Wikipedia but i would like some reference to the page it came from. The link to the text that i wrote is here on my website http://www.resusdigitalsignage.com/digitalsignageblog/?p=517 Kind Regards Tim Warrington Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Timwoz (talk · contribs) Timwoz (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=Digital signage // content}} --~~~~ 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? As been as the text is being used on Wikipedia i would like to know how i can put a reference to my website on this page as the text did originate from http://www.resusdigitalsignage.com/digitalsignageblog/?p=517 Timwoz (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Digital signage // content discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. This board is only for disputes which have been thoroughly discussed on a talk page and I can find no such discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:13, 3 September 2011 (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.

Denver - Radioactive contamination

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. Denver (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? Entire deletion of heavily researched and cited section by User:Orlady without discussion. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Orlady (talk · contribs) Multiple IPs (talk · contribs) FormerNukeSubmariner (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=Denver - Radioactive contamination}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Not possible. User:Orlady has semi-protected the article. How do you think we can help? I am merely seeking an honest and independent review of the situation, without prejudice. The more, the merrier...I'm very confident that the impact of Rocky Flats on Denver is quite substantial and substantiated. The focus of this section is on the effects on Denver, and should remain for all to see. FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Denver - Radioactive contamination discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I see no discussion about this on the Denver talk page about this. Discussions MUST start there, then move to this noticeboard only if there is still a stalemate. The talk page is NOT protected. I recommend this be closed and the editor directed to begin a discussion about this on the article talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2011 (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.

Denver - Radioactive contamination

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. Denver (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? Sub-article has, IMHO, been abusively deleted in its entirety by admin Orlady. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Orlady (talk · contribs) FormerNukeSubmariner (talk · contribs) Other IP addresses involved are acknowledged to be mine. I've never indicated otherwise. Started editing from home IP address. Created this ID. Thunderstorm knocked out Internet access; when it was restored, I had a new IP address, not of my own making. Sometimes I log in, sometimes I don't...not really relevant to the matter at hand, but Orlady has brought this up for some reason, so I want to address it forthright. 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. Not so. For your first post on this noticeboard you notified the two IPs that you had used (apparently you figured we were too dull to catch on that they were also you) and you notified me (albeit without providing a link this noticeboard), but you haven't notified User:Plazak, who is the editor with whom you first started warring over the article Denver. --Orlady (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC) N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Denver - Radioactive contamination}} --~~~~ 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. After addressing the fact that Orlady has deleted a great deal of very valid, very truthful, very cited information regarding plutonium (24,000-year half-life) contamination of Denver that the article otherwise completely ignores, I asked her/him to restore the section pending additional edits and public comment. This has been refused as indicated by inaction or reply, and so we appear to be deadlocked. Moreover, she/he has made NPOV claims regarding my edits. As stated in my reply to her/him, I don't know of a positive way to put a spin on plutonium contamination of a multi-million person metropolitan area...so my edits are strongly focused on the facts at hand. The article as it exists is lacking NPOV, as it completely disregards Rocky Flats long-lasting plutonium effects on Denver, the subject at hand. How do you think we can help? All I'm seeking is an honest review by outside parties. If I'm in the wrong on this, I'll take my medicine...but it's appalling to me that the subsection was deleted in its entirety with neither prior discussion nor merit. Plutonium exists in the Denver area. I didn't put it there. But I will work to the best of my ability to intelligently communicate what happened and what it portends. FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Denver - Radioactive contamination discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Discussion has only just started on the talk page. This is FAR too pre-mature, and should be closed AGAIN. FormerNukeSubmariner, this noticeboard should be used only after there has been discussion on the talk page. Not before or in place of. You've just been trying to edit war your changes into the article, and posted here when you couldn't get your way. That's NOT how Wikipedia works. A core part of editing is the WP:BRD cycle - Bold edits get Reverted, then Discussed on the article talk page. Please return here only after discussion has happened on the talk page. Again, recommend this be closed as no discussion has happened on the talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC) You're not recognizing the fact that Orlady had stonewalled comments until virtually forced to do so. We're not living on the same time-line...that simple. I am making no 'Bold' claims whatsoever...Rocky Flats contaminated Denver with plutonium beginning in 1957 in a major way. How long does the Denver article have to wait to mention how this happened and the harsh facts behind it? I'll hold off for now, but as plainly stated all I have asked for is an honest outside review of the situation, and in return I get a hectoring response. I'm unimpressed with the process...just plainly speaking. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. A simple (but currently suppressed on Denver) visual aid in this situation that speaks more than the proverbial 1,000 words: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/rf/charta.htm --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC) The deleted content is in the article history for all to see. And I thought that trolls lived under bridges. I didn't know they were crew members on nuclear submarines. --Orlady (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Clearly, no one "sees" the content on plutonium contamination that Orlady has deleted when visiting the Denver article...that's why she deleted it. That one has to chicken scratch through the history page to find this information is clearly one of her intentions. As regards name-calling above by Orlady, I only respond to ladies. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC) One more comment for now is in regard to Ravensfire's mis-aimed fire regarding "edit warring." In the article in question, I edit warred with no one. I did revert ONE person, twice, who was deleting the section on the highly specious observation that "Rocky Flats is not in Denver." This is a clearly absurd comment, given the undeniable contamination of Denver with plutonium, but also one repeated by Orlady in her rationale for deleting the entire subsection. As Orlady stopped all related involvement by semi-protecting the article, I was not even offered the courtesy of an opportunity to edit war -- or, better, simply evolve the section -- with her. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC) We can look at the history of the page and see the content you are trying to get in. It's not supressed. We can make evaluations of what is going on here. Hasteur (talk) 03:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Ok I've looked at the issue and have a few policy acronyms I wanted to raise Bold, Revert, Discuss - Orlady reverted the changes because they don't really belong in the City/County of Denver article. There are communities closer to Rocky Flats that this might make more sense to be in. WP:UNDUE - Just because Denver happens to be the most populus city nearby doesn't mean that we should lump a significant section of the issues about nuclear contamination in there. Would you have the Washington D.C. article contain information about ash and health effects of jet fuel burning because an airliner crashed into The Pentagon across the river and in annother state? WP:CONSENSUS - Wikipedia works on a consensus model, where all editors interested discuss an issue and come to an agreement on what content should be present in an article. WP:DISPUTE - Because you've now gotten here twice it's assumed that you read this policy page and understand that there are multiple different ways to attract attention to an issue you have with a page. WP:CANVAS - Trying to appeal to Jimmy Wales (On the Article talk page Talk:Jimmy Wales) is both incorrect (it's User Talk:Jimbo and borderline violating policy on trying to get an administrator to resolve a dispute in your favor by "tattling". Assumption of Good Faith - It's assumed that every editor is working to improve the Wiki and not suppress information or conspire to keep bad data on the site. Your interactions recently on the article's talk page have been significantly less than civil and make assumptions that Orlady is acting in bad faith. WP:NPA - Your repeated dragging the fact that Orlady lives in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (another nuclear site) is immaterial to the discussion of the inclusion of this content. WP:ADMINABUSE - Lays out the exact procedure to go about raising your concern. Considering you did not raise the concern with Orlady untill after you came here screaming Abuse tells me that you have yet to understand the problem. WP:DEADLINE - There is no deadline for information in wikipedia. If Denver has survived for over 50 years with this information not being shouted from every street corner, it can wait a little longer for it to be discussed and a reasoned solution developed. Edit Waring - Editing to get your viewpoint in when multiple editors have taken it out is extremely frowned upon. And finally, talk on the article's talk page only occured after the page was semi-protected so I'm more inclined to believe Orlady, who has been trusted by the community with Administrative tools, over you who just registered and are behaving like this is your first brush with a dispute. Hasteur (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC) To FormerNukeSubmariner - this information certainly seems shocking, and I can appreciate that you would like to make it more widely known. I think Wikipedia might not be the best venue for you to do this, however - Wikipedia does not exist to promote causes or provide publicity, but rather to accurately describe what has been written about a particular subject. (Please have a look at our essays on righting great wrongs and advocacy to see the general attitudes here.) I think a paragraph in the advocacy essay puts it rather well, so I will quote it in full here: 'Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect "true" information, but aims to synthesize such information into an accurate, proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge. Our responsibility is not just to verify material, but to contextualize and weight it appropriately. Insisting on undue prominence for a true but minor or tangential viewpoint is a canonical violation of the neutral point of view.' In my opinion, Orlady is quite right to bring up the issue of undue weight with regard to the material you wrote. If there are enough reliable sources that document the contamination in Denver, then I wouldn't mind maybe inserting a sentence about it in the article. Several paragraphs seems to be giving it far too much weight to me, however. This probably wasn't what you were hoping to hear, but I hope this reply helps. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC) First and foremost, I do appreciate the inputs here. Thank you. Simply put, the issue at-hand is the contamination of **Denver**...not Rocky Flats, which was 'merely' the source of the plutonium contamination. Look at the map! This Pu contamination is hardly a minor or tangential point for Denver, and quite clearly has been involved in the death of an 11 year-old girl who was six miles downwind of Rocky Flats during the 1969 fire (the less plutonium-producing fire) which is definitely in Denver's suburbs. Read the entire subarticle, please. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC) "If there are enough reliable sources that document the contamination in Denver, then I wouldn't mind maybe inserting a sentence about it in the article. " Okay...that's easy and documented in the article. Thank you for your support. As an important aside, did you read that the both the lead FBI investigator in the Rocky Flats raid AND the foreman of the grand jury have brought up the suppression of contamination information by the government? This is real, folks. --FormerNukeSubmariner (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2011 (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.

