Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 75

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Battle of Kursk

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by EyeTruth.

1 July 2013

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The term "blitzkrieg" has been present in the article for as long as possible. Starting in 2009, certain editors suggested that "blitzkrieg" should be excluded from the article. Such opinions got nowhere due to lack of reliable sources to support them. These were long before I made my first edit in the article. Not long ago, an editor began flushing out blitzkrieg from the article. I felt it wasn't too bad if he was just trying to tone its usage down. But recently, the editor decided to flush out the last instance of Blitzkrieg from the article. I opposed it and pointed out that there are three sources (cited in the article) that explicitly support the usage of the term in that very paragraph – i.e. the Citadel plan exemplified blitzkrieg. Note that this refers to just the intention of Citadel. The actual campaign turned out to be a crawl. The editor returned with the backup of three other editors and challenged the inclusion of the term in the article. I requested that they should bring forward the sources that claim that the Citadel plan didn't envision a blitzkrieg operation. Not a single source could be produced. However, they pointed out several other sources never called it a blitzkrieg despite dealing with Citadel. This is true. But I told them that silence on a subject doesn't translate to disapproval or approval for the subject. But they insisted that since the campaign, anyways, turned out not to be a blitzkrieg irrespective of whatever the intentions were, there was enough reason to completely exclude the term from the article. They concluded that they have the majority in editor consensus and therefore went ahead to flush out the term. I pointed out that we do not have any sources disputing this; we have sources supporting it; and all we have are some editors disputing it; therefore, when all said and done, there is not much justification for this consensus reached by the three editors. No one budged.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion (over 70 KB of readable prose) to clarify all the underlying rationale behind the opinions of the different parties.

How do you think we can help?

Opening comments by Gunbirddriver

The events are mischaracterized in EyeTruth’s summary.

The main issue is to write the article succinctly and in a manner which clearly communicates the events to the reader. The term “blitzkrieg” was not used by the German military to describe their operational methods, and is a term that is poorly defined and misunderstood. Further, the term does not match the battle in either its planning or execution.

The article was in the process of being re-worked with three editors (Sturmvogel 66, EyeTruth and myself) being the primary parties involved in the process. EyeTruth inserted into the article the phrase:

Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel), was to be a classic blitzkrieg, eschewing attrition for a swift and efficient strike, featuring a double envelopment with pincers originating from the faces of the salient and directed at Kursk which would surround the majority of the Soviet defenders and seal off the salient

As shown here. The description offered above does not describe classic Blitzkrieg warfare. This was removed in a rewrite. EyeTruth then inserted it again here.

This was reverted and he was told to start a discussion about it. He then reverted again here, claiming that no one had started the discussion topic for him. It was pointed out to him that the format is Bold Edit, Revert and Discuss, with the onus being on him to initiate the discussion. The discussion was entered into to the tune of about 100 kilobyte. Four editors (Sturmvogel 66, Diannaa, Herostratus and myself) weighed in saying they were opposed to the inclusion of the term. They provided various reasons and sources. All of these were rejected out of hand by EyeTruth, who then on his own recognizance and without the support of any other editor inserted the phrase into the text again here. Another 100 kilobytes of discussion ensued, and editor Binksternet removed the phrase. EyeTruth then reverted again here, which Binkersternet reverted, and EyeTruth reverted again here, which had to be reverted back by Sturmvogel 66. I submitted a complaint against EyeTruth for tendentious editing here. It was at this point that EyeTruth submitted this topic for discussion here at Dispute resolution. He is a tad late for this step, and none of the other editors have softened in their opinion on the matter. If anything, the experience has hardened them into more strongly wishing to oppose.

It would appear EyeTruth is using this forum to again assert his opinion. I doubt he has any real interest in resolving anything, unless it is resolved to align with his own views. It’s a sad affair, and most of us are quite tired of it.Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion does not take place in opening comments. They are for the opening comment of the named user only. Discuss in the appropriate section below.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Woow... take it easy there. You didn't even inform me that you submitted a complaint. I'm just knowing about this now. And you're really making this into your personal war. Also, what I described above is exactly as it happened. Do you mind pointing out any statement I made in the above description that is false? Also in your post above, you categorically failed to mention that none of you have provided a single sources to support your contention for the inclusion of the term.EyeTruth (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? You don’t recall this:

User talk:EyeTruth#Problems_working_on_the_Battle_of_Kursk_page.?

What? That was a notification from 18 June for a complaint you posted the same day. WTH. You posted another one on 1 July and even up till now have not notified me. What kind of twisted game are you trying to play here? You're making this more and more too personal, which is not a good idea. But whatever, it's no big deal. Let's no clog up this discussion with this side story.EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's all part of the same complaint. I asked the administrators how to add to the initial complaint and they instructed me to make a new entry. You were notified that a complaint was filed on June 18th. A result from that complaint is still pending. It is hard to see how you could consider yourself an injured party, when the notice was placed directly on your talk page. What more would you expect me to do, notify you that I am updating the complaint? That's a bit much, don't you think? Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

And I'm supposed to know about this "new entry" (a new section) you created on some noticeboard? Oh yeah, I forgot, I know everything. Psssshh. So much BS. EyeTruth (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You are again mischaracterizing events. How do you expect people to consider anything that you are saying to be valid when your mischaracterizations are shown to be false? Look, it’s nothing personal on my part, I just want to get on with improving the article. That’s what most of the editors want.

Here is what you said on my talk page back in the middle of May:

Unless you mean that we should avoid the use of the "Blitzkrieg" altogether, to give way for more universally acceptable phrases? If that is the case, then I won't object since it seems some readers still get nonplussed at the use of "Blitzkrieg" in such a way, even though I think it is not necessary and could be tedious making all the changes. EyeTruth (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, removing the term "Blitzkrieg" from the article is a good idea, for the reasons I mentioned above. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Heads up, those "some readers" is you. Also you conveniently forgot to include the sentence that followed: "But if you mean wholly eliminating any passage in the article with "Blitzkrieg", then I doubt anyone will consider such a crusade acceptable." I believe the agreement I reached for is crystal-clear. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Back in May you insisted on eliminating the term. You didn't even give any legit reasons besides: "Soviet plans and preparations [section] should not include a paragraph about how the "Blitzkrieg" had never been stopped before. I removed that paragraph because it was misleading in content and misplaced in the article." EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Your main reason was that things were all over the place in the article. On those grounds, I cut you a slack back then. But that was before I realized a lot more about your modus operandi. I made that clear in the my post dated 01:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC) on Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems you did not really mean what you told me. Look, an inordinate amount of the editors' time has been burned up on this question, and they find it to be unproductive. For the proof just look at your own talk page. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I only know of Sturmvogel on my talkpage. I already told you that you may not want to keep referring to yourself as "other editors" or "inordinate amount of the editors" as you always often do. I've said it before. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

PS. Also Diannaa only opposed its inclusion only because she couldn't verify that it was in the cited sources. Obviously, it is in the cited sources, but she never returned to tell us whether she was able to verify it. EyeTruth (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is what Diannaa said:

I agree that the Battle of Kursk does not fit the usual definition of Blitzkreig (23:39, 17 June 2013).Gunbirddriver (talk)

But you also conveniently forgot to also add her final statement: "You are wrong when you say we have to prove that it was not Blitzkreig or it stays in. You are the one who wants to add the content, so you are the one who has to defend its addition. We can't use the term Blitzkreig to describe the German attack unless at least one of the sources uses the term."

And to begin with, Dianna didn't have it together during that discussion, as we all know her claim that none of the cited sources supported the inclusion of the term is blatantly false. Unfortunately, she never returned to conclude what she started. At any rate, we had three secondary sources supporting its inclusion back then, but we now have about 6 sources supporting it thanks to Binksternet. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

She then asked for the sourcing materials. You are mischaracterizing what others are saying, and not in an accidental fashion, but always in a manner that would seem to support your own position. People do not like that. It is unlikely that you will be able to gain their support when you treat them in this poor fashion. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You have still categorically failed to point out any incorrect statement in the description I submitted. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No, you just refuse to recognize them. The entire characterization you offered was false from beginning to end. How then can we help you see the problem? I do not entirely understand the issue with you, but I know that you will see this response as another attack against you personally, and a marker that I have some interest in specifically opposing you. That has been the case all along. Really, I don't want anything to do with you. It is of little use trying to discuss things with you, as you do not seem have the capacity to honestly converse and apparently have very little ability to view things from another person's perspective. I have bent over backward and patiently tried to explain things to you. I cannot further help you resolve the issue. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

OK then, it should be very simple for you to point out just one false statement in the description. If you can't, then you're simply grasping at straws. I doubt there is anybody who won't be able to see through it. EyeTruth (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Binksternet

Blitzkrieg is a difficult-enough topic to define, with multiple observers describing it in various ways. Classic blitzkrieg is exemplified by Germany's lightning invasion of France in 1940, the pushing of the British to Dunkirk, and the initial attack on the Soviet Union in 1941. Other than these examples which are agreed upon by all observers, the concept is too muddled and debated to be applied specifically to Kursk as a "classic blitzkrieg" in the manner preferred by EyeTruth.

Instead, most of those historians who describe Kursk as some form of blitzkrieg say that it was a failed blitzkrieg, not a classic example. In M.K. Barbier's Kursk 1943, Barbier says on page 10 that the Germans tried blitzkrieg tactics in Poland in 1939; a position with few historian supporters. Barbier then says that Kursk was intended to be blitzkrieg by the Germans but it failed because the Soviets had found the proper defense for it. Hedley Paul Willmott writes in The Great Crusade, page 300, that Kursk was where the blitzkrieg myth was broken because of the effective Soviet defense in depth. Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson say the same thing in Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis, page xi. Even Glantz who is EyeTruth's main source describes Kursk as the death of blitzkrieg. Kursk cannot be called "classic blitzkrieg". Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the point. It was intended to be another blitzkrieg but it failed epically. Obviously Citadel was a crawl. It was no blitzkrieg, but it was expected to be. Many army-level (and above) orders were all talking of shattering the soviet defenders in one, two or three days, and achieve operational freedom. Starting from day one of the offensive, those expectation and dreams were shattered. EyeTruth (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sturmvogel 66

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

The term blitzkrieg is so widely (mis)used that it has lost much of its specific meaning and, without a definition, the specific meaning of the term as used by an author is open to interpretation by readers. Most of the authors on Kursk don't actually define the term or do so broadly that it applies to pretty much any German attack anywhere and is thus useless in determining if the German plan for Kursk was a blitzkrieg. I'm partial to the definition used by the German military historian Karl-Heinz Friesner in his book on the French Campaign. I quoted it in full on the talk page, but the key part that he includes is that the operation must be going deep. Whatever else you can say about the plan, Citadel did not involve deep operations like Fall Blau, Operation Typhoon, or Operation Barbarossa. So, to my mind, it was not a blitzkrieg. That said, Friesner's definition isn't everyone's, so I think that the best thing to do is not to characterize it at all, following in the footsteps of the many historians who do not characterize in any form. EyeTruth disagreed, insisting on using the term as used by Clark and totally discounting the lack of use of the term by many other historians and participants. I believe that EyeTruth needs to learn the value of the silence between the spaces, much like the significance of the dog that did not bark in the night.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Kursk discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hello, I am Smileguy91, a DRN volunteer. Consensus has been reached, but there is WP:CCC. Hopefully a wider consensus can be reached with this DRN post. smileguy91^talk 22:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I what to know whether consensus is decided by number of editors voting for a motion or is it by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy? I'm not very old on here. And what I read in the policies about consensus seem to differ a lot from what I hear from other editors. So I would really want to know what is the "unspoken" norm. EyeTruth (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A bit of both, votes alone dont constitute consensus, especially when just in the form of a simple majority (not well over 50%). -- Nbound (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. So number of votes does matter to an extent. Thanks. Everyone seemed to be playing along that unspoken norm even though the policy never explicitly said so. I've been wondering ever since. EyeTruth (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

At first I was considering suggesting that this be moved to WP:RFC, since it's not really a dispute, per se, but now I believe it belongs here. smileguy91^talk 14:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My personal — and I emphasize that this is just personal — quick rule of thumb for consensus is 3 to 1 if the 3 have an overwhelming, no-one-could-reasonably-disagree argument, 4 to 1 with a somewhat weaker but still pretty strong argument, and 5 to 1 with an argument which is merely reasonable, and in each case that's if the 1 has a merely reasonable argument. If the 1 has a strong or very strong argument, higher ratios are required. Theoretically, if the 1 has one of those overwhelming, no-one-could-reasonably-disagree arguments then the number on the other side shouldn't make any difference, but you have to then ask whether if his argument is so great why isn't anyone else buying it. Note that this analysis only applies when there is no solution mandated by policy. When policy mandates a solution, policy wins, unless a local exception is established, but that also has to be done by consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (a DRN volunteer)

Your personal rule of thumb is judicious and fair IMO. I have another question about the voting thing. If the minority editors has several reputable secondary sources that explicitly support their side of the argument, will those sources also be counted each as one vote? EyeTruth (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems the first volunteer has quit. So what now? EyeTruth (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm the specialized DRN closer. I'm typically called in when DRN threads have gone a bit too long. I'd like to see if I understand the problem. On one side there's a request to add the term blitzkrieg to the article on the grounds that some sources report the intention of the battle. On the other side, there's a request to remove the term due to none of the sources describing the battle use the term. Is this correct? Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Nearly correct, but not exactly. On one side there's a request to retain the term blitzkrieg in the article on the grounds that some sources report the intention of the battle as such. On the other side, there's a request to remove the term because some other sources describing the battle do not use the term.EyeTruth (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Analogy: sources A, B, C describe courage as a virtue; whereas sources D, E, F also describe courage but are silent on whether it is a virtue or not. Therefore, since not every source on the subject of courage describes it as a virtue and since we (as editors) can easily see that courage may not always be a virtue depending on the circumstances, therefore we can't include it in the article. (Albeit not a single source that argues that courage is not a virtue has been brought forward). In this analogy, "courage" is "Operation Citadel", and "virtue" is "blitzkrieg". The thing about "depending on the circumstances" in the analogy represents the argument that Operation Citadel, irrespective of the original intention, turned out to be the opposite of blitzkrieg (and sources explicitly agree including those that described the intention of the operation as a blitzkrieg). EyeTruth (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

After reading the discussion thread and now the continuing stream here, I am seeing a specific pattern. While I do not have access to the literature myself, based on the representations and characterizations I think that the "After the battle" characterization cannot be blitzkrieg outright. The definition laid out at the blitzkrieg page doesn't seem to qualify at this specific battle. I also observe that in the 2 sources given to assert the claim we have 1 that (at the time of the writing of the reference) did not have the qualified expertise or the references to be making the assertion of categorization. This source is also the one that is heavily relied upon to back up the categorization. I think with the significant demonstration of expert sources and the relative inexpertiese of the opposition, it would be best to leave the term Blitzkrieg out of the Battle of Kursk article. I do see behavior on the part of certain editors of refusing to accept that a consensus backed up by the expert sources. Obviously Consensus can change, but the issue should not be tested for a while so that further sources regarding the event can be gathered and presented in a logical manner. It is not logical to demand sources that explicitly deny a categorization. The fact that a categorization is not explicitly stated is an implicit assertion that the subject is not specifically categorized. Hasteur (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What you just addressed is almost irrelevant to the dispute. You are addressing "After the battle" when the dispute is for "Before the battle." You just went off on a tangent and none of the sources were even claiming a blitzkrieg-characterization for "After the battle." I don't know what you saw that made you think the sources were asserting such a claim. In fact, I don't even know what you read anymore. I'm beginning to see a trend here. Editors read just a few paragraphs of the long discussion in the talkpage and jump to the conclusion that since my tone is kind of harsh, I must be some ignorant jerk. And then they just sympathize with the other side of the argument. Can't people control their sentiments and call a spade a spade? I'm not asserting that is specifically the case with you Hasteur, since I can't read your mind, but I suspect (in general) that may be the case for some of the editors that had gotten involved in this dispute. They jump to an off-course conclusion at first, and sometimes they later begin to make compromises or simply disappear when their conclusion become untenable. Although I couldn't admit it earlier, I think I can now see how my tone could trigger sentiments that could cloud proper judgement. But try and look beyond the sentiments, if there are any. EyeTruth (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that solution is too heavy-handed. I think the German intention to engage in lightning battle (blitzkrieg) should be briefly described as wishful thinking. The actual battle should be described as a deadly slugfest, whatever is the opposite of blitzkrieg, because of the expert Soviet defense-in-depth. Near the end of the article we can say that Kursk was the death of the blitzkrieg concept. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, but on the whole, I have to agree with Binksternet. The German forces went into battle looking to crush the Soviets at Krusk, only to be beaten back. The term blitzkrieg doesn't refer to the actual battle in this case, but to the German mindset going in, since a blitzkrieg-style battle proved to be impossible once the Soviet tank commanders started their effective counterattacks. Magus732 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Binksternet and Magus732. I think it should be noted that the Citadel plan called for a rapid (blitzkrieg) campaign but it must be made clear that what really happened was the exact opposite. Many sources (three from me and another three from Binksternet and there are definitely many more) are all on the same line of thought as well. EyeTruth (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved (but not disinterested) comment: I thinks this is a classic example of commentary that needs attribution. "According to X, it was supposed to be a blitzkrieg, but according to Y it was ..." I agree with Sturmvogel that the contrast may not be terribly well defined because not all authors use blitzkrieg to mean the same thing. But at least it gives the reader some idea what is going on. Otherwise it's unclear if the "death of Blitzkrieg", which is the label given several by several authors to this battle, refers to a failed attempt at Blitzkrieg or to a change in German thinking before the battle. E.g. quoting from

Kursk:The Greatest Tank Battle, 1943:
The battle for Kursk resulted in the strategic and operational death of Blitzkrieg. For the first time, the German Blitzkrieg, had not worked, as the Soviets restrained the German advance to shallow operational depths. The failure of the Germans to forge deep thrusts into the Soviet line had a psychological impact for both sides.
Quote from Berlin at War: Life and Death in Hitler's Capital, 1939-45:
Intended as a return to the glory days of the Blitzkerig, Kurks was envisaged by the Germans as an enormous pincer movement, to pinch off a bulge in the front line.
From Kursk: The German View:
General von Knobelsdorff could not capitalize on this success because it occurred on his left, and all of his resources had already been thrown into the center. The very hallmark of blitzkrieg was the concept of reinforcing success wherever it happened and maintaining enough command arrangements to reorient the axis of attack at a moment's notice. Yet what could Hoth have done differently, given the realities of his limited resources?
From The War Aims And Strategies Of Adolf Hitler:
Hoth planned to accomplish his penetration by standard blitzkrieg methods. The two prongs were to meet east of Kursk.

From these you can see various authors see this as a failed blitzkrieg. Not unreasonable to add this POV to the article. Finally, there are some books which do point out that the German plan was in certain ways a different from a blitzkrieg (or a flawed blitzkrieg from its inception):

From Kursk: The Vital 24 Hours:
The major problem with Zeitzler's plan, to attack the Kursk salient, was that aerial photos clearly revealed that the Soviets were building dense and deep fortifications there in order to counter such an attack, and that many Soviet tanks had moved deeper behind the front line. Instead of an open battlefield blitzkrieg, it was going to be a direct charge at dense antitank defences.

From Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm: The Evolution of Operational Warfare:
Operation Citadel was a German attempt to pinch off the Kursk salient. Unfortunately for them, Kursk was a completely obvious target, and the offensive against it marked a bankruptcy of sorts for German operational thinking. Zhukov could read a map as well as any officer and better than most. Soviet air and ground reconnaissance, as well as partisan groups active in the German rear, were able to draw a remarkably accurate portrait of the German buildup and intentions. Zhukov built no less than eight concentric fortified lines in front of Kursk, with more than 1.3 million men ready for the German blow.

Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. Citadel was planned to run just like in the old days, but Soviet preparations faulted the German intention for Citadel. (I'm not sure why this whole thing is even an issue but I'm not surprised anymore since I've seen enough craziness in our planet and on here. Many dudes can't apply the simplest logic). EyeTruth (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2013 (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.

Aesthetic Realism

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by LoreMariano.

15 July 2013

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Aesthetic Realism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

In a 2-day period (July 8 and July 9, 2013), FreeKnowledgeCreator made 38 changes to the Aesthetic Realism entry. Some of the edits were corrections; some copyediting; some which warrant discussion on the talk page. Because of the historical contentious nature of this article, when it was rewritten 4 years ago, every sentence was reviewed by all parties for consensus before posting and since then this procedure has been largely followed. Where it hasn’t (including by me, see Outerlimits March 13, 2012 comment), the change is reverted and editors are told to please discuss on the talk page before making the change. The rewrite was done in an organized and methodical way that allowed everyone to comment. Compromises were made on both sides and where there was a disagreement about an edit which couldn't be resolved, a neutral editor overseeing the rewrite arbitrated. I am more than willing and, in fact, would welcome, discussion about edits to the article. I agree with many of the edits. My objection is that important edits were thrown in with unimportant edits. I suggest that all editors stop making changes to the entry so that a complete list can made in an organized way to prioritize what should be changed immediately and what needs to be discussed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Began to make list to discuss changes but discussion keeps getting diverted into discussion of editors.

How do you think we can help?

I think it would be helpful if all editors followed a set procedure for discussing, reaching consensus, and making changes--with a mediator present to keep discussion and consensus moving forward.

Opening comments by FreeKnowledgeCreator

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

There was nothing wrong with any of my 38 edits, most of which were very minor and uncontroversial. For LoreMariano to revert all of them, apparently because she objected to a small number of changes, was highly disruptive. That she even reverted edits that she has since agreed were improvements shows how bizarre her behavior really was. Her position, apparently, is that absolutely all edits, no matter how minor, must be discussed first. If that is her position, then it is preposterous, and the best way forward would be for her to abandon it and admit that she was wrong. LoreMariano complains that, "important edits were thrown in with unimportant edits." I don't know how LoreMariano defines "important" versus "unimportant". Some of my changes were more major than others, certainly, but what of it? There is no policy against making a mixture of major and minor changes when one edits an article, and if editors are able to edit competently and consider changes on a case by case basis, there is no reason why it should be a problem. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Ocaasi

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Trouver

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

As mentioned above, quite a few changes were made to this article, which has a long, contentious history. As a fairly new editor FreeKnowledgeCreator was likely unaware of previous edit wars and the long-standing agreement to refrain from changes without discussion first on the talk page. Meanwhile, there is agreement that many of the edits of a technical kind (moving citations, removing spaces) and some word changes were good. Other word changes, however, are contentious. I agree that a method of moving forward must be established, and that all editors must discuss content only and refrain from making disparaging comments about the motives, intelligence or abilities of other editors. Trouver (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Outerlimits

It's possible to write and maintain an honest and informative Wikipedia article on certain philosophies and even religions. It's even possible to do so when adherents of those philosophies or religions participate in the crafting of those articles. But it's not possible to do so when adherents control what goes into those articles, especially if those adherents are not devoted to an honest examination of the subject, but instead insist it be treated hagiographically.