Valerie Sinason

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. Valerie Sinason (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 dispute is over neutral point of view on satanic ritual abuse. I rewrote the entry on Valerie Sinason to make it more neutral. Instead the article reverted with the comment to me: "Your edits to Valerie Sinason had, as a an end result, the promotion of fringe beliefs. This is contrary to WP:NPOV policy in general and WP:FRINGE specifically" The original article says: "Satanic ritual abuse is now considered to be a moral panic." This is not a NPOV but an opinion argued in the books cited. I tried to give both sides, the clinical view being that satanic ritual abuse is reported by clients to hundres of clinicians. A neutral point of view needs to include both sides. I believe the article I re-wrote does this fairly. Instead I am told that putting the clinical point of view supports fringe beliefs as if the moral panic view is universally accepted as proven. This is not a NPOV in my opinion and I do not understand why wiki is accepting it as such. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? [[User:109.156.16.175 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)|109.156.16.175 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:109.156.16.175 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/109.156.16.175 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)|contribs]]) An unknown editor (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=Valerie Sinason}} --~~~~ 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? 109.156.16.175 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Valerie Sinason 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.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1

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. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 (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 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) convention was created by several of the most active editors and administrators working on aviation and aircraft articles. The naming convention it recommends came into common usage in the United States in the mid-1920s. It is not a standard that can be applied regularly to foreign or experimental aircraft. While the page states that there are exceptions to this rule, the editors responsible have begun enforcing this rule on aircraft that fall outside this naming standard. In doing so they are recommending by consensus that aircraft names be changed from their official name (as cited in official documentation) to a new name that conforms with this naming convention. A perfect example of this problem is the current discussion about the name of the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1. All official U.S. government documents for the aircraft identify it solely as the Barling Bomber NBL-1, P-303. Barling was the designer, not the manufacturer, so the aircraft's official name does not conform to the naming convention. As a result the editors are recommending by consensus that the aircraft be renamed the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1, a completely fictitious name, but one that conforms to their naming convention. The deliberate falsification of information on Wikipedia is a very distressing problem, and one that should be addressed immediately. No editor or administrator should create any naming convention that encourages editors to create false names for an object. I request that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) be removed, and that no further naming convention be recommended aside from the use of the most appropriately name as determined by careful examination of the available documentation. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Ken keisel (talk · contribs) Bzuk (talk · contribs) Nigel Ish (talk · contribs) Kauffner (talk · contribs) MilborneOne (talk · contribs) BilCat (talk · contribs)  Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? The issue has become apparent based on comments contained in the current "Requested move/dated|Barling Bomber" talk. It was there that it was stated that the naming of aircraft will be kept to the standard of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), even it that means changing the aircraft's actual name, as determined using Wikipedia:Verifiability. In this case, I obtained a scan of the aircraft's original 1926 War Department test specifications report book, which identified the aircraft only as the Barling NBL-1, P-303. Despite this, the editors involved have selected to name the aircraft the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 to conform to their Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). When a naming convention forces the creation of a purely fictious name the naming convention must be eliminated. How do you think we can help? I am requesting a review of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), as well as its application to the "Requested move/dated|Barling Bomber" talk. I request that the review be made by unbiased uninvolved administrators familiar with the Wikipedia standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability and published by a reliable source to determine if the naming convention encourages the creation of fictious names. Ravensfire (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Is Ravensfire an involved party? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC). Sorry - I should have said something about that. No, I am not a party, I was trying to help Ken keisel get the discussion posted. Apologies for any confusion. Ravensfire (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 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 neutral in regard to this dispute. Review of Wikipedia guidelines is beyond the scope of authority of this noticeboard and would be inappropriate here. The proper place to propose a change in a guideline or policy is on the talk page of the guideline, preferably following the instructions set out at WP:PROPOSAL. I feel the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 name is in keeping with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). The only exception given there is for aircraft which are so commonly known by another name, such as the Concorde, that to name them in accordance with that guideline would be more misleading than not. That standard is different than being known among aircraft aficionados or historians by a particular name. It must be remembered that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia for ordinary users, not a collection of specialist knowledge. The ordinary user would not be aware that this aircraft existed at all, much less know it by a common name. The sole exception in the guideline clearly does not apply. Such being the case, then the guideline sets the standard for how the article should be named unless a local exception is established by consensus to name it something else since guidelines represent the pre-established consensus of the community. Therefore, even if those in favor of naming the aircraft in accordance with the guideline have not quite established a consensus their position must prevail since those supporting naming the article by the aircraft's common name have clearly not achieved a consensus to do so. In summary, for the common name to be used in this case, those in support of its use must either (a) change the guideline so that it supports it (which it clearly does not at the present time) or (b) create a consensus for an WP:IAR local exception, as to do anything else would fail to follow the standing consensus of the community on how aircraft articles should be named. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC) In this particular case the "official name", and the "common name" are the same. It is the name that was created to satisfy the naming convention that is unfamiliar, and completely fictious, and being added by consensus. It was my understanding that it is never acceptable to use fictious information in a Wikipedia article, even if it is to satisfy a naming convention. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC) I did not use the term "official name" at any point in my opinion, and it's not a issue between the official name and the common name. It's an issue between any name other than the guideline-based name and the guideline name. Please re-read my opinion with that clarification in mind. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Post script: Just a word about the specific request made under "How do you think we can help?" While some of the mediators who work at this noticeboard may happen to be administrators, most of us — including me — are just regular editors. At that, administrators have no more right to review policy or guidelines than any other editor. Policies and guidelines are established and modified by the consensus of the community and the only folks other than the community who have the right to change or remove them are the Wikimedia Foundation and, in keeping with the Wiki principle, they will not ordinarily do so except in extreme circumstances which threaten the existence or legal well-being of the encyclopedia. As for your request that multiple mediators review this, you are of course welcome to wait to see if anyone other than me weighs in and to reject my opinion altogether if it turns out that I'm the only one who does so, but the way dispute resolution is going these days I wouldn't necessarily hold my breath until that happens. One way to try to attract additional editors to weigh in on the dispute is to make a request for comments at the article and/or guideline talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC) As a start people need to dial back the rhetoric a bit. Statements like "purely fictious name" are not helpful when there are WP:RS that refer to the aircraft as the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 - such as the US Air Force Museum factsheet linked in the article, just as there are other WP:RSs that refer to the aircraft as the Barling Bomber, and other ones that call it the Barling NBL-1. It seems premature to ask for the whole guideline to be scrapped while a requested move is ongoing.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC) As one of the parties involved, I believe this effort is not only premature, it will be seen as short-cutting the standard practice of setting out a discussion forum and working toward consensus. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I would think that the issue of the article title is up to the closer of the RM, so I am not sure what is being proposed here. But I will add my opinion anyway. When the title "Barling Bomber" was first proposed, it was objected that this this name was not official. After various examples of official use were provided, it was objected that that it had the "ring of a 'press (media)' invention". Can we rename aircraft when we don't like the 'ring' of their names? Why insist that an experimental aircraft of the 1920s follow the naming conventions of modern production jets? The second most common name for this aircraft is XNBL-1 or NBL-1, which would suggest a title along the lines of "Barling NBL-1", the name used by Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation. Kauffner (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC) @Bzuk: I'd agree with you if there had been no discussion of the matter on the talk page and the guidelines of this project cause such listings to be rejected, but dispute resolution is appropriate whenever a dispute occurs and that point in time does not only occur when discussion has stalled. Unlike some other DR processes, the opinions of mediators here at DRN "count" towards consensus, so in some ways a discussion here is just an extension of the discussion on the talk page, but with one or more neutrals participating and providing "new eyes". (And my opinion, above, thus "counts" toward a consensus in favor of the use of "Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1" as the name of the article.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC) @Kauffner: The fact of the matter is that this matter has already been decided by standing consensus by the adoption of the guideline, unless the common name comes within the exception set out in the guideline, which it does not, or unless an IAR local exception to the guideline is adopted by consensus, which it clearly has not, see my opinion, above. The filing of the RM should not put the name wholly back in play when a guideline exists which provides the name to be used. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC) TransporterMan , the major problem that needs to be addressed here is that this naming convention causes editors to create a completely fictional name to satisfies the naming convention. Are you aware of any situation in which it is acceptable to place false, or to add fictional information, on Wikipedia? I do not. The first rule of Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) is that the information be accurate, factual, and verifible. This naming convention encourages the creation of names that are false, fictional, and non-verifible. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry for just repeating stuff from the article talk page but just to note that National Museum of the United States Air Force used the term Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber [24] so clearly it not false, fictional or non-verifiable unless the official United States Air Force Museum is considered not a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC) @Ken keisel. If you believe that the naming convention is wrong you are free to try to get it changed, but until and if you can the consensus of the community is that it is the way that it is supposed to be done. You can say that the result the naming convention gives in this case is wrong, false, fictional, or the words of Satan himself, but unless you can change the mind of the community through obtaining a new consensus about the convention or through obtaining an IAR local exception though consensus in this particular case you're just spitting into the wind. You've not attempted the former and the current consensus at the article is clearly against you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Ken, I agree with TransporterMan. If you are seeking to change the policy then you are looking in the wrong place. Whatever your view of the policy, it can only be changed by consensus, and that would be best found by making at suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) and seeing if you get any support. In the meantime, any specific suggestions about Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 should be made at the talk page there - and in fact, I see that you have, and that a compromise is being worked out. If you do decide to make a suggestion at the policy talk page, then I recommend you keep it as calm and as objective as possible. Using emotionally loaded language will make it less likely that your proposal will succeed. Unless there are any other points I'm missing, I think I will close this discussion, as continuing with it would just lead to talking round in circles, in my opinion. If you need any more help, I'll be glad to give it - just leave a message on my talk page. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft), Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 resolution 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.