The Scientology articles on Wikipedia might serve as an example. …..They were scandalously kept in a whitewashed state by Scientology practitioners until a ban was placed on editing. (Anyone not familiar with this episode can reference Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia.) In short, it became apparent that Scientiologists had practiced a self-serving wiki-revisionism that kept the articles full of disinformation, overwhelming regular editors by dint of numbers and relentlessness. It was noted that this sort of problem occurs with fringe faiths with rabid practitioners.

In the past, mediators on the Aesthetic Realism article have ceded control over the article to its practitioners, and thereby enabled a sense of ownership in its followers. In a sense, it's hard to fault those called upon to intervene. There are precious few people in the world who know anything about Aesthetic Realism, and fewer still who care anything about it. It's not an important philosophical movement; it's a footnote in the annals of philosophy made vivid only by a brief period in its history where it advertised itself widely as the "answer" to homosexuality (the answer being that it would change gay men and women into heterosexuals). That, with perhaps a few minor scandals as they tried to infiltrate the New York City school system, has been their real claim to fame. With a very small number of people outside AR interested in editing the article, it has become a playground for AR enthusiasts, for whom it is virtually an article of faith that their goal in life is ensuring that no one speaks in any but the most laudatory and non-critical manner about AR.

We are brought to this dispute page by someone whose contention seems to be that the Aesthetic Realism article shouldn't be edited like every other article on Wikipedia is. She should, perhaps, have actually stated her dispute on the talk page of the article rather than for the first time here, but I suppose limiting one's dispute ending efforts to "making a list" is a real time-saver.

The sense of ownership here is so severe that simple grammatical changes are reverted not because the reverter disagrees with them, but because someone dared to edit the article without her prior approval. Clearly this is not a state of affairs that should be allowed to continue.

The methods advocated by LoreMariano have been tried and have produced the sad article we now have. It would be silly to think that simply repeating the same process with the same people is going to produce a different result. Over the period of time they've been participating in editing the AR-related articles, it's been very difficult to describe things in a straightforward, encyclopedic manner. Part of the problem is the tangential manner in which they prefer articles be written; instead of simply stating Eli Siegal committed suicide, they prefer periphrases such as "elected to die with dignity", and silently remove applicable categorizations that offend them. The reason the article's current explanation of Aesthetic Realism is so inchoate is not simply a reflection of the philosophy proper, but because it quotes and mimics the curious tangential manner in which treatises about Aesthetic Realism are usually written.

What is needed is a way to bring other, disinterested, Wikipedia editors to the article in order to counterbalance the undue influence that the Aesthetic Realism followers currently have. I doubt that this is possible.

Nonetheless, at a very minimum, the changes already suggested to bring the article into conformity with the manual of style should be implemented at once (e.g., referring to "Siegel" as such throughout the body of the article), along with the uncontested grammatical changes (notwithstanding the edit war over "a" vs. "the"), as should appropriate treatment of Aesthetic Realism's assertion that it converts gay men to heterosexual men (WP:FRINGE demands that the mainstream point of view counterbalance their fringe belief on this subject.). - Outerlimits (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Nathan43

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

This article was worked over by editors with strongly differing viewpoints and a consensus was reached with great difficulty. The reason for asking for all changes to be discussed on the talk page first from my point of view was because historically when that didn't happen it led to edit-warring. I think any changes must be made very carefully and with mutual agreement.

It is important for anyone editing the article to look at the history carefully. Every sentence was discussed and argued about before consensus was reached, with the result that the current wording came to be. It was extremely time-consuming.

Some editors have had to endure insults, intimidation, and abuse that are completely contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and ordinary decency -- and this has happened in posts in the last couple of days.

I respectfully ask any person who sees themselves as arbitrating to insist from the start that all posts be respectful and not cast aspersions on the motives of others.

I'll point out too that the article as it stands is thoroughly sourced. It's easy to take a glance at it and say it needs better organization, but what looks like a simple task may turn out to be much more complex and involved than anticipated. Nathan43 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

The discussion is ~~not open yet~~ OPEN ,giving time for all notified to respond with opening statements but I am volunteering to help with this dispute. If it is allowed, participants may respond to opening comments above under the opening comments.TeeVeeed (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Notes from the volunteer:So far I am seeing petty editing disputes involving matters of style such-as, "The New York Times" vs "the New York Times"-this should be solvable via MOS-Manual of Style? And a more politically sensitive change between use of the term, "homosexuality" vs. "sexual orientation" type thing. The questions of this dispute seems to be one of how questionable edits should be decided and two:does every single edit to the article need to be discussed on the talk page?
The regular Wikipedia policies offer a great deal of guidance on how edits to the article should be done. If a particular edit is questioned, taking it to the talk page is the correct way to work it out.

Should the article be locked, or should every single edit be up for consensus? I don't think so. But past consensus seems to have been treating the article as-if it was protected. So maybe that should be looked into?

I have not yet seen all or other versions of what this article looked like in the past, but currently, it does appear to me to have some problems of giving "undue weight", to some topics, and overall, personally, I am of the opinion that a great deal of the material on the page could be placed on the Eli Siegel page. And also, my personal preference of style would be to re-arrange the article to put contentious topics under a sub-heading of "controversy"-Three items in particular, the homosexuality conflict, accusations of being a cult, and eugenics specifically. But, I don't know if I would be willing to do such a bold edit myself, especially considering the charges and evidence of article "ownership" that is attached to the topic.

For someone such as myself who is not familiar with the topic, and other users and readers, the article currently reveals exactly what has been going-on behind the scenes on the talk page, which doesn't speak well for WP or the article itself. Yes the "controversy" should be included, and mentioned in the lead, but overall, the article could be re-crafted to give a simpler presentation of the topic itself.So I guess that answers my opinion on #2. I do not think that the page should be locked and this idea of asking that all edits be consensual is equivalent to asking that page protections be put in place. My "perfect" version of the page would attempt to define the topic without undue weight or influence given to the founder or the controversies, while keeping that basic information in other sections on the page. But that is not the question here. I guess the question is should page protection be considered or not.
TeeVeeed (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As volunteer to assist, I think that I am as up to speed on the problem as I can get. Let's open the discussion. I'm going to ask a couple questions here:

Question 1: Was there ever a time in the history of the article, that "both sides", or "all-sides", were satisfied with the article? (both sides being any editor personally connected to Aesthetic Realism past or present, "all-sides" including random WP editors or bots)

Sorry for delayed response (out of town today). From Summer 2009 to Fall 2010 this article was revised under guidance of 2 neutral Admins. During much of that time the page was protected. Every change required consensus, and Admins made final decision where consensus could not reached. Their decision depended upon reliable sources being provided for statements. That is why quotes are provided from many citations that cannot be easily viewed. The Talk Page (top) links to both favorable & critical citations. As you can see, some editors will never be “satisfied” unless denigrating, ridiculing words appear. The present article, while imperfect, is an attempt to present opposing viewpoints without subjecting either to insults. It was the Admin, not an editor, who stated that it was inappropriate for personal details about Eli Siegel's life or death to appear on this page. After the article was completed and the page protect was lifted, it was stable for three years, although I think many editors felt, as I did, that any significant change should not be made without consensus. In fact, when an unknown editor deleted controversial material from the lede (where I for one do not think they belong--I agree with your "perfect" version) this change was reverted by Nathan. And in defense of the editor who admitted her error reverting all of FKC's edits, I note that 38 individual edits (even if many were minor) might concern someone who has experienced “attacks” in the past (and I am not accusing FreeKnowledgeCreator because these attacks took pace years before he began to edit). Trouver (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Question 2: You can either lock or protect a topic, or not but if the article is not sanctioned as such, it should not be treated, "as-if". What is the objection, (if any) to page protection, and is anyone here willing to take a look at the question of page protection/locking for the article?

So, I have spent a great deal of this afternoon looking at the article's problems and although no one has yet responded to the idea of page-protection, that is what we are talking about from the way that I see it. Without getting into any personal attacks, strictly applying Wikipedia guidelines to all of the editors involved with the article, would eliminate the edit-warring problem by blocking or restricting editors who could be said to pose a COI- conflict of interest, to the article.

On the other hand, protecting the article could lead to restricting any or all editors who do NOT pose the risk of COI. So it is tricky.
Insisting that editors who are not aware of previous consensus, follow a special set of rules for this article, is impractical and contrary to the policies of the project. So in case anyone is wondering, that isn't going to happen and it cannot be enforced.
Therefore, my proposal is this: allow a specific short time-period, no more than a week or so, to determine an "agreeable" article, and to then apply for page protection. And if that, or some version of that can not be decided, to close this DRN, and allow the article to remain open to random editing, with the usual guidelines of WP being intact. That would include the possibility of asking that any and all editors seen as posing a COI with the material be asked to refrain from editing the article.
TeeVeeed (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing Page Protection options, I have no objection; it was useful before and is temporary. Meanwhile, it does seem that we are closer to agreement now than we were some days ago, and if the name calling can end, and all editors concentrate on content, we may still reach consensus. Trouver (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the various problems involved with editing that article, I don't believe protecting the page is necessary at this time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If comments could stay focused on text only I think we could make useful progress. It's very hard to look at text and comment when simultaneously your character is being attacked. I still think we need a neutral third party arbitrator in cases where consensus can't be reached. LoreMariano (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, in response to your two questions above: 1. I was satisfied that it was acceptable at one time. During the recent period of relative stability (the period from roughly January through June of this year) which followed the intense backs and forths that went on for more than a year – the article has an overall form that I can live with as relatively accurate.

2. I’m afraid that page-protection may be the only long-term solution.

I'm not sure about the one-week idea. Nathan43 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Page protection is a drastic option that shouldn't be imposed unless there is a compelling need for it. The burden is on anyone proposing it to show that it is actually necessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Test-is this open? Sorry everyone there is a little problem with the way that this case is listed. I am trying to fix that, it has to do I think with my name change that I made awhile ago.

Also, a note, I think that there has been a request that another volunteer take over this case. Until I hear otherwise I am willing to stick with it. And I am sorry if anyone involved here feels that they have been "attacked" in this discussion by myself or anyone else.
As a reader and an editor, I have pretty much admitted that I do not like the article--especially as a reader. I have "fresh-eyes", as far as the topic is concerned and at first I was eagerly hoping to learn more about the topic. At this point, it still appears confusing. Starting with the article photo which is an image of the AR Foundation HQ in Soho NYC. If I were interested, (and I am not), in re-doing the whole thing, The article would be split again, with a separate article for the foundation, and and shorter article about AR with some images of work(s) done under the auspices of AR, or using the theater image which is now at the bottom of the article at the top with 2 other images that are already in the commons, (a poem, and prints by an artist heavily influenced by AR.) [|thumbnail|example of art that is influenced]
But that really has nothing to do with the questions posed here which I still see as a request that editing to Aesthetic Realism be handled as a "special case", and I continue to maintain that the best way to solve the problem is to instead use the policies and guidelines that are available to every other article on WP. For the main reason being that most readers and editors especially have no idea that an article has "special rules".TeeVeeed (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who requested another volunteer but it wasn't me. I think you've been a great help already. My experience is that it always helps editors deeply involved in an article to have an objective 3rd party neutral view. Your ideas above are intriguing and I am definitely interested in working to have this article the best it can be. Meanwhile, we seem to be making progress now on agreement as to some minor issues on the existing article, and hopefully this will continue. I don't think this article should be treated as a "special case"--can we have some clarification on this page from anyone who thinks it should be? Trouver (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you to everyone who has answered questions and contributed to the DRN. To clarify, and I hope that this is not taken to be intended as insulting in any way, but it was an attempt to define and make short-hand of the problem, I am the one who attributed the term, "special case" to apply to the way that the article has been historically edited, and which is currently being suggested to continue. What I mean by, "special case", is that instead-of following the expected and usual WP policy of editing, bold-editing...followed by any problems being discussed on the article talk page, that it be done in a "reverse" manner where suggested edits are 1st requested on the talk page, even though no protections are "officially", (and visibly), in place. Since a page protection is the only way that I am aware-of that most editors are familiar with, if the consensus were to be to want to use this, "talk first then edit" rule, I tried to boil it down to basically a question of, "special case" vs page protection, with the warning that, "special case" is a problem since it would be impossible for most people to know about the "special case" status until after they had made good faith article edits.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing this discussion, including my own comments, I realize I had assumed the practice of "talk first then edit" was Wikipedia etiquette, probably just from the habit of doing it for so long on this article, but now I realize that it is not the "rule" and I am not asking for special treatment. My big objection is when insulting comments about editors appear on the talk page. As you can see from other Wikipedia articles, there are many living professionals who study, write about, and value this philosophy, (not to mention that the President of the City College of New York quoted from one of the major texts of its founder, Eli Siegel, in his commencement address in 2003) and the careless way accusations of "cult" are thrown around is not only inaccurate but dangerous. Trouver (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That is one reason why I think that the foundation should have its own page. Again, no offense or personal meaning at all should be taken from, "special case", as it is very clear that the past consensus was to treat the article as such. New editors coming in and adding something about, "a cult", or other potentially contentious material to the article, probably isn't as big of an ongoing problem as some may think it is, since if mention is already in the article, and it is, (maybe unduly weighted imo), but currently there are only so many available citations and references to those claims and since it is a part of the article, even if every reliable source that could be found were to be included, (there is something on Rip-Off Report.com if that is even credible that could potentially be added), the current available sources are almost exhausted.
As far as personal insults on the talk page where editors are concerned, I think that part of the problem starts where a good faith editor trying to improve the article runs into complaints for not following "special rules". Resolving that situation could solve that immediately.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, it was not me who asked for another volunteer. I think you've delineated the central problems. Your suggested reorganization thrills me although I don't think it's possible at this time. I agree that the controversial things are clearly present--even in the lead. The matter of homosexuality changing stirs up a lot, despite the fact that it hasn't been discussed at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation for over 20 years; other editors were insistent that this be present in detail. I would like to see if we can get the article stabilized again before requesting page protection--maybe it won't be necessary. LoreMariano (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well maybe I misunderstood about being "fired" as volunteer-maybe it is earwig bot or my own mistakes that had me wondering, OK I'm staying with this dispute unless there is a major complaint. -I've come to notice that some articles and arguments may be ongoing on WP, but the way that things are handled tends to change. Although "talk first, get consensus, then edit", seems to have worked for this article and its editors, the tools that WP give editors and admin. do not back that up.
Getting back to the original complaint of a multiple edit, with some items possibly being contentious, and some or most being helpful contributions, in this case, even though it may be easier to roll-back the page to an earlier version, I don't think that is really being fair to the article's users, because you would be putting back errors.
Wikipedia does have policy in place to dispute edits after the edits are made. In the case of the multiple edits, there are two correct options that I see: 1-More editing but not in the form of a reversal that would include errors. and then if a dispute arises, 2-Discussing it on the article talk page. If there is an unsolvable dispute on the talk page, it can then be escalated.
If there are multiple disputes or a general point-of-view, (POV) dispute, continuing to hash it out on the talk page would probably be the best way to handle that, since it appears that no one is currently in favor of protecting the article at this time.
Although Wikipedia has the luxury of being an encyclopedia, and not restricted to providing a simple definition, this article still confuses me because a great deal of the content speaks about the AR Foundation and its founder. The disputes involved with the article reflect that. Even the dispute involving use of the term "euthanasia", could be avoided for this article, if the essay The Equality of Man were treated as a unique article, or at least covered in the author's or foundation's article. On the allegation of being a cult, and documenting the controversy and past activities per:"curing homosexuality", again, that points to the history of the founder and the foundation. So the question there is, does Aesthetic Realism exist without the AR Foundation? The way that the article currently appears most definitely says "No."-to that question, primarily because of the image placement, (AR HQ in upper right corner). But also because of the article length. I don't know enough about it to answer the question, so I'll have to go with the facts that many editors with differing opinions, including experts on the topic, have agreed on the article so far. The fact that the Foundation exists, and that there has been controversy and history, should probably be included in an article about AR- but further explanation of all of it, is at the expense of the main topic in my opinion. It is not clear whether the non-separation between AR and the Foundation, is intentional or not, if the foundation, "is" AR. If the answer to that is "yes"-then it would make sense, but currently that is only implied by the article. So, that explains my confusion and opinion with the article.
Even though I said that I am not interested in re-doing the article, that is because I do not have the skills. If everyone here can agree to take any current disputes back to the talk page, I would be very interested in watching further progress with the article(s), and I am considering the personal idea of trying to use the topic while I develop more skills on WP in article creation or re-writing, (don't worry I would discuss any proposed bold changes on the talk page;)).

So the question for everyone here is, Would everyone agree to take this/these complaint(s) back to the article talk page at this time? And what to do about "special case" editing for this article? And by that I mean, is there a subset of editors who want to continue to discuss on the talk page before editing, and is it too much to ask that any random or new editors to this particular page, follow this policy once they become aware of it? Maybe it could be handled like the Mormon Baptism for the dead, where once an editor is enlightened to the traditional page-editing process, they have a choice? There is nothing to prevent an editor from asking for opinions on the talk page before they make an edit, so that is every editor's choice. If an editor chooses to do that, and that edit is disputed or changed after it is posted on the article, that dispute could then be had on the talk page.
Unless there are any individually specific disputes, such-as which edit version should prevail in the article, I think that's about all that we can do here for the article and the dispute at this time.

The most sensitive aspect of this article regards homosexuality, and I am just posting here what I have posted on the Talk Page and on the page of FreeKnowledgeCreator concerning his resent change:

FreeKnowledge, what might seem a minor change to you might not seem minor to other editors in this very sensitive section. For example, the parenthetical passage you have removed("he was no longer impelled towards men") might seem redundant, but emphasizes the fact that the change being described was not simply a change in behavior but a change in physical response. This is the most contentious aspect of the article, and it concerns living persons. I'm not going to revert but will wait for other editors to weigh in, and unlike my change regarding eugenics above (which nobody seems to care about), I think there will be comments on this change. For myself, although I am not one of those personally involved, I think the deleted parenthetical passage clarifies the nature of the change and therefore should be reverted. Trouver (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I must emphasize that this section was written under the guidance of an Admin just because it was so contentious and the final language (which, again, might seem redundant to you) was the result. It is supported, of course, by reliable citations.Trouver (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

With all respect to Wikipedia's much harassed administrators, "written under the guidance of an Admin" does not automatically mean the same thing as "good writing." The fact of the matter is that the homosexuality section is poorly written and tendentious. I've stated some of my objections to it on the talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Aside from what I've said about too much of the controversy and foundation/member history being included in this article, from a WP point of view, that particular quote would be a "keeper" for me too for 3 reasons. 1) It is a quote and it is correctly cited as far as I can tell. 2) Recommending that material be moved does not mean that it is not valuable and this article's "homosexual" information has already been tagged on the talk page as being of interest to a wider (LGBT) project on WP. 3) The whole topic of "curing sexual orientation", is an important topic and deleting reference material concerning that topic probably should not be done unless it is contained elsewhere on WP. See: Lou Reed

"bisexuality; he wrote about the experience in his 1974 song, "Kill Your Sons." In an interview, Reed said of the experience: "They put the thing down your throat so you don't swallow your tongue, and they put electrodes on your head. That's what was recommended in Rockland County to discourage homosexual feelings. The effect is that you lose your memory and become a vegetable. You can't read a book because you get to page 17 and have to go right back to page one again." —Lou Reed quoted in Please Kill Me (1996)"

notice how the quote is set-aside and in the article it is placed in the middle of the page, (Early Years), and yes, as a reader, when I came-upon this information I appreciated learning about this from WP.

From the entire section Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality, if anything is to be deleted, it should not be quotes or facts.
I was the one who deleted the definition of eugenics from the article. It was not necessary since eugenics is a topic that is covered elsewhere. The dispute involving "they/he did not call it eugenics"-when The Equality of Man (1923)essay was written, makes sense but the proposed deletion of, :"Siegel criticized writers who were promoting eugenics" in favor of: "the present common feeling that men are unequal" takes away from the meaning of the fact that Siegel had responded to the rise of eugenics-based viewpoints in 1923. The sentence change there, although factually correct, dilutes the historical significance and context that the 1st sentence correctly presents.
In the section titled: Criticism and response, the last section of the article, the following sentence is hard to read and I'm pretty sure grammatically incorrect:

"Some former and current students of the philosophy have responded in a website titled "Countering the Lies," saying that the technique of the persons who want to discredit Aesthetic Realism is "1) to find out what characteristics a cult is supposed to have and, 2) then say Aesthetic Realsim has them (though of course it doesn't)."

-(and it has a spelling error). I tried to fix that in the article, but it was reverted, and as DRN volunteer I think that I should keep my hands off editing for now, but I'm surprised that editors are choosing to go-after the hard-fought facts and points contained in the article, instead-of the parts that are begging to be repaired.

You say that "facts" should not be removed. What I removed was not a "fact" but a piece of tendentious, confused writing. I removed it because I considered its removal necessary to improve the section. I'm happy to explain my position at this at length on the appropriate talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Have to be away a few days, but will reflect on everything said above. Trouver (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "impelled" statement? Because when I say "fact", I am including a properly cited quote, and that was exactly what I meant by "fact"-there? Or was it something else? Much of the article appears tendentious and confusing, I agree about that, but some of the compromises that are there do appear to be there for a good reason after careful consideration.TeeVeeed (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved party, the issue here is not content ("a" vs. "the"), problem here is control, who gets to edit the page and how edits "must" be done.

I think it is unreasonable to expect every editor who happens to come across a Wikipedia article to read an entire editing history before making good-faith edits. I'm weird in that I like to go to Talk Pages and see what the debates are all about but I think I'm unusual in doing that. Especially when you are talking about edits for typos, grammar changes, awkward sentence structure, etc., no one is going to do research before they "right" the "wrongs" they see.

I understand that there were painful disputes regarding this particular article where consensus was hard-won. But unless the page is protected, ANYONE can edit ANY article, even ones that are near and dear to your heart. No Wikipedia article is written in stone, forever in a state of permanency. Even the most brilliant articles are subject to revision, it's just the Wikipedia way.

I have encountered Wikipedia Pages where zealous editors have staked their claim and revert any and all changes that are made to it. That is annoying as all hell, but I'm not sure how that can be prevented. But here you have actually charged another user with disruptive editing because she/he didn't clear each edit with you first! As long as they were well-intentioned (and we should assume good faith), this is futile because no editor can prevent another editor from making changes on an unprotected page in the future. If it's not this user this week, it'll be another user at another point in time.

Are you going to charge every user who makes an unapproved edit with disruptive editing? If yes, then this problem will keep reoccurring. And I think the problem isn't with a casual editor who makes a well-intentioned edit, it's with the regular editors having ownership issues that, while understandable, are also unwarranted. This article, like every unprotected article, is not any one person's (or group of persons) property. You can still be a good steward and let go of trying to control every edit that is made on a page. It's not easy but it's necessary. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC

Nope, aside from some type of page-protections, it really can not be done. And I don't even know if I like the old-style way, since if someone misses a talk page discussion, they could be hemmed-in by someone saying that they had the chance to debate or dispute a change before it went into the article.