Femme Fatale Tour

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. Femme Fatale Tour (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:Itsbydesign started removing from the Femme Fatale Tour the setlist of Nicki Minaj on August 19th [25], arguing that "What Minaj performed (or who with) is not notable as Spears is the main subject of the article. Information is more relevant for Minaj's article." I disagreed, since the focus of the article is the tour (not Spears), and Minaj is a big part of it: some critics dedicated several paragraphs of their reviews to Minaj [26][27] and she is even included in the official poster. I reverted his edits and said that he should open a discussion on the article's talk page so we could discuss it with other editors. He refused, and since then he has removed the setlist three more times. [28] [29] [30] Each time I reverted it and asked him to open a discussion. Today, he made a major change in the article in which he made strange prose changes ("howver"), added sources already present in the article to the lead, removed Minaj's setlist again and removed additional notes, among other things. I reverted his edit and placed a notice on his talk page. He responded by explaining all his edits at last on my talk page, saying that "This is the final time I will tolerate you reverting edits with a a clear and reasonable explanation. Next revert will automatically result an in open case with the Administrator's Noticeboard, no questions asked." Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Itsbydesign (talk · contribs) Xwomanizerx (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. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Femme Fatale Tour}} --~~~~ 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've already told him to open a discussion many times, but he keeps reverting the edits. How do you think we can help? Itsbydesign should understand that as a Wikipedia editor he should not feel ownership over an article. He should also be open to discussion. Xwomanizerx (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Femme Fatale Tour discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. One thing I'm not seeing is some recent discussion on the talk page about this. Xwomanizerx, I can see that you ask Itsbydesign to open a discussion, but also that you also did not open a discussion on the talk page. I'd suggest starting the talk page discussion yourself and going from there. Ravensfire (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I did this because I really didn't want to engage in an edit war. I'm gonna open the discussion, but if he doesn't want to cooperate again I'm returning here. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I agree with Ravensfire, the talk page is the place where this should be going. I'll close this thread and keep an eye on the article. Hopefully this should go more smoothly if there is a 3rd party involved. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:29, 9 September 2011 (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.

Origin of the Azeris

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. Origin of the Azeris (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? Me and user:Arslanteginghazi are having a bit of a dispute about the article.The references in the article does not say the conclusions that Arslanteginghazi includes in the article , but he believes it is correct for him to include his own understanding to the article and labile them as written in the sources . I think we need assistance in resolving our problem . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here) Arslanteginghazi (talk · contribs) Alborz Fallah (talk · contribs) Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? We used the talk page . And we both compliant to Administrator intervention against vandalism [31] and [32]. How do you think we can help? Please explain for this user that in Wikipedia , we are not free to add our own understanding or our own conclusion making to the article . We may not continue our discussion in the reference section (footnote) of the article and that when we cite a reference in an article , that means we have to use the sentences , conclusions and ideas of that source , and nothing out of it . Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Origin of the Azeris discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The user "Alborz Fallah" gives this as ref : http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html . there is written : "Y-DNA haplogroup R-M207 is believed to have arisen approximately 27,000 years ago in Asia. The two currently defined subclades are R1 and R2." but "Alborz Fallah" writes in the text : "Haplogroup R (Y-DNA) , believed to have arisen on the Eurasian Steppe or the Indus-valle" and also "Alborz Fallah" gives to sentences a special meaning by changing the formation of sentences ( Ambiguity in meaning ) . all of my texts are mentioned in the refs but "Alborz Fallah" change them to the texts that are mentioned in ref but there is no relation Between the text and article. for example the haplogroup R is mentioned in article but "Alborz Fallah" writes the text about sub group R1a : here . --Arslanteginghazi (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC) You didn't notify the user, I have taken care of this for you. Hasteur (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Hi there, sorry for the late response to this. Although the discussion has become quite heated on the talk page, it looks like you have both been acting in good faith, and providing references for your edits. I have a couple of things to say about the references; the first is that Wikipedia needs references to be reliable. Arslanteginghazi, I see that the references you added included a Blogspot blog and a Wikipedia article. Neither of these qualify as a reliable source, because there is no guarantee of any independent fact-checking in them. Also I see you have referenced one sentence to "Ibn Miskawayh (932-1030) - tajarebul umam", "Abu Muhammad 'Abd al-Malik bin Hisham 833CE "kitab ut tijan"", and "hamzah al-isfahaniy 961ce". These people lived more than 1000 years ago and can't really be said to represent modern scholarship on the issue, although perhaps you intended these as footnotes, rather than references? Then there is the claim of the genetic origin of the Azeris. I am no expert in genetics, but it does look like Arslanteginghazi is making his own interpretation of the source. On Wikipedia we have a policy of not allowing any original research. This means that making your own conclusion based on a source is not allowed, and it also means that you cannot link the arguments of two different sources to create your own synthesis. Especially for claims of a scientific nature, it is important to stick to these rules. I would also add that you should really use reviews, not just individual studies, in order to best represent the scientific consensus. Arslanteginghazi, please let me know if this makes sense to you, and if you have any other questions, you can ask them below. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC) In the talk page I have said that I don't have any problem with deleting of this part : "According to the muslim historians since turkic emigration , turkic people were majority in azerbaijan ." But about the genetics if it is necessary I can give more and more refs and at last what about the editings of "Alborz Fallah" I mean this "The haplogroup R is mentioned in the article but "Alborz Fallah" writes the text about sub group R1a" ?!?!?!? --Arslanteginghazi (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Hmm, it sounds as though we need to find an editor who knows something about genetics to settle this particular claim. I might ask around on one of the medical WikiProjects. If we can find someone knowledgeable in the field, it will help us know what sources are highest quality, and how the claims here should be presented. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Actually, I doubt more info about genetics is the highest priority here. What we need to get this dispute deflated is for both participants to get rid of their shared, fallacious premise: that there is such a thing as "the" origin or "the" genetic nature of a population. Both editors are evidently motivated by a desire to demonstrate that Azeris "really" "are" either Iranian or Turkic or whatever. The very assumption that genetics could tell us anything at all about such a question, and, in fact, the assumption that the question has any meaning at all in the first place, are entirely erroneous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC) That is a very good point. From the little I have seen about this kind of thing on TV, even the most "pure" of lineages turns out to be a confusing mishmash of different races when the DNA is examined. I think in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, we should not include any information about the genetic origin of the Azeris in the article. I do think that it would be good to hear an opinion from someone who knows their stuff, though, and I've left a message at WikiProject Medicine in the hopes of getting one. There's no guarantee of a response, though, of course. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Pardon for my delay in responding . I think our main problem here is more about Wikipedia policies than genetic issues . That would be useful if other users explain for the user Arslanteginghazi that A- If we disagree about a mere sentence , we should not revert all the editions (whole text)in several times (edit war) . B-It is not accepted to discuss about our opinion in the reference section of the article . C-We may not include our understanding of a source as written in the cited reference (Original research ) . D-Style of writing includes using upper case letter in the beginning of the names . E- It is not possible in Wikipedian logic to add among two article and conclude a result among them (Synthesis OR). D-We are not allowed to give weight to one side of the item and neglect other aspects of that. In brief , user Arslanteginghazi has the prejudice that I want to change the article in a way that to pretend the Origin of the Azeris is from the Aryan race . I did my very best to show him that neither so called Aryan race exists , nor it has any genetic markers. That is also true about other genetic markers and if a genetic factor is now more prevalent in a special geographic area that does not means it has any connection to 10000 years ago. Simply , user Arslanteginghazi does not reads my changes , he reverts them all ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC) I have had another look at this, and it seems that whatever the scientific consensus is on this matter, the passage beginning with "It means that major genetic marker of azerbaijani people" in this edit by Arslanteginghazi is definitely a synthesis of the different sources he uses. This is not allowed on Wikipedia per WP:SYNTHESIS. The article hasn't been edited in almost three weeks, so I say go ahead and remove that passage. If Arslanteginghazi can point us to a reliable source that explicitly backs up the whole of his claim, then we can discuss putting it into the article. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Origin of the Azeris resolution 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.

El Capitan High School, 7-Eleven, Liberty Charter High School (La Mesa, California)

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. El Capitan High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 7-Eleven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Liberty Charter High School (La Mesa, California) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) El Cajon Valley High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Note: ^^^ For these articles, look at the infoboxes, not so much the article itself. Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? User:Jojutton is removing the term United States or U.S. from infoboxes on a few pages. Guidelines often state when giving a location of a school, company, or other establishment, to include its city, state and country. For instance, the infobox:secondary school template has a strange format. If you leave out the country field, then there is this ugly {{{country}}} symbol inside the box. Also, if it is left blank, it would look like this. Los Angeles, California, < note the comma hanging out of place. Just click the articles on the schools and you will see what I mean. I and several other editors have had trouble with this user before a while ago, which stirred up quite a debate on removing this information. He said he would stop removing this, but it is pretty clear he did not live up to his word. Template:infobox company clearly states for location field: city, state and country, as I have given in my edit summary. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Jojhutton (talk · contribs) Tinton5 (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. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I offered to solve the issue on the 7-Eleven talk page, but User:Jojhutton undid my edit without any discussion or consensus. He often states that WP:Place explains that U.S. or Canada or any nation is not necessary. But he has been told in the past, that he misinterpreted this and continues to edit this way. How do you think we can help? To possibly explain to this user that more information that is given on a page, is better. The Template:infobox secondary school seems that if the country is not given, then the text looks strange, as I mentioned above. To keep this site consistent and not contradicting, almost every article with an infobox has in the location field, the city, state, country/or city and country (examples: Wawa Inc., Apple, Inc., J. C. Penney, etc, and hundreds more). I was actually guilty of removing the term United States/USA from pages long ago, and another editor snapped and said this was wrong. So, I am just going with what I know and what I see. I have been on this site for over 2 years. See this dispute which is relevant: [33] Tinton5 (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC) El Capitan High School, 7-Eleven, Liberty Charter High School (La Mesa, California) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Hi Tinton5, and thanks for posting here. The first thing I see is that there hasn't been any talk page discussion about this issue, although I admit, it's not obvious where the discussion should take place. I'm afraid we really can't take on disputes without there being some form of talk page discussion. I suggest starting a new thread on Jojhutton's talk page, and if that stalls then maybe a thread at Template talk:Infobox company would do the trick. If you're still having issues after that, then by all means post back here. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Tinton5, you are not alone in this. I and others have attempted to discuss this general issue with Jojhutton many times, but with little or no success. As a result, though, he did place a FAQ on his talk page; in answering question 5, he states, essentially, that he will not discuss the issue and that he will edit-war if he feels that to be necessary. Omnedon (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC) I would rather just resolve this issue here. I already notified the user in question. IMHO, this user should be blocked for a while, due to edit warring. Tinton5 (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC) PS, Omnedon, you know, on Jojutton's talk page, he clearly states in question 1 that he removes the country in the body of the article and leaves it in the info box. However, he currently has been removing it from the box on some pages, which I find interesting. He does not assume good faith. Tinton5 (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC) I can see that talking over the issue here would be expedient, and actually, I don't mind overlooking the talk page requirement sometimes if it leads to a dispute being resolved more quickly. However, I think the issue here is that if Jojhutton doesn't participate in any talk page discussion about these edits, then he isn't very likely to participate here either. If you are right that Jojhutton is reverting these edits without discussion, then this noticeboard may not be the best place to list this. This noticeboard isn't very well equipped to deal with conduct disputes - if not every editor involved is open to compromise, then the best we can do is forward it on to another venue. I think the thing to do here is to leave a message about this issue on Jojhutton's talk page, and if he continues reverting these edits after that with no discussion, then you could bring it to WP:AN3 or WP:ANI. If you do discuss it and then the discussion stalls, then of course we can discuss it here. As to the present thread, if there is no response from Jojhutton on this page by tomorrow, I think I will close this thread, with no prejudice against opening a new thread on the issue after it has been discussed on a talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I have alerted the user in question. Thank you for your input, Mr. Stradivarius. I hope everything works out. Tinton5 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I quickly read through Jojutton's FAQ and the linked discussion on the MOS talk page, as well as WP:PLACE. I'm honestly not sure what the "right" way is for text in article. I'm totally confident that for the US, articles on city's are City, State. No country. For text in articles, I'd probably lean that way as well. Infoxboxes I think I'd lean towards including the country. This may be a good discussion to raise on WT:MOS as the best way to handle it. In fact, that would be my suggestion - open a discussion there specifically asking about how to refer to US locations in the text of articles other than that location and in infoboxes (using a school and a business as examples. Invite Jojutton to participate in the discussion and you'd be helping resolve an area causing confusion. Good luck! Ravensfire (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC) EDIT - I think the WT:MOS would give better results than going to AN3 or ANI over this, as probably both places would direct you both there. WT:MOS would also be produce much, much lower stress/drama levels than the other options. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Hey Thanks for the suggestion, Ravensfire. Would you, and the others who participated in this thread, would like to join there at WT:MOS? I could definitely use various opinions, as well as Jojutton's viewpoints. I already restored all information on pages that he removed content from the info boxes, as well as sending a message to the user's talk page. Thanks for your help. Tinton5 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Yes, I will also chime in at the thread you made. I agree with Ravensfire that this is a good fit for the issue, and lot less stressful than AN3 or ANI - I only meant those suggestions to be followed if Jojhutton was unambiguously edit warring about this issue. Let's see if we can get his input as well now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:34, 7 September 2011 (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.