Really, I think that the article can be edited with the normal tools available. Is every single change going to be contentious? Maybe. Especially since much of the article was painstakingly worked-over. So if one editor comes by and changes something, it can be boldly undone, with an explanation in the summary or talk page if another editor objects. Once something is boldly undone, it probably should be talked about in detail on the talk page to avoid editing wars. There is ownership, but at least it is an ownership of all sides from what i can tell-not just one point of view, so it isn't a one-sided type of ownership or blocking, more of it seems editors not wanting to hammer out the same items repeatedly, and an understanding of what is lost with certain deletions. What does everyone think about trying to work with the current tools that WP has available, taking care to take individual disputes to the talk page, (after edits are made to the article)- to avoid 3RR/warring? The original complaint involved numerous changes, so that complicated things. What does everyone think about taking it one thing at a time, with the idea that "anyone can edit"?
I forgot to log-in but this is from the volunteer teeVeed24.0.133.234 (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This seems right to me. LoreMariano (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as any good-faith edit is not seen as a reportable offense, that sounds good to me. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I gave a full explanation for removing "he was no longer impelled toward men" on the talk page of the article, and I stand by that explanation. I refer anyone interested to the talk page. The article clearly needs to be rewritten, but unfortunately an editor is current arguing for keeping the article written in Aesthetic Realistic jargon. This is impeding progress at the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN process question: I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. The volunteer who was handling this case has not posted here in the last week, nor has there been any other edit within the last 3 days. Reading through this discussion makes me feel that it really ought to be happening back at the article talk page rather than here. If this listing had not been made part of DRN's now-failed subpage experiment it would, beginning today, be subject to being automatically archived unless at least one edit was made to it every 24 hours. Therefore, unless someone very strenuously objects, I or another editor will close this after 20:00 UTC tomorrow July 30, 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I very strenuously object to the closing of this discussion. The normal process of discussion at the article's talk page doesn't seem to be enough to solve the problems at Aesthetic Realism. A great deal of disruptive and tendentious editing is occurring there, and the larger Wikipedia community needs to be aware of this. It's not constructive to close this discussion when other steps have not been taken to bring attention to the issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to discuss fixing the article here, but I do want to say that I support FreeKnowledgeCreator's edits to the articles as well as his/her ideas about the process. FKC appears to be an experienced and fair WP editor, which is exactly what the article needs. MichaelBluejay (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the volunteer in question seems to have posted on the 25th, that is, four days ago, albeit as an ip. If you have suggestions as to other forums that can address conflict-of-interest editing and ownership of articles, they would be happily accepted. Suggestions on how to attract disinterested parties to the editing of the article in question would also be helpful. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. I have been here but I am having trouble logging in and also my contributions are disappearing from my logs so I have to manually search for this topic. I don't even know if I would be able to close the discussion at this point because my log-list only shows me as being here for a few days and other log-in probs. FreeKnowledgeCreator---I understand what you are saying about a question of bias and jargon. That is really confusing for readers! But that may be a whole other issue? Unless there is anything else that can be done here, I will attempt to CLOSE this DRN sometime in the next two days. If you guys really want to dispute every little thing, you may have to bring them as individual issues. There are a lot of unanswered questions about the article, and the topic, but this started-out as a question about article protection from the way that I saw it, and/or edit first talk later or the traditional, (for the Aesthetic Realism article) talk 1st, then edit. I think that this long discussion has invited the attention of more uninvolved editors which can only help the situation and i think that a completely COI-free edit could really help improve the article.Housewifehader (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Added-I just visited the article and there have been substantial changes made to it. Since there are no sub-pages, such as :Aesthetic Realism Foundation, which is something that I strongly recommend, all of the info. is attached to the article. Although I do not think that particular individual items can be dealt with on this DRN, at this point, I do think that it would be worthwhile to fully dispute the cult question, with question like maybe should there be a new page created for Aesthetic Realism Foundation Cult Controversy? Or on the foundation itself as I've said with a more balanced and in-depth explanation from both/all sides. The latest edit has eliminated a link to a site that has info. about AR being a "cult".-And moved the cult-allegation to a nonsensical paragraph at the bottom of the article, not only out of the lede-which is prob a good thing, but there is no distinct arrangement or "controversy" section, which the topic of the foundation deserves in my opinion. The article now is less balanced then when this DRN started! The fact that the foundation has reserved an extensive section on their own website to answer those who call them a cult, reveals that this is a serious issue involving the foundation. I also object that the link that was deleted, was referred-to as "self-promoting". Again in this case, many of the page editors have a COI when it comes to that question, and if I were not the volunteer here, as a random editor I would be itching to re-apply that link to the article. The info. there was very enlightening and helpful in understanding the problems that, (again the foundation--see why I think they need their own article?) AR has.Housewifehader (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Process update: Now this is moving again, I've withdrawn my proposed closing. I note that Housewifehader is attempting to wrap this up, which is in her discretion to do or not do as the lead volunteer on this case, but let me note that this case is extending past its life expectancy for a DRN case. The philosophy here is that when a case takes this long, it's probably more than DRN can handle and either needs to go back to the article talk page or move on to mediation or an RFC. If this discussion stops for more than 24 hours, it's likely to be closed without additional warning. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

OK everyone, now that I have looked at how to close this, it has come to my attention that DRNs are designed mainly for matters of content not editing behavior, so I am going to close this out as a "procedural" close rather than say that it failed or was resolved. I do not think that we failed on the initial question and I appreciate all of the efforts that were made here. In moving forward with problems on the page, please keep in mind that questions about editing behavior will be better helped at Requests for comment, while individual content disputes would be fine right here. Thank-you everyone who participated and best wishes on improving the article.Housewifehader (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this was successful in at least one aspect: answering the question of whether prior permission to edit the article should be required with a resounding no. The conflict of interest problem is, as I thought, beyond the ability of anyone here to solve. As to having a separate article for the foundation, I think that unnecessary: without the foundation, there would be no one involved with the philosophy, so they are essentially identical entities. - Outerlimits (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Housewifehader for your help. LoreMariano (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2013 (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.

Canada

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by JackCommons.

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.

17 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Canada (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

In the article on "Canada" under Section 7 titled "Culture," 'strict gun control' is listed and considered a Canadian cultural value. I and many others believe this is a false statement and politically motivated. An issue that is both modern and controversial cannot be held as a cultural value and should be removed from the article. The parties that disagree continue to demand their references be re-read, while ignoring provided references that disagree with their opinions. The conversation is going in circles.

The article is also protected making it difficult to edit without agreement.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Only discussion in the Talk area of the article.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully, by providing a fair and objective analysis of the references and facts provided in the Talk section (Talk:Canada 'Culture section and strict gun control'). A decision needs to be made on whether gun control is or is not a Canadian cultural value.

Opening comments by Moxy

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

All is sourced. Out of the 196 countries in the world today - Canada does have strick gun control...some countries have stronger controls but overall Canada does have though controls ,,,as sourced .see Talk:Culture of Canada#Gun control. Moxy (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Mccomber

The point in the article that Canada holds "strict gun control" as a cultural value was only referenced by one source. Having read that source I don't believe it backs up the "cultural value" claim. Further I provided several sources to the contrary. Whether or not Canada's gun control laws are "strict" was also argued with the "strict" side only comparing Canada to the US while I and others argued it is not so strict compared to many other western nations. However, whether Canada's current gun control is strict or not is not the issue of the talking point. The issue remains is "strict gun control" a Canadian cultural value or a political issue. To that point the argument comes down to the article author's one reference versus my four, and I don't just mean 1 vs 4 but the quality of the references as well. To be blunt, this reference ^[1] on that point is very weak. In that reference gun control is only mentioned in passing in a chapter on health care. Here is that passage:

Canadians are often confused with Americans when they travel the world, and the two countries have far more similarities than differences. But if there is one difference that Canadians cherish, it is the two countries' approaches to health care. It is not an exaggeration to say that, with the possible exceptions of gun control and foreign policy, no issue differentiates the social philosophies of Canada and the United States the way health care does.

Mccomber (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Walter Görlitz

It's my understanding that in relation to our southern neighbours, our gun laws are very restrictive, however it may be that it's not as restrictive as in other nations. I think that the section should be addressed in neutral, referenced terms. Since I don't have either, I will recuse myself from this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Max Freddy

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Dbrodbeck

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Taroaldo

NOTE: I have been busy and could not begin to work on my comments until today. Since this section has already been closed, I will look back at the article's talk page. I will say that I am surprised this dispute is still ongoing. Taroaldo ✉ 03:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by The Four Deuces

The article does not say "'strict gun control' is...considered a Canadian cultural value". It says, "Government policies such as publicly funded health care, higher taxation to redistribute wealth, the outlawing of capital punishment, strong efforts to eliminate poverty, strict gun control, and the legalization of same-sex marriage are further social indicators of Canada's political and cultural values." Presumably the value is "order."

By comparison, while most Canadian provinces once had prohibition, it was an indicator of the Protestant value of temperance, not a value in itself.

I recommend this application for DR be rejected, because there is little support for JackCommons' position.

TFD (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Canada discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Comment (perhaps a quick wrap-up): Is there any reason why we cant drop "gun control" completely or rewrite that sentence. Canada having strict gun control is only true from certain POVs. Its also meaningless anyway, its like saying Germany has "lax speed control" (because of the Autobahns), and this is indicative of of Germany's political and cultural values. -- Nbound

Nbound: I agree and also believe simply removing "gun control" would be the best and easiest solution.- Jack Commons.

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.

Salvatore J. Cordileone

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Elizium23.

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.

19 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Salvatore J. Cordileone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Regarding the appointment of Catholic bishops and archbishops to dioceses. Canon law says that they do not obtain the powers of governance until they are installed. Many editors are coming in, upon the announcement of a new appointment, and add information in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. For example, Cordileone was bishop of Oakland until he was installed in San Francisco, but his article immediately said he was archbishop of San Francisco upon his appointment. Articles for the corresponding "old" diocese are immediately changed to Sede vacante while these bishops remain in control. Articles for the corresponding "new" diocese are immediately changed to the new leadership when they are in fact typically "sede vacante" upon the acceptance of the emeritus bishop's resignation.

This dispute is still going on, at Talk:Bishop of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise, and is somewhat intractable because there are many, many editors involved: many IPs and others come in to edit their own diocesan article and local bishop bio. I attempted central discussion of this on the Catholicism WikiProject but got little response.

This is a perennial, chronic problem which crops up every few weeks as the Holy See issues appointment notices and it festers on a few articles for a few weeks or months and then the problem goes away when the bishop is installed.

Part of the problem is an over-reliance by editors on the unreliable source catholic-hierarchy.org, which is user-generated content with a single site admin who does all the work and no reputation for editorial oversight: i.e., not WP:RS.

More of the affected articles, those which received discussion, are listed below. A list of all affected articles is large; there have been scores of episcopal appointments in the two years since Charles J. Chaput sparked this realization that perhaps we should wait before updating infoboxes and the like. A full list of all affected articles is Category:Catholic bishops plus List of Roman Catholic dioceses (alphabetical); eventually, every one will undergo a new appointment from Rome and be affected by WP:CRYSTAL violations.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Exhaustive discussion in all sorts of places:

How do you think we can help?

Please achieve a consensus of the facts based on reliable sources and reflecting current Catholic practice. Canon Law has not always been this way, but this is the current situation and it can be respected and accommodated while staying within Wikipedia policy. The incorrect updates are threatening the integrity and factual accuracy of Wikipedia and a violation of the policy Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.

Opening comments by Scrivener-uki

I don't know why I am involved in dispute with the Salvatore J. Cordileone article since I've never made any edits to that page. I very rarely edit United States Catholic bishop/archbishop articles, I am mainly involved with United Kingdom and Ireland bishop/archbishop articles.
I do have dispute with Elizium23 who removes current appointees from lists/tables of bishops/archbishops because he/her believes they should not be listed until they have been consecrated and installed. I do not dispute that those current appointees have not yet taken control of their dioceses, but I do dispute that they are being removed until they are do take control. There are many people in the past who have been appointed/elected/nominated/etc but for one reason or another were unsuccessful taking control of their dioceses, yet they are listed in the various lists/tables of bishops/archbishops. If people in the past are listed, then there is no reason why current appointees shouldn't be listed, so long it is made clear they haven't yet been consecrated and installed. I suggest the names of those current appointees should be in italics, and only when they are consecrated and installed that they be put in bold.
Two publications Handbook of British Chronology (ISBN 0-521-56350-X) and Maps, Genealogies, Lists: A Companion to Irish History, Part II (ISBN 0-19-821745-5) lists not just successful candidates but also unsuccessful ones. If those publications are listing them, then surely Wikipedia should do the same?
However, if it is decided that current appointees should not be listed until take control, it would effectively mean that any unsuccessful ones in the past would have also have to be removed, leaving only successful ones left. Scrivener-uki (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Since this DR/N has been reopened and further has been added above, I've added further comments of my own.
Number 1 of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." An appointment of someone to an Episcopal see is notable and almost certain to take place. Unlike political offices, which have two or more candidates and have to stand for election, ecclesiastical offices have only one candidate who has already been appointed. Baring very rare unforseen circumstances those appointees formally take control of their ecclesiastical office once they have been consecrated and installed.
In addition to the two publications I've mentioned, there is a website British History Online: Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae which records of bishops and higher clergy for the dioceses of England and Wales from 1066 to 1857. That website lists not just successful ones but also unsuccessful ones. So if those publications and that website can list unsuccessful candidates, then there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't list current appointees. Scrivener-uki (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Salvatore J. Cordileone discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

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.

Jedi

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by LusoEditor.

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.

22 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Jedi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

As it can be seen here, user User:SudoGhost argues that this picture is violating WP:NFCC and that a cosplay picture from Commons would do just fine. However, I've justified the use of the picture on every policy criteria not only on its respective page but also on the discussion present in the talk page of the article 'Jedi'. Two users User:Aspects and User:EVula have entered the discussion supporting my argument. Since a consensus hasn't been reached, I come asking for a dispute resolution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Waited for the opinion of other users on the matter.

How do you think we can help?

This seems to be a matter of interpretation of a violation (or lack of, in my opinion) of non-free content criteria. I hope some clarification.

Opening comments by SudoGhost

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by EVula

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Aspects

I came across the image when I was checking through orphaned images. Since it was being discussed at the talk page, I put the image back into the article because I felt it should not be deleted just for being orphaned, but I was reverted. I agree with LusoEditor that it passes WP:NFCC#1, which was SudoGhost's first complaint, but I am not so sure it passes WP:NFCC#8 and wanted more discussion on the issue. The conversation started going in circles and then eventually stale, I suggested three time that the issue to Wikipedia:Files for deletion to get more opinions from editors with more NFCC experience, but that has not happened yet. Aspects (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by EEMIV

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Closing discussion initiated by volunteer Amadscientist

_{The following is not to be misunderstood as a discussion of the actual dispute, but whether the argument made by the initiating volunteer is sufficient to decline this filing and close with recommendations to the best venue.}

As a regular volunteer here at the DR/N I would like to mention something that may be relevant. Non Free content is generally handled at Wikipedia:Non-free content review and Wikipedia:Files for deletion. In general, the argument appears to be the criteria of NFCC.

NFCC#1:

No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)

and

NFCC#8:

Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

I would like to propose that this filing be closed as "Wrong venue" and suggest Wikipedia:Non free content review.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Jedi discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time. A volunteer will open this for discussion once all parties have made their opening statements. I'm posting this simply to procedurally note that I have added and notified three additional participants, two mentioned by the listing editor and one other who participated in the discussion at the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:41, 23 July 2013 (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.

Skyfall

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Nsign.

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.

26 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Skyfall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Nsign (talk · contribs)
SchroCat (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A few months ago a dispute arose on the 'Skyfall' article regarding the identification of a character within the plot section that gave a misleading impression of the narrative. A consensus was reached and mediated by an administrator that the plot section should reflect the narrative and the change was made. The discussions can be seen here: diff and diff.

The final decision was as follows:

"When weighing consensus on a closely divided issue like this one a critical factor is which poisition has the support of Wikipedia policies or common practices. Policy says Wikipedia contains spoilers so any comments that it was a spoiler are given less weight. Policy also says that generally an item should be linked the first time it is mentioned. However, there is a valid point made that common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film. The rest of the article is of course explicitly exempt from this. So, as amatter of policy we could use the characters full name and link it the first time the character is mentioned in the plot, but there is nothing saying we have to. It seems alterations were made to the article during the course of this discussion to try and reconcile the two options and that there are not any serious objections. It seems prudent to simply leave it at that and consider the current arrangement the "consensus version" of those aspects of the plot summary. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)"

The agreed change has been arbitrarily reverted and when I have changed it back, have been accused of "edit warring" by user SchroCat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Skyfall#Moneypenny.27s_name_-_revisited).

The objection is that to reveal the character's identity at the beginning of the plot section is a mischaracterization of the plot and a consensus was achieved via this November 2012 RFC to not reveal her identity, either directly or via wikilink, until the end of the plot section. In the eight months since that time, however, editors have on occasion inserted a link there in violation of the RFC decision and those insertions have remained in place for several weeks before being reverted. I assert that the RFC consensus still stands and a new consensus must be formed before reinserting the link and SchroCat asserts that the interim unchallenged changes created a new implied consensus for inclusion of the link.

The reasoning behind the RFC decision remains valid and I see no requirement to open a second discussion on this matter that would simply re-state old arguments when no new relevant material or evidence can be brought to bear here.

SchroCat's assertion that the information is a "spoiler" and was a reason advanced for its ommission is a straw man. This was not a factor in the consensus or the admin's decision which is why the identity of the character remains in the lead section prior to the plot description. Any reference made to "spoilers" is an attempt to deflect the argument. The objection and previous decision were, and are, based solely on the fact that it is a misrepresentation of the narrative.

I reject SchroCat's assertions that unchallenged changes (at least until they were noticed) represent a new "status quo" or a "de-facto" consensus. Consensus was reached and the reasoning remains valid unless there are new arguments that can convincingly rebut the reasons for the existing decision.

Additionally, SchroCat asserts that "the previous RfC was closed on the available information at the time. Subsequent to that decision, ‎DonQuixote has pointed out that neither the first or surname for the character are known until the final scene". This information was in fact available at the time - the film has not been edited since then. If therefore there is no reason to identify the character as Eve, there can be no reason to identify her as Eve Moneypenny, either.

He also asserts, "there seems no reason to withhold a surname until the end but have the first name up front - that's completely illogical. It's also farcical to have the first line of the plot as "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and an unnamed female operative...".

I would rebut this by pointing out the previous RFC: "There is a valid point made that common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film". Thus, to use the full name of the character at this point is a clear mischaracterization of the narrative as it implies the identity of the character has been revealed, when it fact it is explicitly and deliberately not revealed until the concluding moments of the narrative. SchroCat's opinion that it is "farcical" is purely his own opinion.

SchroCat quotes WP:FILMPLOT as follows: "Events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen". I would rebut this with the previous RFC decision which stated with reference to the misrepresentation of the narrative, "So, as a matter of policy we could use the characters full name and link it the first time the character is mentioned in the plot, but there is nothing saying we have to", because as stated, to do so in this instance is to misrepresent the narrative as told.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Previous discussion and consensus reached as above.

For the avoidance of doubt - the debate was not about "spoilers" and the decision was reached without any consideration of "spoilers". As can be clearly read, the decision was made because, "...common practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully, which would generally mean in the order and manner it is presented in the film". Nothing about "spoilers". That's a straw man and irrelevant to the discussion. Nsign (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

I request that this user be instructed that a consensus exists and a decision made. Without further consensus they are violating this decision without any justification or mandate, and should refrain from editing the section unless they can provide any reason not already covered.

Or just call her Eve. As previously agreed by consensus and RFC. Nsign (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by SchroCat

An RfC was opened in October 2012 when the film was recently released (although not in all territories). Much of the debate was around the complaints that having the name up front was a spoiler to the film, which has lessened now that the film has been out for some time. At that time—October 2012—a consensus was achieved from the RfC not to have the name up front. It is now eight months later and the consensus has changed. In March an IP editor altered the text to put the Moneypenny link at the top of the plot. Since then DonQuixote has reverted a change back to the previous version, as have I. With the Moneypenny name being present at the top over the last eight months, there is an implied consensus in having it where it currently is, despite the mild edit-warring of Nsign to try and force the change to his preferred version once again, and despite his comments that I "fart around with justifications" while discussing the matter on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree with the term "in violation of the RfC", but yes, an IP editor inserted the term (not "several weeks" ago but four months ago, on 19 March). The name has remained in the opening lines of the plot section since that date. In other words, it has spent as much time in the opening lines as the previous version did. The consensus that existed eight months ago has changed in the interim to what is now the new status quo, and as such is a de facto consensus.