Ultimate Ears

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. Ultimate Ears (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? Me and Binksternet are having a dispute about having the photo of the founder being displayed on the Ultimate Ears company article. My argument is that the photo is already embedded on the founders biographical page. Further the photo does not follow a standard corporate design practice on Wikipedia, for example Apple Inc. does not include a photo of Steve Jobs on the Apple Inc. article. Binksternet has disputed my edits by saying "he cannot understand why anyone would consider an image of the founder as not appropriate for a company article" and detailing why a founder's image would not be included would be "no freely licensed public domain ones, and editor consensus against having one." My suggestion (Binksternet did not attempt a compromise) was to reference the fact that 9 out of the top 10 of the Fortune 500 has NO photo of the founder in their articles; Ford Motor Company is the one with a photo, of course!!! Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? AMuteRealist (talk · contribs) Binksternet (talk · contribs) AMuteRealist does have WP:COI and followed Wikipedia protocol for WP:COI after being directed by Binksternet 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=Ultimate Ears}} --~~~~ 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 tried resolving the issue with Binksternet on the article talk page, but I need some extra input as Binksternet will not compromise or make proposals to move forward with resolving this dispute. How do you think we can help? Direct me to ways to resolve this dispute, or where I can get assistance in resolving the dispute. We either need to come up with a compromise or have a defined protocol for photos of founders in non biographical articles. AMuteRealist (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Ultimate Ears discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. File:Jerry Harvey.png Jerry Harvey, founder of Ultimate Ears The photo of the founder is a good one, showing him in his element as a touring sound engineer and promoter of Ultimate Ears, wearing casual clothing and a backstage pass. The image was first brought to the UE article in July by User:MusicLover650. At the article talk page, I argued that the image was appropriate, and that other company articles have photos of their founders, including Sony, Ford Motor Company, Amazon.com, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, United Artists, Steinway & Sons, Hermès, Sears, Microsoft and Google. Nothing about the image is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Because I have read the article's references, I understand this dispute as one that has moved with AMuteRealist, 70.165.46.98, Theaveiator and Ultimateears1 into Wikipedia. The company is now led by Bob Allison, who, according to Stereophile magazine, financed a significant expansion program for UE, served as president for about three years, then coordinated a 2007 buyout of Mindy Harvey as Jerry Harvey "retired" (scare quotes in the original.) A newspaper story quoted Harvey saying of Allison, "As soon as the investor thought that I was out of ideas, he thought it would be a good time to maximize his position in the company by forcing the founder out." A professional audio news site reported that Jerry Harvey was, "forced out in 2007 by co-owner/ex-wife Mindy and a third party investor" (Bob Allison). This same source says Jerry Harvey's "relationship with UE began to go south" around the time he was being forced out. Note that there is no dispute about this text and these sources. Relevant to the image, the current leadership of the expanded Ultimate Ears company apparently does not like the man Jerry Harvey, even though he will forever be the founder. Me, I don't care about the bad feelings; I don't have a horse in that race. I think the founder's image is a perfectly suitable focus to draw readers' attention to text describing the company's history. I think the image should stay. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC) I have to agree with Binksternet here. Having a look at Wikipedia's image use policy, I can see nothing that would prevent the use of this photo. As to the articles of other companies not having photos of their founders, these kinds of argument doesn't usually hold much water on Wikipedia, I'm afraid. It is down to the consensus of editors at individual articles to decide whether or not founder images are used, and I can't see a real reason not to include it here. We certainly shouldn't exclude it because the present management of the company doesn't like him. AMuteRealist, are you aware of any other reasons that we shouldn't include the image? I am still open to persuasion by different arguments. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC) It looks like this dispute has gone stale. If no-one has any more arguments to bring forward, I think I will close it tomorrow. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:56, 10 September 2011 (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.