On a related point, I'm not sure that DRN is the right way to address this point: there was scarcely much of a discussion before this was opened and an RfC would seem to have been the more sensible and appropriate course to take. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I should add that the previous RfC was closed on the information made clear at the time. Subsequent to that decision, ‎DonQuixote has pointed out that neither the first or surname for the character are know until the final scene. There seems no reason to withhold a surname until the end but have the first name up front - that's completely illogical. It's also farcical to have the first line of the plot as "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and an unnamed female operative...". As per WP:FILMPLOT, "events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen", to aid the reader, and this is the case with the status quo that is present on the page. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd also add that the talk page thread on this has confirmed that a consensus clearly has been formed that the current version is valid and preferred, with only Nsign preferring the old consensus. Most of those who have commented have pointed out how this is possible under the various policies and guidelines that we use for film plots. The previous RfC decision was based on erroneous information provided, and the closing summary that "practice is that plot summaries relate the narrative faithfully", is not strictly true. Most plot summaries on Wiki are not 100% faithful to the film narratives: they move names and information around to aid reader. This is exactly as per WP:FILMPLOT, which states "events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen. If necessary, reorder the film's events to improve understanding of the plot". This is exactly what we have in place at the moment: a very, very minor re-ordering to aid understanding and to avoid the frankly ridiculous and farcical alternative of having to refer to "In Istanbul, MI6 agents James Bond and an unnamed agent..." in opening line, "Bond arrives in time to join Mallory and the same unnamed female agent from the opening scenes..." partway through the plot and then finishing with "Following M's funeral, the previously unnamed female agent who we've seen twice already, introduces herself as...". Farcical indeed! - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not either "taking" or opening this for discussion at this time, but merely asking for a clarification. I've read through the opening material and am not at all certain that I understand the situation, so let me see if I can sum it up correctly: There is a character named Eve in the film who appears early on and who towards the end of the film is surprisingly revealed to be Miss Moneypenny. To reveal her identity at the beginning of the plot section was seen by some as a spoiler and/or a mischaracterization of the plot and a consensus was achieved via this November 2012 RFC to not reveal her identity, either directly or via wikilink, until the end of the plot section. In the eight months since that time, however, editors have on occasion inserted a link there in violation of the RFC decision and those insertions have remained in place for several weeks before being reverted. Nsign now asserts that the RFC consensus still stands and a new consensus must be formed before reinserting the link and SchroCat asserts that the interim unchallenged changes created a new implied consensus for inclusion of the link. Nsign recently countered that, nonetheless, the reasoning behind the RFC decision remains valid. Is that about the size of it? Please answer in your opening comments section, above, not here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: Please do not comment on one another's positions or discuss this matter, other than to answer my inquiry, until a volunteer opens this for general discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have amended my comments above as requested. Nsign (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, good enough to move on to the next step (and I'm still not opening this for general discussion or taking it, but still trying to just tee it up for the best possible response by a volunteer). It is clearly possible for intervening discussion or edits to set aside a previous consensus, so could the editors please provide the diffs of all changes to the article text in question between the end of the RFC and today? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The RfC closed at 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC). As far as I can see,

19:28, 19 March 2013 An IP editor moved away from the RfC version
23:23, 10 May 2013 It was tweaked to a halfway point (piped link, rather than unlinked)
06:06, 11 May 2013 I reverted
17:02, 11 May 2013 The same editor reverted to the halfway version
17:05, 11 May 2013 A third party reverted back to the current version
05:28, 23 June 2013 It was reverted back to the RfC version
06:04, 23 June 2013 I reverted
12:30, 26 July 2013‎ Nsign changed it today
12:34, 26 July 2013‎ I reverted back
12:50, 26 July 2013 Nsign again reverted back
12:51, 26 July 2013‎ I reverted back to the status quo

As far as I can see, this is the full history of that particular piece of text. I'm not a bot jockey, so I've had to do it manually and therefore I may have missed something. - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's see if a volunteer now picks this up. I thought that I would be able to do so myself, but now that I've looked into the history (thanks to SchroCat for the detail), I believe that the issue of whether the RFC consensus has been set aside by subsequent implied consensus is a very close question. Unfortunately, in looking at that issue I have come to some very strong personal opinions about the way this matter ought to come out and about the result reached in the RFC and I fear that those opinions may be tainting my opinion about how the implied consensus question ought to come out. In light of that, I must recuse myself from this matter in accordance with DRN rules. I'll post a note at the DRN talk page saying that and asking for another volunteer to take this up. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

OK - thank you for your honesty. Nsign (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering the issue I can't actually decide which side of the fence I come down on so would be willing to take on this case. Give me some time to fully read up all the supporting content surrounding the dispute and I'll try get back to this within 24 hours. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cabe. If you need any more info (from either of us) please let us know. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Nsign (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Can both editors link me a version of the article which contains the version that they'd like to see be the 'official' version please. Just one each. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat: prefered version
Nsign: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skyfall&oldid=565876336

The current version for me. This also appears to be the consensus according to the recent thread on the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Can I ask that, in general, when you refer to a thread or similar you provide a link, it makes finding exactly what you are referring to easier and avoid confusion/misunderstandings Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked to provide the link. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. Now we'll wait for Nsign Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Preferred version as per previous consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skyfall&oldid=565876336.

Schrocat asserts above that his preferred version "appears" to be the new consensus according to the thread referred to. This "consensus" consists of the support of users Dr. Blofeld, Betty Logan, DonQuixote, Cassianto and SonOfThornhill. I'd point out that the consensus reached via RFC is supported by users Charlr6, SilverSeren, BletheringScot, A wild Rattata, edbrims, 331dot, MisterShiney, a further 4 IP editors and administrator beeblebrox who made the final decision, unless they have since changed their minds. We could always ask them again, but it seems farcical if we need to do this every couple of months when someone changes it back and asserts the existence of a new "implied consensus" or a "de facto status quo" (if these are indeed defined Wikipedia policies). Nsign (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Nsign, consensus can change especially when dealing with things that are time-sensitive. What was important at one point may be different in the future. Also, 'implied consensus' is a policy: WP:EDITCONSENSUS states "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus" If Schrocat wants to launch another RfC to determine if consensus has changed then he's perfectly entitled to. I ask you both: If an RfC was to take place would you respect the outcome regardless of which way it comes down? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I would, but my preference would be to just have a ruling on it, rather than another discussion which will simply be re-stating old arguments. The consensus was, in fairness, not unanimous, and the change was made due to admin making a decision. I can't see how this coming out any differently so ultimately would it not be a waste of time when admin will probably end up deciding anyway? Nsign (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

At DRN we are volunteers and have no authority over the articles or users which come to the board. The best we can do is mediate an agreement between the editors and try to come to an agreement. If you both agree to have an RfC then feel free to list it. I could make a 'ruling' on this dispute but it'd just be my opinion and wouldn't carry any more weight that yours or any other editor. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So am I right in concluding that, in your opinion, the edits made were in fact not in violation of the RFC and that a new consensus does in fact exist, and that in order to reinstate the version agreed by RFC I must open a new RFC? The recused volunteer described it as a "very close question" and I'd prefer some clarity on that before we think about a new RFC. I suspect a new RFC would simply be a repeat of the old one and if I'm completely honest, I'm not sure I have the time or the willpower to go there again. Nsign (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Not quite, I'm saying that the edits are valid and go a ways to establishing a consensus however, silent consensus is the weakest consensus. Think of it like a challenge to the current consensus. It's gain enough weight that it can't simply just be dismissed but, at the same time, it can't become the new de-facto consensus. Instead of debating which consensus is the valid one (consensus on which consensus?) we simply throw away both previous consensuses and establish a brand new one based on current information available. I.e. instead of chipping away at the current ones to make it fit, lets bin them and start fresh Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. However...(wait, come back!) does this not set a precedent whereby once a consensus is established via RFC, it can be freely violated and even though, as you say, the edits cannot become the new de-facto consensus, we simply hold another RFC and repeat the exercise? Sorry, I know I'm being a pain :) Nsign (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Also - the edits as outlined above were done without discussion and when editors tried to move back to the consensus version, were simply reverted, as was I until I raised it on the talk page. Nsign (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

An RfC is an informal procedure, it's not binding. Its similar to a straw poll in that it guages the general consensus of the community at that time to help resolve a dispute. Even MedCom isn't binding. See this image:

You don't 'have' to do an RfC, you could agree between yourselves on a compromise but it seems both of you are standing by your stances. An RfC is asking the community to decide for you and only works if you respect that process Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree but I'd argue that the process wasn't respected, which is why we are here. "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". Well, the edits were disputed but attempts to move back to the consensus version were simply reverted.

I realise this may be pedantic but I can't see a valid reason for simply "binning" the existing RFC. Nsign (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they weren't discussed. That boat has sailed I'm afraid. If they were discussed appropriately at the time then perhaps we wouldn't be here but they weren't. As such we treat things as they are now not how they were or potential could be. This goes back to my comment on lets throw it all away and start fresh rather than looking back. Both of you have agreed to have an RfC to resolve the issue, I'll leave this open for further comments for a short period but I expect to be closing it within 24 hours Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with the method of simply repeating the whole process as a means of resolving this. However your point that if discussion had taken place at the time we wouldn't be here is well taken. It was remiss of myself and the other editors who supported my position not to watch the article following the RFC to ensure it wasn't violated and this is the result. I'll therefore accede to another RFC. Nsign (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Nsign, It's not about "violating" an RfC. An RfC does not mean that something is set in stone which cannot be changed except by way of further RfC - we'd have ground to a halt a long time ago if that were the case. Things change, the word moves on and circumstances that were previously applied are different now and will be different later. That's the way of the world and that's why no article is ever deemed to be "perfect" or "finished". I'll open the RfC now, as we are both in agreement that is the appropriate course. - SchroCat (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. It was violated and those who tried to fix it were simply reverted without discussion. The circumstances behind the logic of the decision have not changed since the RFC. And I don't agree that a new RFC is the appropriate course but it has been presented to me as the only option. Nsign (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. I have opened the RfC on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2013 (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.

Gospel of the Ebionites

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ignocrates.

28 July 2013

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Gospel of the Ebionites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Ignocrates (talk · contribs)
John Carter (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A dispute over content has been dragging on for several weeks on the article talk page. A section of the article is now tagged with a NPOV-tag despite a previous good-faith effort to meet the editor's objections over weight. The disputing editor has so far refused to respond to requests for specific solutions to resolve the dispute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the article talk page has been tried, including input from two uninvolved editors and an informal mediator. The same editor requested a FAR which has been in progress for about a week. A WP:3O by a third uninvolved editor has also now been tried.

How do you think we can help?

The oversight of an outside party is requested to facilitate the discussion.

Opening comments by John Carter

There is a serious question here regarding whether among other things Ovadyah/Ignocrates, whose history of contributions reveals that he is virtually an SPA regarding early Ebionitism, who has himself admitted to engaging in e-mails to the leader of a completely non-notable minor religious group, the Ebionite Jewish Community/Ebionite Community, regarding content relating to the historically significant group and notable group of early Ebionites. However, although there are other non-notable groups which claim to be restorations of the early Ebionites, there is no clear evidence that they were ever contacted. That editor has also been described by an IP editor claiming to be the leader of that group as someone who left that group, for unspecified reasons, but who still apparently thinks that it should be notified of developments to related articles here. There are I believe very real and serious questions about whether an editor with Ovadyah/Ignocrates' history is really a good choice to develop, or even have much input in, our content related to that historically significant precursor to the non-notable "revival" group. Personally, I believe at this point, given the other behavioral issues that this individual has exhibited over the years, that Arbitration is the best option to seek here, and am in the process of preparing an evidence page of documentation to submit to that body before filing the official request for opening a case on this matter. I believe that is probably the most direct way of dealing with this situation. The evidence page, FWIW, can be found at User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

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.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by GreekParadise.

26 July 2013

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

From 1939-2008, US courts held that the Second Amendment protects bearing arms in a militia but was not an individual right. Two Supreme Court cases, dozens of appellate cases, the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, and hundreds of articles (including a good report in the New York Times) from 1939 to today back up that that was indeed the law at that time.

In 2008, in the landmark Heller decision, the US Supreme Court changed the then-prevailing legal interpretation of the Miller case of 1939 and held that the right to bear arms was an individual right unconnected to service in a militia. A 5-4 opinion written by Scalia in 2008 said they were clarifying but not actually changing the law and the earlier cases were wrongly decided. Four dissenting justices disagreed and would have maintained prior law.

CRUX OF DISPUTE: Should we (A) state the law as it existed from 1939-2008 and cite the post-2008 law as well? Or (B) should we ignore all prior law that conflicts with current law?

Some editors claim there is no need to mention the prior interpretation of law because, they say, the law as it existed in 2008 IS the same as the law as it existed from 1939 to 2008 because, citing Scalia, the earlier cases were "wrongly decided". They have therefore deleted all reliable sources from 1939-2008 that describe the law as it existed pre-Heller.

Other editors believe both pre-Heller and post-Heller views should be in the article (including the Heller view that the pre-Heller cases were wrongly decided). This would be similar to the article on Brown v. Board of Education, which mentions prior law (Plessy v. Ferguson) even though saying earlier law was wrongly decided.

Some also want to quote from an article in the NYT that states how activists managed to change the legal interpretation from "militia" to "individual" in the late 20th Century.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There's been detailed discussion on the talk page that has gone on for pages and pages since I've been involved in January. Probably hundreds of thousands of words and sharp disputes. Interestingly, if you check the archive, you can see a version of this question (how to describe the "militia v. individual view") has been argued over for 35 archived pages dating back 5 years, often with many of the same editors.

How do you think we can help?

If you can answer the fundamental question of whether to include the law as it actually existed from 1939 to 2008, this will solve the primary problem. Half of us believe all prior law should be included. The other half believe only this 70-year period of law should be excluded from the article or de-emphasized.

Secondly, can a relevant quote from a clearly reliable source be removed if an editor says "it isn't true"? I believe we should show both sides of a controversy rather than just delete

Opening comments by North8000

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

The opening statement is a complete mis-representation of the situation. Ironically, I think that everybody already agrees on the answer to the question that is defined as the "Crux of the dispute" and in fact such is already implemented in the article The fallacy is pretending that it hasn't, and pretending that the "law" during that period is what GreekParadise wishes it was rather than what it actually was. If there is some evidence that there would be a genuine discussion of the question, (including a more factual and specific rewrite of the opening statement and dispute) I would participate. Otherwise not. There is a long list of things that GreekParadise has done at eh article and talk page that are badly out of line, to put it mildly; Grahamboat's, SMP0328's & Gaijin42's comments are accurate. North8000 (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Grahamboat

GreekParadise’s opening is full of half-facts. He claims half of contributors support his views when in fact, since March, he is the only one pushing a dispute – we reached a consensus on this issue back in March 2013. He failed to include many active editors in this dispute. GreekPardise is trying to synthesize that the 2A only protected a firearm right in conjunction with a militia from 1939 to 2008. He wants to use the scant number of lower court cases to prove his point. The problem with that strategy is none of those cases dealt with individual vs collective firearms rights but rather they dealt with restrictions on those rights. Even Miller did not deal with that issue. His latest example, United States v. Lewis, he wants to quote from a footnote dictum taken out of context in a case that had nothing to do with the 2A. His claim that the law of the land was dictated by these few cases does not hold water.

GreekParadise has been difficult to work with as he has vandalized the article HERE , accused his fellow editors being unscrupulous, charlatans, and pushing NRA-POV HERE . He dumps 10 K rants that are difficult to follow and turn out to be just rehashes of material already discussed. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus – I believe we have reached a consensus here. GP is the only one holding out. No matter what happens he is unlikely to agree with any of us and will probably reappear at a later time with a rehash of the same old: as he has in the past. I recommend we wait a few days for others to respond: then close the dr. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I am declaring a de facto consensus. Thanks for your guidance TransportorMan. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by SMP0328.

GreekParadise uses hyperbole and ad hominem attacks in an effort to intimidate editors in to allowing him to convert the article into being a reflection of his POV regarding the Second Amendment. I'm sure he can offer improvements to the article. A few months ago he wanted a reference to pre-Heller Court of Appeals decisions to be added to the article. A consensus was reached allowing for that addition via a reference to such decisions and a footnote containing citations to those decisions. After that, GreekParadise stopped communicating on the talk page. It appeared he was a member of the consensus. Now GreekParadise has returned with the same claims he originally brought. GreekParadise needs to stop attacking his fellow editors and stop asking for what basically is a total rewrite of the article. This article, like every Wikipedia article, is capable of improvement, but this article is not in violation of NPOV. Suggesting otherwise is an exaggeration, no way to obtain consensus, and wrongly accuses editors of bad faith. SMP0328. (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by SaltyBoatr

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by The Four Deuces

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

The article suffers from many problems, including lack of neutrality, original research, errors and over-reliance on primary sources.

While it is true that a majority decision by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is binding on US courts on how any law is interpreted, and belongs in the article, our reporting of the opinions on the amendment should be governed by WP:WEIGHT, i.e., providing proportionate weight to all views expressed in secondary sources. The judgment itself is a primary source and secondary sources are required to establish the weight of the opinions expressed in it.

Also, instead of summarizing case findings, we should use secondary sources that explain them. We are not supposed to base articles on primary sources and Wikipedia editors lack the expertise to analyze judges' comments.

The approach taken leads to OR. For example Blackstone's 18th century legal text is cited as saying the right to bear arms was an auxiliary right, supporting the natural right to self-defense. This gives the false impression that natural rights theory played a role in DC v. Heller, when in fact the CJ who wrote the majority opinion rejects the existence of natural rights.

While DR should only be used after other attempts to resolve issues have been taken, many issues have been taken to other fora. However, the differences of opinion cover so many aspects of the article, that use of any other forum is likely to fail, since they are more appropriate for more narrowly defined disputes.

TFD (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Gaijin42

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

The high level content that Greek wants is already in the article. We are more than open to addressing specific concerns, or additions, but he comes in and posts 10k rants and basically saying the entire article needs to be wiped out because he doesn't agree with it. The supreme court spoke. It said what the law is. It clarified its own 60 year old ambiguous ruling. It further said that that is ALWAYS what the law has been. Lower courts previously disagreed on what the 60 year old ruling meant. They were retroactively made wrong by the supreme court decision. We discuss them. We can possibly discuss them more, but content should be added with a paintbrush, not a dumptruck. And anything added needs to be in the context that if it was written pre-heller, whatever that source might say is objectively, absolutely wrong (insofar as it disagrees with heller). If it is written post heller, but wants to discuss things pre-heller - then and discuss them in the context of how miller was previously interpreted by lower courts - then we should discuss that.

Multiple multiple multiple academic and other reliable sources of all political stripes say that miller was ambiguous. The supreme court has stated TWICE that the miller decision did not rule on collective individual rights. Lower courts interpreted it to be collective. Sure. Then scotus said they were wrong. We have the history in the article already, but GP insists on reformulating the entire article to fit his POV, which is directly contrary to the rulings of SCOTUS, and all up-to-date reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As requested by transporter, I have re-notified all participants that this DR is re-opened. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Re Consensus : I think there is consensus (with the notable exception of GP) that the Miller->Heller "collective viewpoint" period is real, but already sufficiently covered in the article. Many would be open to tweaks to wording or an additional detail here or there, but there is also strong consensus against a major reformulation of the article to emphasize this viewpoint or section of time. GP is essentially trying to argue that Heller is wrongly decided based on historical evidence X. In 20 years, maybe SCOTUS will prove him correct, but in the meantime SCOTUS has ruled, quite explicitly and unambiguously, and in a way that specifically addressed GPs assertions that Miller did not say what GP says it does. Further, Heller, its meaning, and the issue of how that affects Miller have been widely covered in reliable sources. However, I think going through the DR motions would be valuable if only to give GP one more vent, and the consensus one more piece of proof that we allowed him to make his argument, and that consensus is not in agreement. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Inijones

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Kvng

I've actually not been following this for several months now (and I'm happier for it) but I've gone back and reviewed changes since I left and I think the article has definitely been improved. I sort of agree with User:North8000 that the complaints don't seem to match the state of the article. ~KvnG 20:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No comment on consensus question. Way too much talk page chatter to wade through for me to make an assessment. ~KvnG 13:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Wzrd1

I had my input in the past archive of the talk page, where I did go on at some length regarding the history and practice of law in the US regarding the right to keep and bear arms, as well as explaining who the militia was and remains. Noteworthy in GreekParadise (talk · contribs)'s dispute is in the opening of the dispute comment: "From 1939-2008, US courts held that the Second Amendment protects bearing arms in a militia but was not an individual right." Many, many rights were considered not applicable to the populace during that era, including every enumerated right. Indeed, the states were considered to possess all of those rights. On the face of that absurdity, the courts finally recognized the intent of many of the enumerated rights, as it most certainly is nonsensical that a state has the right to be free of warrantless search of its home and papers! The same is true of the remainder of the enumerated rights, which were designed to be reinforcing that which already existed, but were on occasion curtailed by the Crown over the centuries. One considers that the Constitution was not ratified in 1939, but was ratified and came into effect on March 4, 1789! In all of that time, men over the militia age still were permitted to possess and retain possession of firearms. It has only been since Heller that revisionist historians seek to change that which Scalia, for a rare change, got correct. That the second amendment was for all citizens of the land, not only the militia, which was and still remains every able bodied male between 18-45 and prior active duty military to age 60.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't purely one of consensus. There have been multiple RfC's that arrived at consensus only to be challenged a month later. At this point, it's become a dispute that needs resolution.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 10stone5

This dispute has reached a point far beyond where it should have been resolved. I had thought an RfC had already resolved this dispute, ongoing since at least March 2013. The RfC process seemed to me the most likely and useful process to address the above user's concerns. However, The problems inherent in the above cited dispute remain:

The central problem, the above user is looking to invalidate DC v Heller. That's hard to justify within any Wikipedia guidelines, that is support for original Constitutional interpretation to be included in Wikipedia articles divorced from existing constitutional case law.
The original dispute concerned citing the 2nd Amendment as a collective right in the introduction, the DC v Heller opinion notwithstanding. Again, an RfC resolved this dispute, whereby instead of citing any collective rights in the intro, the 'Notes' section was used to provide an area to address this concern. Unfortunately, there was not a good faith adherence to the Wiki RfC process by the above user, who subsequently opened a DR. So the obvious question, What happens if we go through with the DR, the findings are the same or similar, and the above user still does not accept the Wiki finding?
Neither Plessy v Ferguson nor Brown v Board of Education seem to be reasonable comparables to DC v Heller. The user suggests following a similar article template in citing prior case law. Brown v Board resolved the 'separate but equal' issue already present in the Constitution, problems which were not resolved when the original Constitution was ratified. DC v Heller was different in that it spelled out rights already inherent in the original writing of the 2nd. The ruling did not resolve any issues left unresolved from the original ratification of the Constitution. 10stone5 (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up

' Could everyone note in their opening statement sections, above, where they feel that this is on the question of consensus? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC) '

>> No, unfortunately this DR is not on the question of consensus, but rather a long running dispute which has been through a number of Wiki resolution processes, and where at this point, DR seemed like the last remaining option in order to close out the dispute. <moved comment, I had misplaced this under user, Miguel Escopeta + addition> re: Consensus, this had been reached, I felt, with a preceding RfC. 10stone5 (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Miguel Escopeta

This dispute is essentially a non-dispute, save for one editor's viewpoint which was overruled in a previous DR. The problem is that the SCOTUS spoke in the landmark case Heller, and one editor still refuses to accept the outcome. Prior to this landmark SCOTUS ruling, there were no specific rulings from SCOTUS on the 2A, but there were an increasing number of lower court cases that were split. Hence, the need for the SCOTUS to rule in this landmark case, which it did. Trying to pretend that the law was other than what it was prior to Heller is a fool's errand. It is speculative, and WP is not a crystal ball. The article as it exists seems to address the history accurately and succinctly. Creating an alternative history does not seem worthwhile, nor would it meet WP standards. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC) I believe that a consensus has already been reached, in the prior DR. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by J8079

User GreekParadise does not know how wikipedia works. He comes here hoping to be declared the winner and force his edits into the lede. Using the talk pages as a forum is unacceptable, in spite of the history of the page. Edit waring and edits like this [[1]] are not tolerated. The consensus against the edits made by GreekParadise are documented. Ongoing consensus is building in spite of disruptions by the user. J8079s (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" this case nor opening it for general discussion at this point in time, but I do want to ask everyone a question. When there is only one editor who wants to do something and many who do not, the first question we have to ask here at DRN is whether consensus has already been reached. If consensus has already been reached, then a listing here should be closed because there is nothing to talk about and engaging in dispute resolution would be inappropriate. It sometimes happens, however, that despite the disparity in position that the more-numerous side doesn't feel settled about the matter and is not yet willing to declare consensus without further discussion or, and this is slightly different, does feel that there is probably a consensus but wants an evaluation by a neutral party. Could everyone note in their opening statement sections, above, where they feel that this is on the question of consensus? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:46, 30 July 2013 (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.

Gun Control

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Gaijin42.

25 July 2013 (closed 26 July, reopened 1 August)

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Gun Control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

What is the appropriate inclusion for information regarding Nazi use of gun control in the gun control article (Or if the gun control is merged into gun politics/firearm regulations, inclusion in the target article)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Two RFCs closed no consensus, procedurally closed DR (1st RFC still open), reams of talk page discussion

How do you think we can help?