Chiemgau impact hypothesis, Tüttensee

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. Chiemgau impact hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Tüttensee (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? Unfortunately we would need help from someone with excellent command in German, as all publications on the issues are in German language only. And I would prefer someone with understanding in earth sciences, such as geology. In 2004 a self selected group of amateurs and professionals raised a fascinating claim over the impact of a meteor in the Bavarian Chiemgau region in holocene times, most prominently that the small, idyllic Tüttensee (Lake Tütten) would be an impact crater. It gave some stirrings in the scientific community, but in 2005 the claims were refuted by the Bavarian state agency for the environment, which is a scientific body dealing with geology in Bavaria. In 2008 and in 2010 further research got published by the state agency, in 2010 they took auger soil samples from the Tüttensee and established undisturbed horizons of peat bog, covering more than 12.500 years (established by radiocarbon dating), with means the growth of sphagnum peat was uninterrupted since the last ice age. This excludes any impact of anything, and certainly of any meteor to create the lake. The 2005 publications and any previous scientific work on the area going back to the 1920s is consistent with the Lake being one of many kettles under the alpine foothills. Especially the gravel terraces that form a horseshoe structure around most parts of the lake are well established to be kames terraces, deposited by a lobus of the Inn/Chiemgau glacier around a relict of dead ice. There is absolutely no indication that those partially rings are anything else, and certainly they don't have the structure of material ejected from an impact. An open letter by some 30 most respected scientists in several earth sciences got published earlier this year to finally end any doubts, from a scientific point of view, it is over. The promoters of the impact hypothesis have since joined forces with tourism interests in the region and managed to convince the local municipality to set up an interpretive walk and they opened on their own a small museum. So this is not a scientific debate anymore (which would be closed after the radiocarbon dates), but has become a matter of deep shaming and humiliation for the municipality, the tourism agency and the promoters of the claims. The latter have since changed their theory numerous times, frantically updated their website usually contradicting their previous theories. The dating of the impact according to them changed from about 200 BC to 800 BC and in their latest claims it happened in the bronze age around 2000 BC (all of those ages are of course completely in contradiction with the peat horizons going back 12.500 year without disturbance). There are more claims, regarding rematogylphs, breccias and some other rock types, none of which are any more convincing than the Tüttensee claim, so I won't specify any of that. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? H-stt (talk · contribs) Sina03 (talk · contribs) User:Sina03 is a single purpose account, active only to promote his or her view on the Chiemgau impact hypothesis. 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 N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Chiemgau impact hypothesis, Tüttensee}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? This controversy swaps over from the German language Wikipedia. Her on en-WP we used the talk page of the impact hypothesis article. And we had some further contact on the German language Wikipedia (in German only). How do you think we can help? The basic question is: Sina tries to present the matter as an open scientific debate, giving space to the presentation of the impact claims. I have cut through all that, moved the article to the hypothesis lemma, called the case closed from a scientific point of view and put it in the Obsolete scientific theories category. Sina reverts that, which happens to be the only edits he or she ever does. To stop the unavoidable, maybe already ongoing edit war, we should need outside intervention. h-stt !? 08:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Chiemgau impact hypothesis, Tüttensee discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. What a mess. A scientific dispute conducted via press releases. Overall, the credentials of the CIRT are not very convincing, except for those of de:Kord Ernstson, who also supports the theory of the Azuara impact structure. Given how science reporting works, we should not hold CIRT responsible for the media's fantastic embellisments of their claims. As one would expect, the popular media tend to side with the proposed sensational event rather than its claimed refutations. On the other hand, these refutations from scientists (2011 Bavarian office for the environment -- LfU, 2006 open letter from 21 scientists) seem to carry more weight, even though they, too, have not gone through peer review. To gauge the relative credibility of the two sides, I have looked a bit closer at the details of the dispute. CIRT claims that the small Lake Tütten is one of many impact craters going back to the same event. On balance, it appears to me that the theory is more likely false than true, but not completely dead yet, either in terms of scientific or public discourse. As long as it captivates the general public in the way it is currently still doing, it is not an obsolete theory and should not be categorised as such. Our articles should make it clear that the theory does not have much support, but I think it would not be appropriate to treat it as fringe. The dispute should be reported fairly and in sufficient detail. I will watchlist the article and may get involved w.r.t. concrete problems. Hans Adler 11:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks for your reply. Yes, the debate took place mostly by press releases, but for good reason: The promoters of the impact hypothesis did not get any peer reviewed earth science journal to publish their claims. That's why there is almost nothing on the theory in English language. And why should any notable journal print a rebuttal of a theory, that itself never published appropriately? I would like to point you to the blog on the Chiemgau hypothesis at http://chiemgauimpact.blogspot.com/ (Opening statement of Oct 2009) - while we can't use it a source for Wikipedia as it is essentially self published, it is the most comprehensive information on the issue, written by Dr. Robert Huber, Geologist, who was born in the region and visits regularly, but works in northern Germany now. --h-stt !? 14:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Please let me introduce my point of view. I contradict the description of h-sst that all publications on the issues are in German only. Please have a look at my version of the article “Chiemgau impact hypothesis” (Sina03 3 September 2011): You will see quite a number of English scientific papers published not only by the Chiemgau Impact Research Team but also by other scientists, among them one paper published by the critics of the impact theory. The publications cover high-ranking international journals and congresses like “Antiquity”, “Diamond & Related Materials”, “Lunar and Planetary Science Conference” etc. The article of H-sst in contrary relies upon a press-release and two webpage-publications of the Bavarian state agency for the environment, of course not being subjected a peer-review-process and all of them in German language. Furthermore in his posting here H-sst mentions an open letter of scientists, also not fulfilling the requirements of scientific publications. I think that this is a deficient covering of the literature available as well as of the scientific debate which is reflected in the above mentioned publications, and an insufficient basis for the claim of an “obsolete” scientific theory. The only (as I know) scientific publication of the critics of the theory has been published in the journal “Antiquity” in 2011. The proponents of the impact theory have answered in the same volume of the journal and defended their theory. They draw attention to the fact that they have found special rock deformations which are a criterion worldwide acknowledged as a proof of a meteorite impact. Furthermore they explain the reason why the augur core and the radiocarbon dates mentioned by H-sst are in full accordance with nowadays knowledge about meteorite impact processes. Hence, the debate is far from being finished and should be coverd in the Wikipedia article.--Sina03 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I have not had contact with h-sst on the German language Wikipedia. --Sina03 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC) On the discussion-page H-sst had claimed (26 August 2011) that the impact had been "refuted by geologists, biologists and archaeologists". I had asked him to contribute scientific publications (apart from Doppler et al. 2011, cited by myself) for supporting his claim. By now he failed to do so.--Sina03 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC) The basic question is: H-sst tries to push through his categorizing of the theory as an “obsolete scientific theory” and denies giving adequate attention and representation to the scientific English language publications representing the debate.