Keep the multiple arguments on track , and make sure each one is resolved individually, without shifting to another argument midstream. Arbitrate how the multiple policies involved interact and how they should apply to this content.

Opening comments by Gaijin42

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

The topic is certainly highly controversial, but it is also very notable, and discussed in many reliable sources. It is a major part of the gun control debate in the US, and receives international attention . Opponents of the information may not declare by fiat that something is fringe, and violates npov, when npov specifically states that all notable viewpoints must be included, and that reliable sources are not required to be objective. this is not science, it is politics. The facts are indisputable (though the historical importance of those facts is questionable). The importance of those fats in the political debate is very controversial, but its notability is unquestionable. just saying that a significant political debate is not allowed in an article about politics is ludicrous.

Andy's procedural complaint is complete bullshit. The AN is a question about merging, not appropriateness of content (And the content also exists in the article he has repeatedly said should be merged to, so the question applies there as well). He also specifically complains in the AN thread that I have not opened any dispute resolution processes, and then attempts to beurcratically short circruit the requested action! There is the bad faith. [[2]]

Andy claims the GC article is a pov fork. He wants to redirect it to GP. THE GP ARTICLE HAS THE SAME CONTENT. So this dispute should be resolved one way or another, unless he says he does not object to that content in the GP article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Goethean

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by AndyTheGrump

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

I consider the opening of this discussion a bad-faith action. As has already been confirmed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive251#Conflict around Gun control, there is a clear consensus that the gun control article is a POV fork, and thus a contravention of policy. Rather than addressing the issue, Gaijin (and one or two others) are rehashing the same arguments for the retention of material relating to a fringe theory only of any significance to the US gun debate, and completely refusing to acknowledge the WP:WEIGHT concerns involved in dominating what is supposed to be an article covering a global topic with a crackpot proposition (that 'gun control' leads to 'totalitarianism') that has no credibility whatsoever amongst serious historians. Given the endless stonewalling, attempts to rig the debate with a clearly non-neutral RfC and other failure to engage in a genuine discussion on how the article can be made to conform with policy, I see no reason to assume that this supposed 'dispute resolution' is anything other than a further act of stonewalling, carried out with the clear intent to maintain the policy-violating article for as long as possible. It should also be noted that there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Gun control, which shows some potential at resolving the issue via a complete re-jig of the two articles we have giving global coverage of firearms regulation - which includes contributors not even mentioned as 'users involved'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that Gaijin has chosen to characterise the opinions expressed by multiple uninvolved contributors at WP:AN - that the article is a POV-fork - as "complete bullshit". Given this contempt shown to fellow contributors, I can see no point in discussing this further. The article violates policy. Policy violations are not up for negotiation. If Gaijin is unwilling to work within policy, I'm sure we can manage well enough without him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: I should perhaps wait for others to respond before confirming whether I see any point in participating, but given Gaijin's attempts to dismiss the opinions of uninvolved contributors as "bullshit", and given the attempts by another participant to stall any progress by initiating yet another thread (Talk:Gun control#Lets untangle the questions) where we are supposed to yet again go over exactly the same arguments - and apparently agree amongst ourselves to rewrite Wikipedia policy in the process - I cannot honestly say that I see the slightest prospect of this discussion resolving anything. The dispute isn't just about "Nazi's", it is about something more fundamental - whether Wikipedia coverage of firearms regulations issues at a global level should be dominated by the fringe viewpoint of sections of the US gun lobby. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Scalhotrod

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

I believe that "the information regarding Nazi use of gun control" is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Where it belongs is the purpose of a separate discussion.

With regard to the topic of 'gun control in the United States', I believe that it is self-evident to be a distinct and notable topic either separate from or inclusive (as a major subsection) with the 'gun politics' articles (either in the U.S. or globally). My reasoning for this is the existence of firearm related legislation that has nothing to do with 'control'. One example I have been citing is this act which taxes firearm manufacture for the purpose of using the funds for wildlife habitat rehabilitation. As compared to, for example, this federal legislation.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by SPECIFICO

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by North8000

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

IMHO the main two problems there are: 1. Discussion is gridlocked due to failure to unbundle the questions. 2. Incendiary, insulting and nasty behavior by AndyTheGrump and Goethean. Both continuously tossing bombs and misstatements about other editors instead of discussing. Without those two issues I think this would have already been resolved. What few have noticed is that there are a whole lot of reasonable people there who are just trying to figure out the best thing to do and who appear positive towards some middle ground. DR would hopefully be organized enough to help on #1 and add some civilization to #2 and so I think it's a good idea. If the two mentioned persons would just look through their spit flinging they might notice that people (like myself) do not have the directly opposite positions as they have invented. Which is more good news for the possibilities of DR. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Justanonymous

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Miguel Escopeta

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

The fundamental issue is the lack of respect of country-specific viewpoints. For example, one opening statement incorrectly states the dispute revolves around, "whether Wikipedia coverage of firearms regulations issues at a global level should be dominated by the fringe viewpoint of sections of the US gun lobby". This is a total incorrect characterization of the dispute, as there is not a US gun lobby that is editing Wikipedia. Neither is the issue about "fringe" viewpoints. Rather, there is a fundamental difference of opinion in the amount of respect to be given to inalienable rights as recognized in the US Constitution vs. the viewpoint that rights do not come from God, but rather are privileges that only come from Governments or dictators. A fundamental dichotomy thus exists in viewpoints, and is at the heart of the problem of the dispute. Wikipedia articles should not be written to suppress different viewpoints, such as whether inalienable rights are granted by God to citizens, or whether subjects are only to be permitted certain privileges by kings and dictators. Address the suppression of properly cited and verifiable viewpoints, whatever they are, and respect the viewpoints of all major (non-fringe) cited facts, and the dispute largely goes away. The issue of content regarding Nazis vs. gun control is but one aspect of this overarching problem. Focusing on "Nazis" only clouds the real issue. Respect needs to be given to all significant viewpoints, provided supporting text is always properly cited with verifiable cites. We should not be suppressing viewpoints in this article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Steeletrap

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Shadowjams

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by ROG5728

The use of gun control by Nazi Germany as a tool in their oppression of the Jews is a fact supported by numerous reliable sources and even quotes by Hitler himself. Whether or not some editors feel it's "unfair" to have gun control associated with Nazi Germany is irrelevant; the use of gun control by Nazi Germany is history and should be included. ROG5728 (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Amadscientist

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

At the moment there is an open AN filing on this article and dispute. I will wait to make opening comments after it is decided whether or not to open this filing.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by The Four Deuces

The 1938 Nazi gun laws are as Gaijin42 says "discussed in many reliable sources." However as this example shows, they are mentioned as part of the "culture wars" in the United States as part of an irrational argument presented by gun enthusiasts. These enthusiasts in essence argue that the laws were an essential step for carrying out the Holocaust, which resulted in the murder of 6 million Jews and that "liberal" gun control laws in the U.S. will inevitably lead to a fascist/communist dictatorship in the U.S. Experts obviously refute this interpretation. I do not think that notable fringe groups outside the U.S. take any interest in this, since opposition to gun control is a peculiarly American phenomenon.

Comprehensive books on the history of firearms laws throughout the world of course provide cursory mention of the laws as they chart the history of German firearms legislation from the Weimar Republic to modern Germany. None of them support the theory that the law helped Hitler consolidate power and mention that he actually loosened restrictions.

In conclusion, I think that in this article, the laws only have relevance to the US gun control debate and the gun enthusiasts' views can only be presented as fringe, if at all.

TFD (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" nor opening this listing for discussion at this time, but would ask for a clarification. Content dispute resolution through DRN or mediation is a voluntary process. Choosing not to participate is, therefore, not a disqualification from or impediment to continuing to participate in editing and discussing the matter for which dispute resolution is sought. The absence of a major participant in a dispute will ordinarily cause a request for DR in those two forums to be declined since a successful outcome is not likely without the participation of all major parties. Therefore, in the interest of efficiency, I would ask: @AndyTheGrump: Does your procedural objection, above, mean that you are unwilling to participate in this process if that objection is determined in favor of continuation here? Such a determination is, in my opinion, very likely (though other DRN volunteers are free, of course, to disagree). Please answer in your opening statements section, above, not here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have reopened this case at the request of one of the participants and in accordance with the stated intent of DRN volunteer Guy Macon, but someone needs to undertake notifying all the listed participants that this has been reopened and, since some time has passed, also needs to give consideration to whether other participants have entered the frey or dropped out who need to be added to or dropped from the list of participants. While I am taking this administrative action, I am going to recuse myself from it other than for administrative and maintenance kinds of things due to my prior dealings with some of the participants. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we are working this out fairly calmly. Changes to other related articles seem to be paving the way, but I am unsure as to how this whole thing will unfold. Hopefully there will be no other polarizing events like another "Sandy Hook" that happen in the meantime. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2013 (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.

2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Robertiki.

15 July 2013

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Robertiki (talk · contribs)
81.240.132.34 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User 81.240.132.34 insists on excluding any other hypothesis, unwilling to wait at least the end of the trial. I accept all the information he as added, but require a "supposedly" at least at the beginning, to remember that there are still some doubts. I have also offered a link of a official document about that, but he deleted it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on my personal page.

How do you think we can help?

Explaining what are the rules about controversial events.

Opening comments by 81.240.132.34

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Roberiki is of the opinion (1) that the marines did not shoot at all (2) that the shooting did not result in the deaths of the fishermen (3) that the court case is underway and so we should wait till the end of the trial before linking the Italian VPD team to the two dead Indian fishermen.

My perspective has been clearly outlined in the TALK page of the article : (A) the VPD team fired at a fishing boat (which is undisputed because the Italian Defence Ministry said so in a communiqué released immediately after the incident). (B) It is a fact that forensic and ballistic analysis has linked the shrapnel, found in the dead bodies of the slain Indian fishermen on-board the St-Antony, to the ammunition and weapons issued to the VPD marines on-board the Enrica Lexie (which also no one can dispute because of the Alessandro Piroli report by Italian military investigators and also Indian police case-report filed in Indian courts).

To conclude, we can safely assume from all the authenticated investigation information freely available in the public-domain that there is overwhelming evidence that the Italian VPD team did open fire on a fishing boat and that the bullets did hit and kill 2 Indian fishermen on the St-Antony. The opening paragraph of the article says exactly this. No more and no less.

On a side-note, kindly also read what Roberiki says about the Italian Government and senior Ministers in his contribution on the TALK page of the Talk:2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea, it becomes clear that his sole intention is to disrupt the Wiki article just because he dislikes Italian politicians.

81.240.132.34 (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I'm Howicus, a volunteer at DRN. So, the problem here seems to be that this incident's trial is currently ongoing, and Robertiki wants the article to make it clear that the incident has not yet been proven in court, while 81.240.132.34 says that the evidence already presented in the trial is enough to remove the "supposed", right? Well it seems to me that the shooting itself is not in question: the marines did shoot two people. Only the motives and intentions are being questioned. That's how it looks to me, feel free to correct me if this is not the case. Howicus (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There are some open questions: the bullets appear to have hit the boat with a low trajectory, too low to come from the deck of a big ship, the bullets are common use, and about the tracers, it's the first time I read that you can use it to identify a shooter; in the past too many times, italian officials have changed their results, we still don't know what happened at Ustica 1980, or what happened with Amanda Knox, and it still it is not ended. And today read (translate with Google) http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/politica/articoli/1106200/caso-kazako-a-rischio-4-funzionari-del-viminale.shtml it's normal in Italy. So the italian marines have no one they can trust, the "reason of state" comes first. After all it is easier the Indians find an acceptable truth. Read http://www.imo.org/blast/blastData.asp?doc_id=14506&filename=182.pdf page 17 about the Olympic Flair. Link also deleted by 81.240.132.34. Too many doubts. And about seriousness: have we forgotten Mr.Berlusconi ? --Robertiki (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@talk Thanks for your time as a volunteer to look into this and give your opinion as an independant and neutral 3rd party. I concur 100% with your perspective.

81.240.132.34 (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Please correct your statements. I *never* wrote that "the marines did not shoot at all, that the shooting did not result in the deaths of the fishermen". Be correct.--Robertiki (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Robertiki, why do you think that the word "supposed" should be in the article? Howicus (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

a) 'Cause Wikipedia is not' a newspaper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper and that also means that there is no urgency to write facts (with or without consensus) "now".

b) Why 'what' Wikipedia writes affects jurors and judges (in the presumption that it is not a newspaper ...)

c) Why lawyers have no scruples to refer to Wikipedia as a consensus of experts ... when it suits them

d) Cause it violates the principle of neutrality of Wikipedia

e) Cause no voice raised to give the benefit of the doubt to the Italian military that have said they fired into the air and then in water.

Writing: "The Enrica Lexie Incident occurred on 15 February 2012 when Italian soldiers belonging to a Vessel Protection Detachment (VPD) team deployed on a privately owned oil tanker MT Enrica Lexie supposedly opened fire on a fishing boat." at least (and only) in the starting sentence serves to remember that all facts and verdicts are not definitive at this time. And I repeat: at least and only once, in the starting sentence. I have nothing to question about all the information that details the point of 81.240.132.34 and 91.182.239.46 in the full body of the article. The harshness with which one editor sistematically has canceled the insertion is reason alone, that says a lot why "supposedly" should be there, once, and only once, in the article. And I am skipping over the repeated threatening to report edit war to admins, with the roughness of a official. All started with the insertion of the word "supposedly" on 18:38, 13 July 2013 in article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Italian_shooting_in_the_Laccadive_Sea. Someone is really working hard at Bruxelles. --Robertiki (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of using "supposedly" in the first sentence, another sentence could be added to make it clear that the trial is not yet decided? Howicus (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Could fit if it implies that the circumstantial evidence is not yet found conclusively by all parties. On 15 February 2012 two fishermen were shot from a trading vessel at the height of the city Alappuzha. After notification to the Indian Coast Guard, eligible cargo ships in the sea were invited to submit comments. Only the Enrica Lexie told of an incident: "The aboard stationed Italian Navy soldiers suspected on an approaching fishing boat Somali pirates and opened fire." On the same afternoon, another tanker present in the area, the Olympic Flair, reported a boarding attempt to the Kochi Port Authority, stating: "About 20 robbers in two boats approached the anchored tanker and attempted to board. The lookout crew noticed the robbers, raised the alarm and crew mustered. The robbers aborted the attack on seeing the crew's alertness and moved away http://www.imo.org/blast/blastData.asp?doc_id=14506&filename=182.pdf^[2]. So, you see, some unclear activity was going on in that area.--Robertiki (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to the last phrase of the opening part of the article which already explicitly states that the case will go to trial after investigation by NIA is completed : "The Enrica Lexie case will go to trial in a Special Court in New Delhi set-up to deal exclusively with this incident."

The controversy surrounding MT Olympic Flair has already been discussed in detail (a few months ago on the TALK page of the article). It is pertinent to note that both Italian and Indian investigators (after the forensic and ballistic analysis) conclusively matched the bullet fragments found in the bodies of the dead India fishermen to the ammunition and rifle fingerprints issued to the Italian marines on MT Enrica Lexie. Furthermore, the Italian military investigation report states that the photographs taken by the marines shows a fishing boat with overwhelming similitude to the St-Antony.

The MT Olympic Flair hypothesis is propaganda coming out of a number of Italian 'right wing' neo-fascist parties (lead on by the folks at the SEENINSIDE.NET conspiracy website) who refuse to accept that overwhelming evidence links the Italian marines to the gunfire deaths on the St-Antony fishing vessel. This conspiracy theory has never been raised by the Italian Government at any point of time.

91.182.237.154 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't understand what "'right wing' neo-fascist parties" has to do here, but is the report coming from MT Oylimpic Flair correct/true ? --Robertiki (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Could one of the IP users please link to the sources that they feel justify the removal of the word "supposedly"? Thanks. Howicus (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Howicus

Original court transcript is available here [3]

A full list of Indian court documents is available on the article page at [4]

Court documents contain ample information which shows that

(1) the VPD team onboard the Enrica Lexie provided a statement to Indian police that they DID SHOOT at a fishing vessel
(2) the Indian police forensic analysis POSITIVELY CONCLUDED that the bullet fragments extracted from the bodies of the slain Indian fishermen MATCHED the rifle bore 'ballistic fingerprint' of arms issued to the VPD team on board the Enrica Lexie
(3) the Italian military has independently confirmed that the photos of the fishing vessel involved in the incident have strong likelihood of being the Indian fishing vessel St-Antony.

At this stage, even the Italian Government accepts that the Italian marines shot at the fishing boat and that bullets from Enrica Lexie somehow killed the fishermen. The only thing that the Italian government contests in this entire episode is the question of JURISDICTION. Nothing else.

The Olympic Flair report to IMO mentions suspicious boats operating close to the Olympic Flair and appears to point to a SEPARATE incident which involves maritime thieves. The owners of the Olympic Flair have gone on record to state that they did not face any 'piracy' attack by armed pirates. The report [5] specifically does not talk of any shooting.

Therefore, IF for argument sake, we consider that the Olympic Flair was involved, THEN what explanation for the PLAIN FACT that bullets fired from weapons issued to the Enrica Lexie VPD team are found during FORENSIC & BALLISTIC analysis by Indian police and Italian military investigators in the bodies of the slain fishermen ?

This Olympic Flair hypothesis holds no water.

The word "supposedly" it therefore incongruent in the present context.

91.182.218.234 (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, after reading the source here [6], I would have to agree that the word "supposedly" should not go in that place in the article. The head note in that document makes it clear that the shooting has been proven to have occurred in a court of law. Now, the trial is not over, and the article should reflect that, but whether or not the shooting happened is not in doubt. Putting "supposedly" where User:Robertiki suggests would confuse readers. Howicus (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

a) which words in the "keralaw" source make you agree that the word "supposedly" would be, my word, misleading ? b) which wording are you proposing to reflect that the trial is not over ? c) what do you think about "The methodology used by the Indians for the ballistic assessment was not adequate, ... Even though the Leika-built comparative microscopes they used were a little older but still no too far from the ones we use, they worked at a magnification level that was insufficient. It was too low to properly assess the microscopic features of the ammo and identify the weapon they were fired from. Moreover, the methodology that was used would be considered insufficient by Italian jurisprudence. In Italy, a ballistic comparative analysis is done by two experts, who document it photographically. In Kerala the test was conducted by a young girl, by herself and *without including any picture*.” [7]. d) about the Olympic Flair: I am not stating (and never done it) that from the greek ship someone has shot on the fishing boat. But I find that their report, if true, would suggest the presence of other armed people on boats. Armed people that could also have Nato bullet firearms. e) the only statement of a confession is from the indian police. I don't know if in India che police is deemed "neutral", but in Italy it has no privilege in the courts. Note: "Il Sole 24 Ore" is the leading financial newspaper and one of the most respected italian newspapers. --Robertiki (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Independent opinion on this dispute : I endorse the decision by Howicus to reject the inclusion of the word "supposedly" in the lead text of the article. Official Italian and Indian court and investigation documents have discarded many of the hypothesis raised by Robertiki as either implausible or erroneous.

It apprears that Robertiki keeps repeatedly raising various stray hypothesis that are doing the rounds on conspiracy websites.

The wikipedia article as it stands today correctly reflects the current understanding of the chain of events of Italian and Indian investigators and courts. It also specifically states that the Enrica Lexie incident is still under investigation and that the trial will begin in a Special Court in India.

82.236.51.211 (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I'd hardly call you "independent", seeing that you have made many edits to the shooting page. Howicus (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@Howicus (talk) It is clear that I have been associated in editing this article a few months back and still follow the article quite keenly. I have not been involved in this specific dispute and therefore consider myself 'independant' to this specific instance of the dispute (just one among several occasions which repeat every few months where Italian IPs have vandalised this article page).

The only point worth noting in my comment is that I too find the word "supposedly" as being out of place in the view of the latest status of hte situation on this matter.

82.236.51.211 (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer Robertiki's question, the sentence that convinced me that "supposedly" should not be in the article at that place is the one that begins "Whether the Italian Marines on board the vessel who shot down two Indian fishermen". This indicates to me that the court is not answering the question of whether or not the Italian marines shot two fisherman, so "supposedly" should not go there. Also, it doesn't really matter that Italian ballistics analysis is done with stricter requirements, because the case is taking place in an Indian court. Howicus (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. The indian court has taken for granted the results of the Indian police ballistics analysis. If the Indian court jurisdiction was uncontested, that would be a argument. But there is a diplomatic row between the governments of Italy and India over legal jurisdiction. I should mention that the Enrica Lexie went voluntarily to Cochin Port. If it had put on his route, the question of jurisdiction would be empty. Now the Italian government has made a mess, as already remembered, flickering as the Italian governments are used. But that is no reason to present the story from one side. Anyway, the article is now so biased, that the question of "supposedly" is now moot. I will check my information, to try to give some explicit examples of bias in the talk page of the article. Next, about [8]. Reference of what the Oylimpic Flair had observed could be relevant ? If Italian responsibility is confirmed, it could give the reason of such an excessive reaction.--Robertiki (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@Robertiki Contrary to your affirmation, the IMO GISIS webpage submitted by the MT Olympic Flair [9] does not mention anywhere that the thieves/robbers were armed.

The Italian government has accepted (see Italian Defense & Foreign Ministers statements cited in the article) that the case go to a trial in India. Italy is no longer officially claiming exclusive 'flag-state' jurisdiction as done in the initial months following the incident. Furthermore, if and when the marines are returned to Italy under the prisoner exchange treaty, then the Govt of Italy has to (among other things) accept the verdict of the Indian courts is final and that there will be no appeal of the decision in Italy.

82.236.51.211 (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am asking you not to dispute with me here. Your statement the I had "affirmed" that: 1) Olympic Flair has seen thieves/robbers and 2) that they where armed, are both false: the words are not MINE! A "possibility" is no affirmation, and the repeated attribution of statements not mine is irritating. If you like, there is the article talk page. I will limit to reaffirm that the Italian government is doing a mess. Example: [10]. Italy should have a) promptly apologized (no matter what happened), b) pay compensation, c) bring back the six soldiers (ordering the Enrica Lexie to stay on course). If that had been done, today the question would be closed. I would give you ad explanation of what is the real story (if you are interested): the Italian Government has "made" the case to distract from the dire domestic economic situation. If you read the news, in Italy there is a growing anger, and the tone of accusation against italians is of no help. And the one to benefit are the 'right wing' neo-fascist parties.You are helping them. To Howicus, I would propose to purge the article of all the political sensible content or at least lower the tone ("privately armed security guards","did not fully follow IMO Best Management Practices (BMP)", "pre-maturely opened fire", "shrapnel(???) extracted from the corpses", "slain Indian fishermen", are only some of the bad examples) and freeze it for one year. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we can wait.--Robertiki (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to freeze the article. It's an evolving news story. Also, it's not really up to me to decide what content to "purge." That should be determined by consensus. Howicus (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I see the point and I'm not sure about the policy, guideline or essay on topic. Could be WP:NOTNEWS ? Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. Wikipedia should also not to be written in a news style.--Robertiki (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

References

^ Bricker, Darrell; Wright, John (2005). What Canadians think about almost everything. Doubleday Canada. pp. 8–28. ISBN 978-0-385-65985-7.
^ "REPORTS ON ACTS OF PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY AGAINST SHIPS - Acts reported during February 2012, pp.17" (PDF). IMO GISIS database. 2012-04-30. Retrieved 2013-07-15.

Hello all, I am a volunteer in DRN. To ensure a balance between currently known and future speculated events, Wikipedia has a template . I suggest we use this for the article which would inform readers that the contents of the article may change over time. This will also address factual accuracy issues once the facts change. -Wikishagnik (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know about that one...good idea, Wikishagnik. Howicus (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, together a paste of at the beginning of the article to add a general warning. --Robertiki (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone still have issues with the page? I'll add the Current event template. Howicus (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing notice: There's not been an edit here in six days and this case is long past the date on which it would have been automatically closed and archived if this had not been filed during our subpaging experiment. Unless someone makes a strong case for keeping this open, a volunteer will close this as "Stale or resolved" after 18:30 UTC on August 13 14, 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Howicus edit suggestion has been reverted by Yellowdesk and the IP user are continuing edit warring and have already reverted another edit: I opened today a talk section asking explanations, but the user started with a comment on the contributor [11]. The IP users are unwilling to any compromise and very active. --Robertiki (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

With Robertiki's objection, I've extended the closing notice by 24 hours and left a note on Howicus' talk page asking for his thoughts on closing. Unless he weighs in for keeping it open, I think it should be closed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. Yellowdesk reverted my edit because apparently the {{current}} template is not right in this instance. I don't think either side is willing to compromise, and the talk page discussion has turned into Robertiki and 90.42.252.79 accusing each other of personal attacks. Howicus (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in any 'personal attack' and am only responding to aggressiveness from Robertiki by pointing out his contradictory and disruptive attitude. Please read the talk page of the article and you will understand who is the user causing disruption and throwing around words such as LIAR, RACIST, etc.,

Robertiki earlier said some pretty outrageous and insulting things about Italy and Italians) and is now trying to portray himself as a 'victim' by attributing to others the allegations and insults that he initiated.

90.42.252.79 (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2013 (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.

Gračanica monastery

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by WhiteWriter.

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.

17 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Gračanica monastery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

A user is trying to push Kosovo as a state party of UNESCO WHS, despite the official reference in UNESCO. As a compromise, i added a location, but users are reverting back state party in order to completely remove mentions of Serbia as state part from article. As Kosovo is disputed territory between Republic of Kosovo and Serbia, we should not deal with Kosovo as with other normal recognised states, like France or Germany. Also, Kosovo is NOT member of UNESCO, so adding that would be obvious misrepresentation. When (if) Kosovo become UN member, and UNESCO recognise and change that on their own site, we should do that here. Kosovo article and related ones are subject of WP:ARBMAC restrictions, and must not be edited in non-neutral manner.

I would just state that all other disputed entities on Wikipedia have state party as it is referenced by UNESCO official website, as THE one authority about WHS. Also, other whs sites in Kosovo have Serbia, as sources say, with mentions of direct location. We already have strong consensus on this manner, and it is Republic of Kosovo ≠ Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Again. Kosovo is disputed region, location of those monuments. Serbia is state party that nominated then, and that still maintain them, as those are part of Serbian Orthodox Church where after years of terror small Serbian population lives in a enclosed fortress-like territories.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Big talk page conversation, and a thread on Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site, in order to fix "Country" into "State party", in order to solve disputed locations problem like this one.

How do you think we can help?

We would need uninvolved editors to respond to this question:

Should we ignore UNESCO reference, fact that Kosovo is not member of UN and UNESCO, and fact that Kosovo is disputed entity, unrecognised by half of the world, and remove mentions of Serbia, despite consensus, official references, and fact that we already have location added in this article, or not?

Also, help would be to fix "Country" into "State party" on Infobox World Heritage Site.

Opening comments by Dirifer

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Antidiskriminator

This dispute is not about Gračanica monastery but about Template:Infobox World Heritage Site which (naturally) uses UNESCO state classification which says that state party in case of World Heritage Sites on Kosovo is Serbia. I think that the template should be changed to include additional clarification which would follow the existing consensus to use Kosovo territory with a note. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Sokac121

In infobox should specify the actual situation. Serbia does not have any influence on Kosovo. These areas are managed by the Kosovo police, on the border between Serbia and Kosovo is the border police. Serbian President Nikolic said: "Serbia will never lose Kosovo, but I am not the president in Priština. This is what hurts and what, unfortunately, is already difficult to change," We also have some neutral sources that explain the situation :1 Judah. The Serbs. Yale University Press. p. 355. ISBN 978-0-300-15826-7., 2 Peace at Any Price: How the World Failed Kosovo. p. 12., 3 http://www.inyourpocket.com/kosovo/pristina/Gracanica-Monastery_72048f. Most readers would gain the impression that the monastery is actually in Serbia rather than Kosovo. In article several times mentions Kosovo (is a region in southeastern Europe.) and not mentions the Republic of Kosovo is very biased.----Sokac121 (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Gračanica monastery discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hello, I volunteer here at DRN. This doesn't give me any special powers or authority over the article or editors but I'll try my best to be an impartial mediator for the dispute. Once all parties have contributed their opening statements we can proceed. Until then, I'll ask that any further discussion remains on the relevant talk pages. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am a volunteer here at DRN. @Dirifer:@Antidiskriminator:@Sokac121:, it would be most appreciated if you could write a little bit about how you see the dispute here so we can get started on resolving it :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, since we've waited a week since this was filed and one party (@Dirifer:) doesn't appear to have had any on-wiki contribs since then I'll just go ahead and open this discussion. As far as I can tell, UNESCO doesn't recognise the Republic of Kosovo and lists the location of this monastery in Serbia. Depending on who you talk to (i.e. whether they recognise the Republic of Kosovo or not) this is either right or wrong. I'm assuming there is no dispute that the area of Kosovo is different from the Republic of Kosovo in such a way that you could claim that Kosovo is a territory within either the Republic of Kosovo or Serbia depending on who you talk to. Now, UNESCO are the final authority on what is a UNESCO WH site, they list the monastery as being in Serbia, this should be reflected in the Infobox. However, reading it as black and white when a shade of grey is required is not really suitable. As such, I think a solution that uses the UNESCO location listing but also mentions that it is in a disputed region by the Republic of Kosovo can be considered. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed solution. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@Sokac121:, what do you think about the proposed resolution? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with proposed solution, that in infobox writes both Serbia and Republik of Kosovo.--Sokac121 (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not proposed solution. What is proposed is

"a solution that uses the UNESCO location listing" - not both
"but also mentions that it is in a disputed region by the Republic of Kosovo" - mentions, like within a note.

Is it correct Steven Zhang? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That was the intention of my original proposal. The current version of the page is an example of this. It mentions that it is in Serbia as defined by UNESCO and the location is described as Kosovo. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with it until UNESCO classification changes.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Besides sources UNESCO, we have another source that gives the real situation. I'm against that, Republic of Kosovo is mentioned at the bottom of article. It's pathetic and biased. --Sokac121 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

UNESCO is the final authority on UNESCO World Heritage sites, it's their thing. As much as we may know it's not as simple as just saying Serbia or Republic of Kosovo, the UNESCO listing states Serbia so we use that. We can add a note (like the version I linked yesterday) which shows that it is in the region of Kosovo. If we start saying this like "They said X but they actually mean Y, we know it" then we're getting close to WP:SYNTH. Now there's nothing stopping the article going into a little detail about Serbia/RoK but for the UNESCO Infobox, Serbia should be listed. Thoughts? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. UNESCO is the final authority on UNESCO World Heritage sites. Maybe their classification is indeed "pathetic and biased" but until they change it Serbia should be listed as a state with clarification that site in question (Gračanica) is in the region of Kosovo with added note about its disputed status by RoK.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newsletter of UNESCO and Republic of Serbia. @Bobrayner: here is well written Talk:Gračanica_monastery Serbia may well be the "state party", but in the article that displays as "country". Most readers will interpret that to mean location. Whilst it is technically accurate that Serbia is the state party, that is deeply misleading to readers as most would gain the impression that the monastery is actually in Serbia rather than Kosovo.. We need to have accurate information, like this we give wrong information to readers and it is not a rule of Wikipedia--Sokac121 (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "it is technically accurate that Serbia is the state party". The comment about misleading of the readers was written when previous version of this article did not clarify Kosovo dispute. The clarification about Kosovo being disputed by RoK is enough to prevent any misleading.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

And, Sokac, lets play honest. Your agenda here was not to fix possible misleading, but to push pro-Albanian propaganda about Republic of Kosovo. I would just mention for other users that we should not invent some new clarifications about Kosovo status, but we should use {{kosovo-note}} for that, as we are doing it in current version of article, and in other thousands of articles. If you ask me, this is closed question. Other users disbanded the discussion, and i will send evidences that Dirifer is DE sockupuppet by master puppeteer. Therefor, his attitude should be ignored anyway... But i think he will not pop up anymore, after recognition. Anyway, this is not question for this venue. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I again repeat: We need to have accurate information, like this we give wrong information to readers and it is not a rule of Wikipedia. If I go to visit monastery of Gračanica monastery, I go to the Republic of Kosovo, I cross state border between Serbia and R. Kosovo, there patrolling Kosovo police no Serbian police. Wikipedia reader from Brazil, Canada, Japan who does not know clear situation on the Balkans will have the wrong information. WhiteWriter about your problem with Dirifer discuss to other pages thanks.--Sokac121 (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Last time I was there Gracanica was patrolled by Swedish UN troops, and the Kosovo police was not welcome there. It does not matter though.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Around Swedish UN troops is Kosovo police :)--Sokac121 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So where are we on this? earlier I proposed using the UNESCO listing and noting the disputed territory. Am I correct in saying it is only Sokac121 that disagrees with this proposal? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, it's obvious that some editors have a personal connection with the Serbia/Kosovo dispute, I'd suggest all editors take a read of WP:TIGER, it's a great essay and pertinant to a lot of disputes on Wikipedia Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I am satisfied the current appearance article.--Sokac121 (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The current appearance does not resolve this issue. It does not mention state party. How can you agree with it although you said that you support the solution that " in infobox writes both Serbia and Republik of Kosovo"? Have you actually read WP:TIGER?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Antid addition. That would be it, if you ask me... I also added other designation of this object, as in other articles... --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this dispute still active? Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabe6403 you can conclude this discussion. I'm pleased appearance article, but I'm not satisfied with these actions [12] during a debate in DNR they edit article. Thanks for your help in the discussion!--Sokac121 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

While it's polite not to edit the article during an active DRN dispute it's not manditory as this is a voluntary process. If everyone is happy, I'll close the dispute. If I don't here within 48 hours I'll assume everyone is and close it Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 06:46, 12 August 2013 (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.

Ferenc Szaniszló

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Darouet.

28 July 2013

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Ferenc Szaniszló (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Ferenc Szaniszló is a well-known Hungarian TV figure who made international headlines, in March of this year, after receiving and then returning Hungary's prestigious Táncsics prize for journalism. Criticism of the Orban government's award was intense because Szaniszló is known for his anti-semitic and anti-Roma comments on national television. The page and talk page has been disputed since the event and the creation of Szaniszló's page, because I feel that, in keeping with international press coverage, the political context of Szaniszló's award should be described. This means, following international press commentary, mentioning two other far-right figures who received concurrent awards. It also means, following international press commentary, describing the Orban-Fidesz government's reason for giving the award to Szaniszló.

Other editors object to "an effort again to mix Fidesz with Jobbik," "negative propaganda towards hungarian events," a "political witch hunt," and have argued that this material should not be included on the basis of these wikipedia policies: WP:POV, WP:SOAP, WP:DUE and WP:BIO.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Overall, users involved have attempted to resolve the conflict on the talk page by analyzing or presenting sources, by citing and reviewing policies, through two RfCs, and by proposed compromises.

How do you think we can help?

I think that dispute resolution from experienced and uninvolved editors may help resolve what the appropriate scope and content of this article can be, based upon available or already cited international press coverage, and upon the policies cited by other editors. In my view, this would involve 1) establishing what an article based on international press coverage would look like, and 2) an agreement regarding the nature of WP:SOAP, WP:DUE and WP:BIO.

Opening comments by Norden1990

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

This is only a biographical article, and not a publication about the situation of Romani people in Hungary. And I have to say it is also not a collection of news. For example Joelle Stolz, a political journalist is not a reliable source for discussion of the situation in Hungary, and these articles are filled with factual errors. Moreover, I don't know Szaniszló and Petrás how they relate each other? The latter figure received a completely different award. Furthermore the Táncsics award is not a state prize.

The current article is disproportionate and in many cases is different from the subject (namely Szaniszló). Petrás, Bakay, alleged discrimination... are totally different things. In recent months several articles were created in the purpose of discrediting campaign and propaganda against Hungary. There is no better evidence than that Darouet deleted info from the lead which explained why Szaniszló was awarded the prize. However, the political comment by the misinformed "journalists" and MSZP (oppoisition party, so clearly political opinion) member Nyakó in the article is treated as fact. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Koertefa

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Thank you, Darouet, for launching a dispute resolution case. I hope we will get some fresh, neutral comments. In my opinion, Ferenc Szaniszló was certainly a *lesser-known* figure (working at a smaller private channel) until his award, and he became "famous" mostly because of the criticisms. Since, his award and the criticisms of his award were mainly the ones which made him temporary (in)famous, I am totally fine with including some national and international criticisms of his award, including theories according to which his award was a political calculation seeking "the applause of the extreme right" and I could even accept general statements like "Orban government has courted far right voters since 2010". What I am not fine with is the mentioning of Janos Petras and the band Karpatia, whose only connection to Ferenc Szaniszló is that they received (different) governmental awards in the same time. Even if some critics see some pattern in this (i.e., "courting far right voters"), this does not belong to an article about *Ferenc Szaniszló*. These might be mentioned in an article about Hungarian politics or the Fidesz government, but I do not see the point of citing them in a short biography about Ferenc Szaniszló. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Ltbuni

Adding the Prof. and the Singer to the Article would totally give the impression to a foreigner, that the FIDESZ is extremist, antisemitic or it wants the voters of the Jobbik - even though in reality Fidesz has already got at least 68% of the seats in the Parliament - based only on the fact that 2 others were given prizes. Making such impression is always the tactics of the MSZP, it is pure politics.

I. As I've already written, others - including a famous Jewish scholar - were awarded. If our goal is to report on the event, and not smearing the govt, then if we add the above mentioned two, why don't we insert the Jewish professor as well? And why don't we write why the Prof. and the Singer were awarded? Prof. B. is not my favorite scientists, his current views on Jesus/Parthians etc are rubbish, but we have to admit, that he WAS a good archeologist, his publications on Kőszeg seem to be very professional, and the others as well.What is more he has published works in English:

Scythian_Rattles_in_the_Carpathian_Basin
Sacra Corona Hungariae. Edited by K. Bakay. Szombathely–Kőszeg 1994.
The New Cambridge Medieval History Volume 3: c.900–c.1024 21 - Hungary by Kornél Bakay pp. 536-552 Edited by: Timothy Reuter. 2000

Apart from his insane views on something, he was not a nobody, who only merited the award for his political position... Why do we arbitrarily pick up two or three, politically sensible sentences from him, to demonstrate the reason for his award? What if he was really a good scientist, and this is just a honorary award, before he dies? The article does not give anything of the other aspect of his life. It would be libel, if we did not specify his earlier works. Even those, who laugh at him, say that he was not as bad as he is now... http://www.tenyleg.com/index.php?action=recordView&type=places&category_id=3115&id=278638 http://kikicsoda.regeszet.org.hu/hu/node/219

II. I have never ever heard of Mr. Petrás... Is he a racist or not? I do not know - the only thing Mr. Darouet mentioned about him, was that his song is used as an anthem by the Jobbik. Is this his only characteristic?

So, that is why I thought it was soapboxing: because of the selective handling of the participants' data. We should not make impressions or feelings. We should give facts, as much as possible, and let the readers decide what really happened.

III. So, my proposal:The present state of the article is fine - it's not worth re-editing it, but if Mr. D. insists:

1. Separate article on the Singer and the Prof. or 2. Separate article on the reflections of the international press on the award-giving (highly doubtful, this would worth an article...) or 3. We can add that others were given prizes - not the same one, BTW - and that it gives the impression, that Fidesz wants to do something with Jobbik - but We should add, that it is the opinion of the opposition. At the very same time, We should add, that this or that accusation of the opposition is questioned by the govt. and we should cite the efforts of the govt fighting antisemitism or racism, or something. Otherwise we start an endless edit war. In this case, for example, I would extend the article with these:

http://www.boon.hu/hungary-govt-committed-to-fighting-anti-semitism-says-israeli-ambassador/2314533

http://www.eu2011.hu/developing-european-roma-policy

Some extra articles:

http://ferenckumin.tumblr.com/post/49861228777/world-jewish-congress-president-apologizes-for-comments

The aim of the DCO policy is to deter abuse of the refugee system by people who come from countries generally considered safe. List of safe countries:http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/reform-safe.asp

Please note that these are official gov't (Israel, Canada, Hungary, EU) documents and statements.

--Ltbuni (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Thucydides411

The main question here is whether the article will assign weight according to what major international newspapers decided was important in their coverage of Ferenc Szaniszló, or whether other considerations will dictate what is included in the article. The international press very strongly linked the prize given to Ferenc Szaniszló with the prizes concurrently awarded to Kornél Bakay and János Petrás. They portrayed the awards given to these three people at the same time as part of a broader effort by the Fidesz government to court the far right. This has been thoroughly discussed on the talk page for Ferenc Szaniszló, with Darouet compiling a list of newspaper articles and noting what aspects of Ferenc Szaniszló's career and award were mentioned. A majority of the newspaper articles discussed the award in the context of the Orbán government and far-right politics.

The sources are clear on this point. The other side of the argument, being advanced by Norden, Ltbuni and Koertefa, is that this article is solely about Szaniszló, and that discussing the context of his award is inappropriate. Regardless of what the international press deems important about Szaniszló, they argue, Wikipedia should omit mention of other people involved in the most notable event of Szaniszló's biography. If this argument is correct, it sets a very unreasonable constraint on what issues can be dealt with in biographical entries on Wikipedia. A biography can mention people other than the subject, if they are important to some aspect of that person's life. Who is important to Szaniszló's biography in this case? I think we should follow what reputable sources have decided to emphasize. That means that we should mention the concurrent prizes, just as the majority of international newspapers did when reporting on Szaniszló.

Leaving out this context only makes the article less informative and representative of the reliable sources we have. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Fakirbakir

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hello, I'm Mark and welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am going to open the discussion while I take a closer look at the request. Please feel free to begin.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 09:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mark for helpful us, and thank you Norden1990, Koertefa, Ltbuni and Thucydides411 for your comments.

My understanding of the views shared by Norden, Koertefa and Ltbuni is this: Janos Petras, Karpatia, and Bakay have nothing to do with Ferenc Szaniszló and shouldn't be mentioned in his biographical article.

According to my understanding, Norden1990 furthermore believes that the Romani shouldn't be described as "persecuted" here, that the article isn't balanced, that certain cited sources aren't reliable, and that the purpose of this and other Wikipedia articles is to discredit Hungary. Ltbuni believes that if Bakay and Petras were mentioned at all, many other and positive things could be said of them, and other awardees might also be mentioned (or other articles written).

My position, largely shared by Thucydides411, is that the relationship between Szaniszló, Bakay and Petras, constantly cited by international news journalists, is the effort by the Orban/Fidesz government to court the right wing in Hungary, also explicitly explained or implied by these journalists. We have furthermore argued, based upon the volume of coverage available, that the returned Táncsics prize should occupy the bulk of Szaniszló's page, and that its description should mirror, in condensed form, international coverage.

Thucydides argues that omission of Bakay, Petras or the political context of the award, even when described by reliable sources, would make the biographical articles of most people on Wikipedia incomplete, as they would be forced to remove all context, political or otherwise.

I would lastly argue that none of this constitutes propaganda against, or a discrediting of Hungary, and that many Hungarians opposed these awards.

-Darouet (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

One last comment: I removed the lead statement attributing Szaniszló's award to his previous work in Yugoslavia and the USSR because this is not stated by international news sources. Those actually argue that he was given the award for political reasons. So we should discuss this issue too. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Basically, this is a BLP issue. I ask editors to be prepared to understand our current policies and guidelines pertaining to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Most important is presenting accurate and reliably sourced content. If the information is contentious, multiple reliable sources are expected. Information needs to be presented in a neutral manner. Content need not be flattering, may be controversial and even political if the sources are being summarized to reflect what the RS says and is notable enough to mention by a consensus of editors. As dispute resolution volunteers, part of our job, and perhaps even the most important part of our job is to weigh the strength of participants arguments as a dispute closer. Generally we try to get editors to collaborate on a compromise and as such I like to begin discussions by asking if there may be a compromise to this dispute that everyone can live with? Remember that compromise may mean that not everyone will be happy with the outcome. As long as an agreement is made that everyone can live with, the dispute can be resolved. Thoughts?--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 22:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Great. I'll reply shortly with my understanding of WP:BIO and how it pertains to this page as best I can. I'll also think about possible compromises that adhere to wikipedia policy and make this page the one it should be. -Darouet (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking over the WP:BIO policies again, my impression is that content must be 1) reliably sourced (and reflect due weight given by sources) (WP:BLPSOURCES), 2) remain neutral in tone (WP:BLPSTYLE), and 3) refrain from giving undue attention to those who don't warrant it (WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE).

Regarding tone, I want it to be neutral and don't believe a dispassionate account as given by newspapers would violate neutrality.

Regarding Ferenc Szaniszló's notoriety, he is described by reliable sources (see below) as a public figure, being a media presenter on Echo TV, which newspapers write is associated with the ruling government in Hungary. His job is to broadcast himself and his views on national television every day: I would think this is the definition of a public figure.

Because content from reliable sources is so critical, I'll leave a series of references below from most of continental Europe's largest newspapers, and from the New York Times, the BBC and Independent. The disputed and removed content - referencing Bakay and Petras - derives from these sources (except the Tagesspiegel). Original text and translations are provided when necessary:

1. The Independent, Hungarian government awards Tancsics prize for journalism to notorious anti-Semite Ferenc Szaniszlo, [13]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Hungary’s right-wing government faced fierce criticism today for awarding its top state journalism prize to a television presenter notorious for spreading Jewish conspiracy theories and describing the country’s Roma minority as “human monkeys”. Media reports from Budapest said the government of conservative premier Viktor Orban had awarded Hungary’s annual Tancsics prize – the country’s highest journalistic award – to Ferenc Szaniszlo, a presenter for the pro-government Echo TV channel. Mr Szaniszlo’s anti-Semitic outbursts and his detrimental remarks about the country’s ostracised Roma minority were made on air in 2011 and prompted Hungary’s state-controlled media watchdog body to fine the channel... Other recipients included the musician, Janos Petras, lead singer of the group Karpatia, which is regarded as the house band of Hungary’s extreme right-wing and virulently anti-Semitic Jobbik party, and the archaeologist Kornel Bakay, who has claimed Jesus Christ was Hungarian and that the Jews were slave traders during the Middle Ages."