--Sina03 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Hans Adler: Please have a look at my posting above and on the discussion pages of the articles. Thanks!--Sina03 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC) I have been holding off on commenting on this dispute, because I don't have any expertise in either German or Geology. I think Hans's comments are perceptive, though, and he proposes a good solution. Let's not categorise the theory as "obselete", but make sure instead that the article makes fully clear that while the debate is still going on, the rebuttals have had more support in the scientific community than the original theory. I should clarify that I haven't looked at the issues in-depth at all - it is just my experience that resolving this dispute will require this kind of compromise. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Both for article quality and this issue, getting a few of the basics in there from the sources would help, especially since all of the references are in German. Facts can speak for themselves. Like, how, per the scientists, does it having 12,500 years of undisturbed sediment refute the theory? (I presume it was because anything older that that would have been obliterated by glaciers, but it says nothing on that.) North8000 (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC) No, any impact by anything that came through the earths atmosphere would necessarily be fast and incredibly hot. It would have tremendous impact as the propagandists for the hypothesis claim with their theory of an impact crater. But this event would destroy any living peat bog in a huge area, due to heat alone. It is utterly impossible to have any impact in Holocene times while there is a small bog peacefully growing at Lake Tütten. --h-stt !? 11:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC) That addresses the specific post-last-ice age theories, but not impact theories in general. I'm not debating except saying that it would help if the article has more explanation in this area. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC) The problem with denying the label "obsolete" is, that the claim itself was never properly published! From a conservative scientific point of view, the claim of an meteor impact has never been raised at all, because it was published only outside of any serious scientific journals. That is not for lack of trying by the propagandists, but each and every journal rejected their theory. So they went to mass media and published there and created some media stirs. The refuting scientists themselves could not use scientific journals for this reason, and published their findings at the Bavarian state agency or in the open letter. I still believe we should use the category "obsolete", because due to the lack of proper publication this is not a theory that is actively under research by any serious scientist. --h-stt !? 11:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks to all of you for discussing. I have adjusted my version of the article "Chiemgau impact hypothesis" according to your suggestions by extending the introduction of the debate passage. Hope this will be a good compromise. --Sina03 (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Sorry for being here again: A user "Kunderbunt" who support H-sst has again reverted the "Chiemgau impact hypothesis" articel without giving an explanation for not accepting the compromise. What to do? --Sina03 (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Could you please spell my user name correctly? And your latest version was reverted for good reason. --h-stt !? 11:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC) A fundamental problem A fundamental problem I see here is that this is a classic "teach the controversy" article. It is clear that no scientific body has treated this hypothesis as a formal theory, so as per WP:FRINGE neither should we. The only scientific opinion refuting the claim expressly comes from the Bavarian state agency and an open letter, who must be given WP:UNDUE balance. Based on these principles, the fundamental issue I see with this article is: There is inconsistency in describing this hypotheses, calling it a "controversial scientific theory". It is not a theory, it is a hypotheses. A theory has been tested and consensus reached, this is a hypothesis. The article should reflect this. To little exposition of the actual hypothesis is made, in comparison to the controversy topics. The solid scientific opposition to the hypothesis is not given due weight and reduced to a mere criticism, when in fact this hypothesis has been refuted by the scientific community writ large. See WP:FRINGE. Means that the opposition must be given larger weight. The controversy in general should be handled with care and keeping in mind WP:SENSATION and WP:FRINGE. --Cerejota (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC) I am not fully convinced that the hypothesis has been rejected by a consensus of the relevant scientific community. We don't have third-party reliable sources saying so, and I don't know how complete the list of people who signed the open letter is. Even if it has been rejected, a single scientist or research group proposing a hypothesis and then pursuing it long after their peers have decided it's not worth any attention is a relatively normal occurrence. It's how science works and sometimes produces fundamentally new insights (and more often runs into dead ends), and it has nothing to do with fringe. We cannot really go by H-stt's claim that they tried to publish but were rejected. My personal impression is that this is likely true, but that there may also be personal conflicts involved that have nothing to do with science and a lot with interactions between people. I agree that the hypothesis needs to be described in detail before coming to the controversy. This is just a matter of clear writing. While WP:FRINGE does not apply, WP:NPOV does and has similar consequences. The current title is good, but the first section title also needs changing. The open letter and the LfU press release are referred to by Der Spiegel [34], so we can mention them without committing OR. Basically this implies that the hypothesis is most likely false, so we don't have to say so explicitly (and we shouldn't anyway, at this point). Hans Adler 23:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC) WP:FRINGE totally applies, some of the claims being made are pseudo-scientific or by people who are not geologists. While it is true that hypothesis pursued by small groups is how science work, in general scientists also do not publish hypothesis or generate public debate on them until at least preliminary research is accepted in peer-reviewed journals. The total lack of any RS from peer reviewed journals completely puts this into the WP:FRINGE category.--Cerejota (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC) In particular, WP:FRINGE/PS says: 3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point. The open letter and government declaration make this a fringe theory under WP:FRINGE/PS #3 as per the letter and the spirit of the guideline.--Cerejota (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC) I agree with Cerejota that we don't have to give credence to the Chiemgau impact hypothesis. Review articles occasionally appear that list what are the known proven and probable terrestrial impact structures. One such review is R. Grieve and P. Robertson (1979), "The terrestrial cratering record", Icarus 38, 212-29. In the whole world they assert that (as of 1979) there were 13 proven meteorite craters and 78 probable impact craters. If the Chiemgau observations eventually persuade mainstream geologists, we may look forward to the would-be Chiemgau crater being added to the accepted list. Until it receives acceptance, Wikipedia is not obliged to give credence to the theory. We don't have to prove that it's been rejected; we can just point out the lack of any publications by mainstream geologists that acknowledge it's been accepted. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Chiemgau hypothesis has been refuted. For that we should at least be able to point to a publication in a refereed journal that makes that point. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Hans Adler and EdJohnston have hit the nail on the head here. I think the rest of this debate can go back to the article talk page. If we bear their points in mind, that should be more than enough to come to a consensus on how to write the article. Unless there are any objections, I will close this thread tomorrow. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC) I can only mention that this is an absurd debate. Obviously nobody wants to acknowledge that there do exist peer-reviewed publications concerning the subject of a meteorite impact in the Chiemgau region. Look at my version of the "Chiemgau impact hypothesis" of September 3 and you will see it. Every contrary statement is a document of prejudice. --Sina03 (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC) The hypothesis was accepted by a peer-reviewed journal, but all that means is that the journal is willing to print it. It doesn't imply that mainstream geology accepts the hypothesis as true. A paper offering the Chiemgau impact hypothesis is a primary source. It is better for us to rely on review papers (which are secondary sources) to get an idea of what the accepted ideas are. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2011 (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.