2. BBC, Anger in Hungary at prize for 'anti-Semitic' reporter, [14]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Anger has erupted in Hungary over the award of a prestigious state journalism prize to a TV presenter who is frequently accused of anti-Roma and anti-Semitic comments. Ferenc Szaniszlo was one of three journalists awarded the Mihaly Tancsics prize last week... The choice of two other recipients of national honours on the same day has also been sharply criticised - archaeologist Kornel Bakay for allegedly anti-Semitic comments, and musician Janos Petras of the rock band Karpatia, which is associated with the far-right Jobbik party."

3. The New York Times, Politics Spills Onto Stage in Budapest, [15]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"But last month the government gave the Tancsics Award, its top award in journalism, to Ferenc Szaniszlo, a presenter for the pro-government Echo TV channel who is known for anti-Semitic outbursts and detrimental remarks about the country’s ostracized Roma minority. Janos Petras, the lead singer of Karpatia, who composed the anthem for Jobbik’s paramilitary wing, calling for an “immaculate nation” and the expansion of Hungary’s borders, was also given an award. Although protests in Hungary and abroad led to Mr. Szaniszlo returning the award, the feeling that Fidesz is courting Jobbik supporters remains."

4. Haaretz, Israel condemns award to Hungarian reporter it calls anti-Semitic, republished from Reuters, [16]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Nils Muiznieks, human rights commissioner at the Council of Europe, said he was concerned by Hungary's decision to give awards to Szaniszlo and two other people, all of whom, he said 'have made no secret of their anti-Semitic and racist views.' 'Giving the annual Tancsics prize to a journalist notorious for his positions against Jewish and Roma people, as well as medals to a singer of an extreme right, nationalist music band and to an archaeologist known for his theories clearly tainted by anti-Semitism is an insult to our past and flies in the face of European and democratic values,' Muiznieks said in a statement. Hungary gave awards to some 200 academics, journalists and artists to mark a national holiday last week. They included Janos Petras, singer in a far-right rock group, Karpatia, and archaeologist Kornel Bakay, who organised a controversial exhibition in 2003 about Hungary's Nazi past. Neither could immediately be reached for comment."

5. Tagesschau (Germany), Antisemitischer TV-Moderator gibt Staatspreis zurück (Antisemitin TV moderater returns his state prize), [17]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Die beiden anderen Geehrten - der Sänger der Rechtsrock-Band "Kárpátia" und der rechtsextreme Archäologe, Kornél Bakay, - dürfen den höchsten ungarischen Staatspreis für Publizisten offenbar behalten."

Translation

It was revealed that the other two honorees - singer of the Nazi rock band "Kárpátia" and the right-wing archaeologist, Kornel Bakay - may keep the Hungarian state awards.

6. Die Zeit, Ungarns Regierung vergibt Orden an Antisemiten (Hungary's government gives medals to anti-semites, [18]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Ungarns rechtskonservative Regierung hat hohe staatliche Auszeichnungen an Antisemiten und Rechtsextreme vergeben. Der Fernsehmoderator Ferenc Szaniszlo erhielt zum Nationalfeiertag am 15. März den Táncsics-Preis, die höchste staatliche Ehrung für Journalisten. Szaniszlo hatte in dem der Regierungspartei Fidesz nahestehenden Fernsehsender Echo TV antisemitische Verschwörungstheorien verbreitet und die Minderheit der Roma als "Menschenaffen" diffamiert... Ungarns Regierung ehrte zudem den Archäologen Kornél Bakay mit einem Verdienstorden. Bakay erregte immer wieder Aufsehen mit antisemitischen Behauptungen. So unterstellt er, dass Juden im Mittelalter den Sklavenhandel organisiert hätten. Zudem behauptet er, dass Jesus Christus kein Jude gewesen sei, sondern ein Prinz aus dem – angeblich mit den Ungarn verwandten – alt-iranischen Volk der Parther... Das Goldene Verdienstkreuz erhielt der Leadsänger der Rockband Kárpátia, Petrás János. Die Gruppe gilt als Hausband der rechtsextremen Partei Jobbik. Sie schuf auch den Marsch für die inzwischen verbotene, von der Jobbik ins Leben gerufene, paramilitärische Ungarische Garde. Die Band besingt in ihren Texten die "unbefleckte Nation". Auch ruft sie dazu auf, die Grenzen Ungarns mit Gewalt auszuweiten."

Translation

Hungary's right-wing government has awarded high state awards to the extreme right and to anti-Semites. On a national holiday, 15 March, the TV presenter Ferenc Szaniszlo received the Táncsics Prize, the highest state award for journalists. On Echo TV, the television station associated with the ruling Fidesz party, Szaniszlo has spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and defamed the Roma minority as "apes"... Hungary's government also honored the archaeologists Kornel Bakay with a Merit award. Bakay caused a stir, again, with anti-Semitic statements, and has assumed that Jews organized the slave trade in the Middle Ages. He also claimed that Jesus Christ was not a Jew, but a prince of the the Parthians (supposedly related to Hungarians)... The Golden Cross of Merit was given to the lead singer of the rock band Kárpátia, Petrás János. The group is regarded as the house band of the far-right party Jobbik. They also created the march for the now banned paramilitary Hungarian Guard, launched by Jobbik. The band sings in their lyrics of the "immaculate nation." It also calls for expanding the borders of the country by force.

7. Süddeutsche Zeitung, Regierung verleiht Orden an antisemitischen Journalisten, [19]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Nach ungarischen Medienberichten hat der Fernsehmoderator Ferenc Szaniszlo zum Nationalfeiertag am 15. März den Tancsics-Preis erhalten, die höchste staatliche Ehrung für Journalisten. Szaniszlo hatte in dem der Fidesz-Partei nahestehenden Sender Echo TV antisemitische Verschwörungstheorien verbreitet und die Minderheit der Roma als "Menschenaffen" diffamiert. Die staatliche Medienaufsichtsbehörde hatte den Sender deshalb 2011 mit einer Geldstrafe belegt. Mit dem Verdienstorden ausgezeichnet wurde der Archäologe Kornel Bakay, der von Jesus Christus behauptet, er sei kein Jude, sondern ein Prinz aus dem - angeblich mit den Ungarn verwandten - alt-iranischen Volk der Parther gewesen. Außerdem unterstellt er den Juden, im Mittelalter Sklavenhandel organisiert zu haben. Eine andere Auszeichnung - das Goldene Verdienstkreuz - erhielt Janos Petras, der Leadsänger der Rockband "Karpatia". Die Musiker besingen in ihren Texten die "unbefleckte Nation" und ruft zu gewaltsamen Veränderungen der Grenzen Ungarns auf. Karpatia gilt als erklärte Lieblingsband der rechtsextremen Parlamentspartei Jobbik. Sie schuf auch den Marsch für die inzwischen verbotene, von der Jobbik ins Leben gerufenen paramilitärischen Ungarischen Garde... Oppositionelle Kommentatoren werteten die Ehrung rechtsextremer Persönlichkeiten als Geste der Regierung an die Jobbik und an die extreme Rechte."

8. Der Tagesspiegel, Ferenc Szaniszlo: Ungarn ehrt antisemitischen Journalisten (Ferenc Szaniszlo: Hungary honors anti-semitic journalist), [20]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"In Ungarn ist der rassistische TV-Moderator Ferenc Szaniszlo am Nationalfeiertag durch die Regierung mit einem Preis geehrt worden. Wie ungarische Medien am Wochenende berichteten, erhielt Szaniszlo am vergangenen Freitag den Tancsics-Preis, die höchste staatliche Ehrung für Journalisten. Szaniszlo hatte im Sender Echo TV, welcher der Regierungspartei Fidesz nahesteht, antisemitische Verschwörungstheorien verbreitet. Sozialminister Zoltan Balog nannte die Vergabe 'bedauerlich', schloss eine Aberkennung aus juristischen Gründen aber aus. "

Translation

In Hungary, the racist TV presenter Ferenc Szaniszlo had been honored by the National Government with a fine. Now Hungarian media reported this weekend that last Friday Szaniszlo received the Tancsics Award, the highest state award for journalists. Szaniszlo had used Echo TV, which is close to the ruling party Fidesz, to spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Social Minister Zoltan Balog called the award "unfortunate...

9. Le Figaro, Hongrie : Viktor Orban met l'extrême droite à l'honneur (Hungary: Orban honors the extreme right), [21]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"La petite Hongrie résiste moins que d'autres à ses démons nationalistes. Son premier ministre, Viktor Orban, un conservateur, vient de décerner, à l'occasion de la Fête nationale du 15 mars, plusieurs distinctions à des personnalités on ne peut plus controversées. Ferenc Szaniszlo par exemple, journaliste à la télévision Echo TV. Proche du Fidesz, la formation d'Orban, Szaniszlo, qui a reçu le prix Tancsics, est connu pour ses diatribes antisémites et antiroms. En 2011, il avait été réprimandé par l'Autorité de surveillance des médias pour avoir comparé les Roms à des «singes». En signe de protestation, une dizaine de journalistes qui ont obtenu ce prix l'ont aussitôt rendu. Le chef du gouvernement hongrois a également décoré un archéologue, Kornel Bakay, connu lui aussi pour ses thèses racistes. Bakay s'est fait remarquer en accusant les Juifs d'avoir organisé le commerce d'esclaves au Moyen Âge. Enfin, Janos Petras, célèbre chanteur de rock, a reçu la Croix d'or du Mérite. Petras ne cache pas sa sympathie pour le parti d'extrême droite Jobbik. Il a participé jadis à la marche de la Garde hongroise, une organisation paramilitaire aujourd'hui interdite, et rêve tout haut de reconstruire la Grande Hongrie, celle d'avant la Première Guerre mondiale."

Translation

Little Hungary is less able to resist its nationalist démons. Its prime minister, Viktor Orban, a conservative, just gave, on the occasion of the national holiday on 15 March, many distinctions to many more-than-a-little controversial personalities. Ferenc Szaniszlo, for example: journalist at the television station Echo TV. Close to Fidesz, Orban's Party, Szaniszlo, who received the Tancsics prize, is known for his anti-semitic and antiroman diatribes. In 2011, hé was reprimanded by media watchdog authorities for having compared the Roma to monkey... The head of the Hungarian government also decorated an archaeologist, Bakay, known as well for his racist theories... Lastly, Janos Petras, a celebrated rock singer, received the Golden Cross of Merit. Petras doesn't hide his sympathy for extreme-right party Jobbik. He participated in the march of the Hungarian Guard, a paramilitary organization now forbidden, and dreams as high as reconstructing the old Hungary of pre-WWI days.

10. Le Monde, Prime au fascisme en Hongrie (Primed for fascism in Hungary), [22]:

Translation

Other personalities decorated on March 15th posed problems. For example Janos Petras: lead singer of rock band Karpatia, who composed the anthem of the Hungarian Guard. This non-military army, nevertheless aggressive, was launched in 2007 by the neo-fascist Jobbik party; its activists march uniformed in Roma neighborhoods to intimidate them. Another distinguished on March 15 was Kornel Bakay. This archaeologist professed strange ideas on the origin of Jesus Christ, who was not Jewish but a Parthian prince (the Parthians being in his ancestors of the Hungarians). His theory had earlier pleased many pseudo-scientists in German Nazi. In 2003, Bakay organized an exhibition in honor of the Arrow Cross fascist movement and Ferenc Szalasi, an ally of Hitler. It was closed at the request of authorities because she was openly promoting the movement, which in 1944 facilitated the deportation of 200,000 Hungarian Jews and Gypsies.

11. la Repubblica, Orban decora tre razzisti antisemiti dall'Ungheria nuova sfida all'Europa (New challenge for Europe: Orban decorates three antisemites and racists in Hungary), [23]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Il primo è quello del premio Tancics, tradizionale e importante premio per i migliori giornalisti, conferito a Ferenc Szanizslò, commentatore alla televisione Echo TV, ritenuto vicinissimo alla Fidesz, cioè al partito di Orbàn, e noto per le tesi apertamente razziste che espone in pubblico... Il secondo caso è quello di Kornel Bakay, che ha ricevuto per decisione del governo l'Ordine al merito. Bakay è un archeologo noto per il suo aperto, radicale antisemitismo. Tra l'altro aveva fatto scandalo a livello mondiale asserendo in pubblico che sarebbero stati gli ebrei a organizzare la tratta degli schiavi dal medioevo all'abolizionismo. Mentre è noto che lo schiavismo fu organizzato dalle potenze di allora e dall'attivissima (e per loro proficua) collaborazione di tribù e potentati arabi in Africa. Il terzo caso riguara Janos Petras, cantante della rock band 'Karpatia'. E'in sostanza un gruppo nazirock, vicinissimo ai neonazisti antisemiti di Jobbik che amano ascoltare la loro musica nelle adunate. Petras ha ricevuto la croce d'oro al merito. Tra i motivi più noti cantati da lui e dal suo gruppo ce ne sono alcuni che inneggiano alla revisione delle frontiere europee con la ricostituzione della 'Grande Ungheria', cioè riprendendosi territori oggi slovacchi, ucraini, serbi e romeni. Il gruppo Karpatia ha anche partecipato anche a marce della Magyar Gàrda (Guardia magiara), il gruppo paramilitare di Jobbik con le uniformi nere e simboli fascistoidi, ufficialmente fuorilegge ma che continua a farsi vedere tranquillamente."

Translation

The first award is the Tancics, traditional and important for Hungary's best journalists, given to Ferenc Szanizslò, commentator on television Echo TV, considered close to Orban's party Fidesz and known for openly racist theses expounded in public ... The second case is that of Kornel Bakay, who has received the Order of Merit. Bakay is an archaeologist known for his open, radical anti-Semitism. Among other things he caused a scandal by claiming in public that the Jews to organized the slave trade from the Middle Ages until abolition... The third case concerns Janos Petras, lead singer of the rock band 'Karpatia'. In essence Karpatia is a nazi-rock group and close to the neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, Jobbik party, who enjoy listening to its music in their gatherings. Petras received the golden Cross of Merit... Karpatia the group has also participated marches of the Magyar Garda (Hungarian Guard), Jobbik's paramilitary group with black uniforms and fascist symbols, officially outlawed but still visible in Hungary.

12. L'Independenza, Orban, il “nemico” ungherese creato dall’Unione Europea (Orban, the Hungarian enemy, created by the EU), [24]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"E così ha dato il premio Tancsics per il giornalismo a Ferenc Szaniszló, noto per aver paragonato i Rom alle scimmie e per aver detto che “gli ebrei hanno occupato l’Ungheria o comunque la stanno per occupare”, fra le tante altre cose dello stesso tenore. Poi è stato assegnato l’Ordine al Merito a Kornel Bakay, archeologo, noto per le sue tesi antisemite sulla storia, fra cui quella secondo cui gli ebrei avrebbero organizzato loro la tratta degli schiavi, dal Medio Evo sino al secolo scorso. Infine, la Croce d’Oro al Merito è andata a Janos Petras, frontman della band ultranazionalista Karpatia."

Translation

And so Hungary gave the Tancsics journalism prize to Ferenc Szaniszló, known for having compared the Roma with monkeys and to have said that 'the Jews have occupied or will soon occupy Hungary', among many other things of the same tenor. Also awarded the Order Merit was Kornel Bakay, an archaeologist, known for his thesis on the history of anti-Semitism, including the thesis that the Jews may have organized the slave trade from the Middle Ages until the last century. Finally, the Gold Cross of Merit went to Janos Petras, frontman of the ultra-nationalist band Karpatia.

13. de Volkskrant, Hongaarse regering kent antisemieten prijzen toe (Hungarian government gives out anti-semitic prizes), [25]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"De tv-presentator Ferenc Szaniszlo ontving de Tancsics-prijs, de hoogste onderscheiding van de staat voor journalisten. Szaniszlo verspreidde voor de tv-zender Echo TV antisemitische complottheorieën en noemde de Roma in zijn land 'mensapen'. Ook Janos Petras, de zanger van de rockband Karpatia kreeg een onderscheiding. De zanger roept in zijn teksten op tot gewelddadige wijzigingen van de Hongaarse grenzen."

Translation

TV presenter Ferenc Szaniszlo Tancsics received the Prize, the highest state award for journalists. On the television channel Echo TV, Szaniszlo spread antisemitic conspiracy theories and called the Roma in his country 'apes'. Janos Petras, the lead singer of the rock band Karpatia, also received an award. The singer's lyrics call for violent changes to Hungary's borders.

14. Novinky.cz, V Maďarsku vyznamenali antisemitského novináře i nacionalistickou kapelu (Hungary: the distinguished journalist and anti-Semitic band), [26]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Značné pobouření vyvolala jména Maďarů vyznamenaných Táncsicsovou cenou. Je mezi nimi nacionalistická kapela i novinář Ferenc Szaniszló, který je známý svými extrémními a antisemitskými názory. Několik známých novinářů stejné vyznamenání, jaké dostal Szainiszló, na znamení protestu vrátilo... Řád za zásluhy dostal archeolog Kornél Bakay, který je rovněž známý antisemita. Přišel s tezí, že za středověkým obchodem s otroky stáli Židé. Stejný řád převzal i zpěvák a baskytarista nacionalistické rockové skupiny Kárpátia János Petrás. Skupina ve svých textech otevřeně vyzývá k revizi stávajících maďarských hranic a připojení tzv. odtržených území a používá velkouherské symboliky. Účastnila se i pochodů dnes již zakázané Maďarské národní gardy."

Translation

Outrage sparked at Hungarians named with prizes including the Tancsics. Among them are a nationalist band and the journalist Ferenc Szaniszló, known for extreme and anti-Semitic views. Several well-known journalists previously awarded the same prize as Szanislo returned their awards in protest.

These articles, almost all of them about Szaniszlo and his award, all mention Bakay and Petras. Many of them also remark on the relation between Szaniszlo, Echo TV and Fidesz. So, reliable sources and due weight, based on available coverage, would suggest that this material should be included because it provides information both about Szaniszlo (his relationship to Fidesz) and his award (given alongside awards to Bakay and Petras). -Darouet (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, on the issue of compromise, I'm happy with Koertefa's compromise of including statements about Fidesz's motivation for the award framed within the context of criticism by media or Fidesz opponents. I think that's a fair reflection of what sources say, overall. -Darouet (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Since we have a pretty good list, above, of reliable sources above all placing Bakay, Petras and Szaniszlo's names adjacent to one another (and one article titled "The distinguished journalist and antisemitic band"), is there still opposition to just repeating, in concise fashion, what all of the above sources write in more detail? -Darouet (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there any last comments about how Bakay and Petras might raise BLP issues other than reliably sourced content, clearly addressed above? -Darouet (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2013 (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.

Copyright status of work by the U.S. government

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Elvey on 21:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Copyright status of work by the U.S. government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

TJRC (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In recent weeks, I've been working on it, as has TJRC. We've made some improvements, and conflicted a lot. Then again, I've given him a barnstar in the past. I've noticed that TJRC has been reluctant to discuss matters, and accusations of incivility have been made both ways. I just noticed the TJRC has been deleting several of my questions from the talk page, and ignoring others. It's hard to have a civil discussion if my questions are being flat out deleted. That sort of manipulation feels rather like hits below the belt, so to speak. Maybe there's some sort of underlying motivation that I'm not able to detect but someone else can. TJRC claims to be an attorney, but has made a number of confident assertions that turned out to be wrong, e.g. that PD-FLGov should just be turned into a fair-use template. I sometimes feel like the right of citizens to free use of the works of government in Florida and California is being buried, as so many efforts have been made to deny, diminish, delete or move the relevant information documenting that they are, by and large, in the Public Domain. I'd given up on efforts to include the content in the article, settling for just a tag indicating that there was an intractable issue, as to the accuracy of the information in the article, but TJRC has been repeatedly deleting even that.

How do you think we can help?

Can an uninvolved editor help us reach consensus or compromise and focus on the content issues and improving the encyclopedia?

Copyright status of work by the U.S. government discussion

Dennis Donaghy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Phaedrx on 13:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Dennis Donaghy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Phaedrx (talk · contribs)
Pinkbeast (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Pinkbeast COI-tagged the page on me by me and Revent and the entire wikipedia community 99/9% of which don't care to challenge, since there really is no fair challenge just bully-harrass tactics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Donaghy). What the merits of the tag I don't get. I fixed something and took the chance to reduce unnec. stuff, then went around to random pages and helped on those (please see my Phaedrx contribbutions history if you wish). I have gotten pages up by myself with no problem on other topics (see Button King). Please help a good fair (and notable) wiki person stop someone from being a problem.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Anything and everything reasonable. This person has been nothing but a pain in the butt as far as I'm concerned though I see other edits that look fine. I am a good fair positive contributor. This person has a memory of me sockpuppeting early on but that was b/c I didn't know you shouldn't sign in anonymously. So all these lashes out are in response to what PB wrongly remembers about me, that I am a sockpuppeter or whatever. It's not true it never was. I fixed my actions as soon as I realized

How do you think we can help?

Go over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Donaghy and see that REVENT user already neutralized it. Then it was untouched and sitting there neutral and fine since like June 5th. Then I spoke to Mr. MacKay and he made me realize the sentence was wrong & needed updating (this has been my job in counterterrorism, on Wall Street in NY and in the real estate and cellphone sales industries I used to edit and upddate info for a living) so I actually removed excess stuff (albeit about me)& fixed wrong

Dennis Donaghy discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

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.

Talk:Prince George_of_Cambridge#Title

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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.

Filed by Pseud 14 on 03:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Prince George of Cambridge#Title (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

There has been a precedent manner in the manual of style in presenting a member of the Royal family's style upon birth and thereon. Across all Royal Family Members' bios, and has been conventionally followed. As such a bulleted manner of presenting the style of Prince George of Cambridge was patterned from all else (that includine Elizabeth II, Charles of Wales, Prince Willia, Prince Harry, etc.) The dispute is that others propose to present it in a prose/statement rather than a bulleted form, whereas, most would want to conform to features for royals under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty, and would want it on status quo, rather than veer off from what has been a precedent in the manner of presenting the subsection.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been a constant revert/edit, trying to push their stance over the other, as such a greater venue to conform to the precedent manner must be agreed on.

How do you think we can help?

What we want to do is either make a convincing argument as to why this article alone should buck the precedent and be exempt from the format used on those of the subject's other family members or take this to a larger venue, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty, to get a consensus for a new convention that bans starting lists of titles and honours until [insert random number] has been acquired by whomever it is the article is about. Until you've succeeded at either, this article should fall in line with the others.

Talk:Prince George_of_Cambridge#Title discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Preliminary points

1_"There has been a precedent manner in the manual of style... " please give link to place relevant to the specific point here, namely, the use of a bullet format for a non-list intruded at the top of the section on Titles in the newly created article for Prince George of Cambridge where it would not be, except for the claimed ruling by proponents that it must be.

2_"The dispute is that others propose to present it in a prose/statement rather than a bulleted form". Please correct this to the sspecific non-list in the article Prince George of Cambridge. Using bulleted lists in other articles where there is a list is not in question.

3_"...rather than veer off from what has been a precedent in the manner of presenting the subsection." Please amend this inaccurate and loaded statement, which is an extension of the dubious way in which this "overview" has been composed, and the manner of the comments on Talk of proponents of the non-list bullet format and of their edits (eg 2 above) Qexigator (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Per 2: That is exactly the dispute.

Per 3: It is the precedent. It has been that way for years. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, I am Amadscientist a volunteer. Let me make a few points before the discussion gets too far. As I understand the dispute there are multiple editors that wish to present this information in a manner that goes against a WikiProject guide that has been used in previous articles under the projects scope, but with the creation of the new article, editors wish to use a different approach. All content is a matter of consensus. If the dispute is to continue here, the strength of the arguments will be used to determine how to proceed. Please be aware that project guides cannot be required and how much weight is given towards such things as precedence and length of time the other articles existed, may not be strong arguments.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"There has been a precedent manner in the manual of style in presenting a member of the Royal family's style upon birth and thereon." Could you link this MOS guideline or precedence and how it applies to the article?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Preliminary proposal

This is to propose letting the process here be suspended indefinitely to allow further connsideration to be given at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty to the question pinpointed by Mies., about how to reconcile the list format which has been used in Titles sections for years with non-lists of one item, in articles such as Prince George. (Note, some of the earlier discussion has been botted to [[27]]) --Qexigator (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully, I can support this proposal. There is not likely to be a resolution at this location.Deb (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
If there is another Dispute resolution venue already being used, I can support the closing of this filing as too early, and if need be returned at some further point, that is very common. As the issue has been raised at the project level as part of dispute resolution I think we can close this DR/N filing.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2013 (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.

Talk:30 Seconds_to_Mars

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Noyes388 on 20:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:30 Seconds to Mars#Please change the band name from 30 Seconds to Mars to THIRTY SECONDS to MARS (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Noyes388 (talk · contribs)
HrZ (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The author HrZ claims that I am spamming the page. I was simply trying to provide qualified information from the United States Trademark website to prove that the band name should be changed from "30" to "Thirty" Seconds To Mars.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have written a comment on the talk page, but the author HrZ has requested that I move the item to the WP:RM. Which I will, but noted that the topic has been made before. This leads me to believe he is not willing to make the official change, based on a Trademark that was filed in the United States.

How do you think we can help?

Can you please ask the Author to look over the information that I provided and read what was said. I don't think it was actually read. I don't understand how a US trademark would not apply in this situation as qualified info.

Talk:30 Seconds_to_Mars#Please_change_the_band_name_from_30_Seconds_to_Mars_to_THIRTY_SECONDS_to_MARS discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

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.

Talk:List of FC Seoul players

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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.

Filed by GiantSnowman on 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:List of FC Seoul players (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

There was a recent AFD related to this article which I started - the result was 'keep', though there was comments/consensus that the article was in need of a clean up. I attempted to do so by removing unreferenced/unencyclopedic content and basically trying to bring it into line with many other similar articles, some of which have been featured. However, I was immediately reverted by Footwiks, the article creator, who has severe OWNership issues. In total he has reverted PeeJay2K3 and myself six times in 3 weeks, believing that our edits (agreed/discussed on the talk page) make us "vandals," although it is his edits which are becoming increasingly disruptive.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The matter has been discussed on my talk page, Footwiks' talk page, and the article talk page - but he continues to revert and refuses to engage or discuss the matter in any meaningful way.

How do you think we can help?

Explain to the user:

The importance of using talk pages
The importance of WP:CONSENSUS
Reasons he should not/does not WP:OWN the article.

He believes me to be a "vandal" so will not listen to my advice, however an independent party may get through to him and help resolve the situation.

Talk:List of FC Seoul players discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

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.

Copyright status of work by the U.S. government

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Elvey on 21:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Copyright status of work by the U.S. government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

TJRC (talk · contribs)
Elvey (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In recent weeks, I've been working on it, as has TJRC. We've made some improvements, and conflicted a lot. Then again, I've given him a barnstar in the past. I've noticed that TJRC has been reluctant to discuss matters, and accusations of incivility have been made both ways. I just noticed the TJRC has been deleting several of my questions from the talk page, and ignoring others. It's hard to have a civil discussion if my questions are being flat out deleted. That sort of manipulation feels rather like hits below the belt, so to speak. Maybe there's some sort of underlying motivation that I'm not able to detect but someone else can. TJRC claims to be an attorney, but has made a number of confident assertions that turned out to be wrong, e.g. that PD-FLGov should just be turned into a fair-use template. I sometimes feel like the right of citizens to free use of the works of government in Florida and California is being buried, as so many efforts have been made to deny, diminish, delete or move the relevant information documenting that they are, by and large, in the Public Domain. I'd given up on efforts to include the content in the article, settling for just a tag indicating that there was an intractable issue, as to the accuracy of the information in the article, but TJRC has been repeatedly deleting even that.

How do you think we can help?

Can an uninvolved editor help us reach consensus or compromise and focus on the content issues and improving the encyclopedia?

Perhaps pointing out to TJRC that it's not constructive to demand an answer to a question when the question has been answered and TJRC has DELETED THE ANSWER would be an appropriate step before resorting to ANI.

Copyright status of work by the U.S. government discussion

Talk:Circumcision

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hawkeye499 on 18:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Circumcision (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Hawkeye499 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I feel that the Circumcision article is not fair and balanced. It seems that the article is written with a very pro-circumcision slant and has pushed away all anti-circumcision information either into external articles which are not prominently linked, or off Wikipedia entirely. Similar views have been expressed by many contributors to the talk page, and I think the following comment sums the problem up well:

"This article is patrolled very vigorously at present to maintain a particular view on circumcision and debate here is largely a cosmetic futile exercise which will be of interest primarily to historians."

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Contributed to a long thread on the article's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Review the neutrality of the article beyond the usual "verify sources". I believe the verification of sources is being skewed by the militant editors of the article.

Talk:Circumcision discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

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.

ModelZone

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Sasuke Sarutobi on 20:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

ModelZone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Sasuke Sarutobi (talk · contribs)
2.103.221.75 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

My removal of material that I believe to be unsuitable for Wikipedia (e.g. original research concerning individuals, contentious and uncited material, and general tidy-up and edit to flow) is being reverted by an IP-user without discussing on the talk page, as repeatedly requested. I am not experienced in dealing with disputes, so am unsure how to rectify this in a manner that benefits all concerned.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requests for discussion on the talk page, posted both on the talk page and in comments at the top of the article and in the main section concerned, and attempts to find middle ground, including citing some claims made by the user. None of these have been met with acknowledgement from the other party.

How do you think we can help?

Assisting in resolving the dispute by clarifying whether the content concerned is contentious, and/or advising on any measures that may need to be taken (e.g. action against the IP-user or protection of the page).

ModelZone discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

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.

Pope Benedict XVI

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Cryellow on 15:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Pope Benedict XVI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Cryellow (talk · contribs)
Mathsci (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have inputted reports made by Italian newspapers about the circumstances of Pope Benedict XVI's resignation. User Mathsci keeps reverting my edit.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Mathsci opened an Admin Noticeboard/Incident report on me, which went nowhere with no Admin input because there is no violation - rather this is a matter of disagreement over inclusion or exclusion of material.

How do you think we can help?

Settle the matter and avoid an edit war.

Pope Benedict_XVI discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

This request has been filed in bad faith by Cryellow, a highly problematic editor. Please see WP:ANI#Cryellow. Cryellow has attempted to add the same BLP violations to the same article a few days ago: it was removed as a BLP violation by another user, Tbhotch, whom Cryelllow has chosen not to mention. That is evidently a misuse of this noticeboard. The only place to ask is WP:BLPN, if anywhere. Mathsci (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci evidently enjoys edit wars. He even removed the notification I made on his talk page of this dispute resolution! This is the proper venue in which to discuss this matter. Cryellow (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:BRD, when Cryellow made a Bold edit to add this information, and he was Reverted, his next step was to Discuss it on the article's talk page. Instead, he has edit warred to keep the information in the article. To this date, he has not posted a comment on the article talk page. Coming to dispute resolution without engaging in talk-age discussion is not a proper use of the DR process. In addition, since the objection to the material centers around WP:BLP concerns -- which take precedence over almost everything else -- that should be the place to iron out those questions, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Cryellow's latest edit to the Pope Benedict XVI article, the material added wasn't supported by the sources cited, and on that basis, the material had to be reverted, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer's Suggestion: Cryellow et all. As far as we know Benedict is a living person and the issue is related to his retirement. Based on that and that now 3 editors in good standing are telling you the assertions are a not good idea, I think going over to WP:BLPN would be the best solution. Hasteur (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Cryellow has been blocked for 31 hours. Mathsci (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I think we can handle this one in-house. I've read over the two sources, and the Italian newspaper article that initially published this story. In this case, WP:REDFLAG comes in to play. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and these sources would need to unequivocally state what is written. In this case, we have one newspaper article state that Benedict resigned due to complicity in the sex abuse scandals, where all other mainstream media does not state this. This leads me to think two things - one, putting so much emphasis on one news report out of hundreds would give that newspapers point of view undue weight, and given that it has only been reported in one newspaper leads me to believe the claims are false, or at the very least do not meet the stringent requirements required for BLPs. I therefore agree that insertion of the material is not valid, and that further insertion of similar material should be discussed at an administrative forum. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Steven, the issue then becomes whether there are other mainstream media reports of this nature. Then we would have to understand whether this qualifies as a fringe theory in some manner etc. The information need not be flattering of course, but it does need to be verifiable in the manner you described. My question as an uninvolved editor is simply, how do we know this until we have looked further into it. So yes, I agree this could be settled in house. If there are not enough participants, would you like to advocate for the exclusion of the content and I can argue for inclusion? I could not mediate this case and would be considered an involved participant in this manner. I have had interactions with Mathsci, so this would depend on whether object in any way to my participation.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 02:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  - Cryellow was blocked for these antics. The blocking administrator gave Cryellow this post-block advice.[28] Cryellow deliberately misrepresented the sources to besmirch the reputation of a living person. The content was concocted by him (a living person was involved in various sex scandals and resigned because he was being blackmailed). Nowhere were statements of that kind made in the sources he was trying to use (English language news services reporting in February about articles in an Italian daily newspaper and an Italian weekly magazine). This is WP:BLPN territory and was an egregious BLP violation. Cryellow made his intentions quite clear in this diff,[29] where he wrote to Tbhotch, "Let's escalate this to a Wikipedia arbitration, or further up the ladder since it bothers you so much that your Pope may have been homosexual." Nothing to do with me, even if Amadscientist wants to make it so. Mathsci (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2013 (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.

David Grann

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Wjcohen on 16:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

David Grann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I have been back and forth with another editor about the relevance of a dismissed lawsuit as part of a living author's biographical page.

A lawsuit is an instance of a formal allegation, in this case against a prominent journalist. Although wikipedia guidelines do state the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, lawsuits covered in the press do seem relevant of inclusion. And this lawsuit was posted as part of the page.

However, once a lawsuit is dismissed, as it was in this case, then the allegation would seems to lose relevance - being tossed out of court renders the lawsuit devoid of merit. So its continued inclusion upon a wikipedia page casts undue aspirations on a living subject's character. (Particularly to a journalist, whose presumption of fairness is paramount to his reputation.) Innocence ought to be restored to the living person.

After the lawsuit was tossed out of court, it seemed no longer relevant to subject's wikipedia entry and potentially biased(as its appearance conveys a sense of an ongoing dispute when in reality, there is none any longer.) The editor Bednarek keeps trying to reinstate it for reasons unclear since it adds no meaningful or legally clarifying information. His original restoration of the lawsuit represented 33 percent of the subject's entire career profile; an reedited submission still represents more than 10 percent of the information displayed in that section, which is disproportionate as well as irrelevant as no judgement was found against the subject! Wikipedia guidelines state "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association..." and this would seem to be a case of it here.

Wikipedia urges that "special attention be paid to neutrality...regarding living persons" I hope this dispute can be settled.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk pages, notes back and forth in comments, other editors have also tried to modify Bednarek alterations.

How do you think we can help?

I wish this was a case where there was some compromise but it seems naught - the additional information presented on the page is no longer relevant and potentially defamatory to a living person's reputation -- or it is not. Hoping someone can help resolve this, especially as it pertains to wikipedia's guidelines on living persons. Thank you.

David Grann discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

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.

Genetically modified food controversies

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Canoe1967 on 18:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Genetically modified food controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Taco Bell GMO recall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The Taco Bell GMO recall was a controversial health recall of GMO food. I tried to add it to Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Health and it was reverted. I then created it as a stand alone article. Adding a wikilink to the health section of controversies is now being edit warred. It has been discussed on both talk pages and discussions are going nowhere. There is a mention of it in Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Environment with a wikilink. It was not an environmental issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked why they feel it wasn't a health related link at both article talk pages with no response, just reverts. diff 1 rationale from a 3rd editor-Canoe1967 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

Which section of the Genetically modified food controversies should the material and wikilink be placed in from our reader's point of view? Ask if the other editors will answer here with their rationale for only including it in the environmental section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Genetically modified food controversies discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here I am not taking this dispute at this time, but only want to note that I have relisted this via the listing form from a manual listing due to the listing editor's inability to use the form. No other assistance will be provided by a volunteer, however, until the "Have you tried to resolve this previously?" and "How do you think we can help?" sections, above, have been completed by Canoe1967 since those sections would have to be completed in order to use the listing form. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Done — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment from involved user. Short answer: there is no "dispute" yet because the issue has not been discussed on the relevant Talk page - I do not agree that we need dispute resolution. Please check it here. Long answer. This has been a strange interaction. User:Canoe1967 introduced content to the GM controversies article, on what he/she terms the "taco bell recall", in the "health" section, which duplicated content that was already present in the article in the "escape" section. The content was introduced by Canoe with this set of difs. I reverted that addition in the next dif, explaining in my edit note that the content was duplicative and noting that I was retaining one of the useful sources that had been introduced. Canoe did not follow WP:BRD and instead re-added the content in this set of difs. I again reverted in this dif, and in my edit note asked Canoe not to edit war, but rather to bring to Talk as per WP:BRD. I then opened a Talk section here to try to get a conversation going. Canoe came and made several COI-related accusations against me. In response, I a) asked Canoe not to attack me and b) responded to the substance of what he/she wrote. Canoe then kindly apologized but then stopped talking about it on that page. We had other conversations on the user's Talk page here in which I was attacked yet more, and on the Talk page for the Taco Bell GMO Recall article here, again where Canoe spent as much energy, if not more, attacking me than in dealing with substance. In short, I don't see that there is a "dispute" over content because we have hardly discussed this - the ball is in Canoe's court on the Talk page of the relevant article, here. In that discussion, he/she presented the reason why the content should be under "health", I responded why it should not be, and there has been no further conversation on that page. As you can tell, I do have some issues with Canoe's conduct toward me, but I have not chosen to bring that to any board yet. I have emphasized it here to point out that I think Canoe's issue is not over content (as Canoe has not continued the discussion on the relevant page) but is rather more generally with me, as an editor - that I have a COI or am a POV-pusher as per his/her several comments along those lines. There you go. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

After reading "I work at a university. I'm interested in biotechnology, intellectual property, and the public perception of both." on the user's talk page and his editing I still feel his POV is influencing Wikipedia articles. I no longer refer to him as COI after other discussions with the community. (my bold)--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, both Canoe1967 and Jytdog are saying that there has not been extensive discussion of the content issue involved in this matter at a talk page, though there may have been extensive discussion about conduct, bias, and COI. If that is indeed the case, then this listing must be closed per the rules of this noticeboard. Unless someone can, within the next 24 hours, point us to a place where the content issue has been extensively discussed, then I or another volunteer will close this request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion can't move much further. The reason for this is because the contaminated food 'escaped'. After this escape then a 'health recall' happened. The recall article is notable for the health issue and not containment/escape. We may be able to include it in both if that closes the case. Feel free to close this section if you think we can discuss it further. I doubt I can as on the recall talk page an editor refuses to discuss it. If you do close then I can move it to RfC or another drama board. Some of the underlying issues may eventually be taken to Arbcom. I was going to that but need to wait. This is because a deeply involved editor has been blocked for three months. These three months will give us time to investigate further both on and off the projects. --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This comment is part of what is bizarre to me. Canoe abruptly stopped talking about the issues on the Talk page and I still do not know why. The only thing I can guess it that he/she had some preconceived idea about what to expect and hasn't actually tried talking through the issue in the relevant space. He she said X, I said Y, and there has been no response. Dialogue is dialogue, working toward a synthesis, and Canoe is not working the process. Instead, it seems to be a binary game with him/her, where if the other party doesn't immediately agree there is an irresolveable dispute and the other party must be a bad actor. Again, this is not a real dispute yet. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, I think that opening a content WP:RFC would be a good idea for you. You would get more editors to look at the content issues. Please just accept that editors who respond to the RfC are doing so in good faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that RfC has good faith and this board doesn't? I am discussing it on both pages. This one and the one where Jytdog refuses to discuss it. We are just repeating ourselves with the wrong version protected by reverts. There is no reason we can't add both links until a consensus is reached. The version now does not give the reader a link to the health issue that was minimized to one person because of the health recall.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not what I am saying. You haven't opened an RfC yet. You should assume good faith at DRN and you should assume good faith in a future RfC. If you don't understand that, you will run into trouble as the dispute resolution continues. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't open an RfC until this one is closed. I doubt RfC will find consensus either. It will just be the same back and forth. I may skip that and go straight to Arbcom to save the storage of the same repeated bytes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please understand that a big part of the purpose of DRN is to "point you in the right direction" about the dispute resolution process, and that is what I am trying to do. If you look at WP:RFC, you will see the instructions there. You are free to do that any time, and you don't need anyone's permission here at DRN to do it. As for ArbCom, they will decline your request for arbitration unless you have already gone through all the lower steps on the dispute resolution ladder. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching what is going on with this dispute. The Taco Bell page is linked from the text in the GMO page, in a section about product "escapes". There seem to me to be two specific issues. One is whether it should (also) be present in the health effects section, and I do not see a good reason to do that, because it really isn't about health effects. Nowhere on the Taco Bell page is there anything about people suffering adverse health effects because of the taco shells. Speculation that health effects could have resulted seems to me to be WP:SYNTH. The other is whether the existing link should be either replaced by or supplemented by a hatnote at the top of the section. The edit warring is really about whether or not a prominent hatnote is needed. Let me suggest going without the hatnote, because it's just one part of the content in that section, but devoting a little more text within the section to the Taco Bell incident, especially so that the internal link can be written as the full page name. I think that Canoe is in part concerned that the link is not prominent enough, and it really wouldn't be a big deal to make it a little more visible. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The recall article is notable because it was a health recall. Whether the food was healthy or not was decided by the FDA as not being fit for human consumption in the legal sense. If it had been the recall of a chimney or a truck muffler they would go in the environment section and not the health section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the FDA decision, as I read it on the page here, seems to be that, as a matter of public policy, we should not risk having it in human food, as opposed to a finding that there were such-and-such health effects in humans. The corn was intended as agricultural animal feed. I imagine the same thing would have happened if there had been pet food in the tacos, but it wouldn't have been a finding that the pet food was dangerous for pets. Is there any sourcing that the corn in the taco shells has had adverse health effects in farm animals? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"....the taco shells has had adverse health effects in farm animals?" The FDA has found health problems in humans and thus the recall for health reasons. I don't know why I keep answering the same repeated questions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I only asked you once. What were those health problems in humans? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The FDA was not involved in approval or lack thereof for Starlink, nor in the recall. I also don't think a consensus between the Trypto and Canoe here, is going to be meaningful in the article, where there are many more participants. As there was no dispute because there had been no discussion (one back and forth does not a discussion make), let's move this back to Talk and let the Admins work on actual disputes. We may end up back here but we should do after a real discussion has taken place on Talk. Jytdog (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That talk page won't seek consensus anymore than this one will. You told me there were health concerns mentioned in the environment section as well as the escape section. I edited the article to reflect that to our readers. That edit was reverted without discussion and an edit summary about this discussion. If you don't revert so our readers can find the health issues in both sections then I will ask the volunteers to close this section so I can re-open it at either ANI or Arbcom. At ANI, I may ask if it should go straight to Arbcom. This is the same as telling our readers that there are no other health concerns in this article so don't look in other sections for them. Would you like to revert back to my mention of it and then discuss it further? If not then we need to move on.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The recall is not a health issue, it is a containment issue and is and has always been mentioned in the article. Canoe has made a new article which is great but it does not need to be linked as a further reading hatnote twice or even once, especially as the article contains not much more further reading than what can be found here. Much better to just link to the new article within the text of the section (as it is now). As a further note his accusations against Jytdog regarding a COI are ridiculous and need to stop. He has admitted to expressing an interest in an area as most editors who edit topics here do. If that is a conflict of interest then I would image most people here are guilty of having one. AIRcorn (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

When the wrong GMO loses containment then it becomes a health concern. If it gets into the human food chain it becomes a health threat. A container of rat poison broken in a food factory is not a containment issue, it is a health issue in the food chain. Sources say it was a health recall for a health risk. They do not say it was a containment recall for a containment failure. This is just going to go back and forth until it is closed here and moved on. You have health in two sections of the article when they belong in one. The readers should not expect to find health issues in the environment section the same as they shouldn't expect to find other issues in the health section. They should either be combined or the health section should direct readers to the other health concerns of the containment section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is this the wrong GMO? You can't compare it to rat poison as despite what some people think it isn't poison. And actually all the reliable sources say that there were no health effects in humans from the escape. There is a whole section on escapes where this fits in. It doesn't fit in to the health section and will not add anything meaningful there. AIRcorn (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There were no known health effects in humans because the health recall prevented them. That is what health recalls do. They protect health not the environment where this health recall is the article. It was not a containment recall. I have never heard of a containment recall. It was a wrong GMO for the human food chain because it isn't considered healthy for humans. We can keep repeating ourselves or close this as stalled out and move on.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As you opened the DR I imagine you could withdraw it. It seems to me you are repeating yourself because everyone is bringing up the same disagreements. That probably means there is consensus, but I guess a RFC is a way to get broader input. There are already two running, so why not add a third. AIRcorn (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this DR is opened yet because a volunteer has not taken it on. I don't think we were supposed to discuss it until they do. We probably just scared them all away with so much repeated text. I doubt an RfC will find consensus either. It will probably be the same back an forth repetition. The talk pages have stalled in the same way with Jytdog admitting he won't even discuss it any more on one of them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2013 (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.

Talk:Sasanian Empire#The_map_of_the_Sassanid_Empire

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Keeby101 on 22:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Sasanian Empire#The map of the Sassanid Empire (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Keeby101 (talk · contribs)
Cplakidas (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have seen that there have been many arguments about the map of the Sasanian Empire and they usually do not get resolved. I proposed a map that I thought would satisfy everyone, but one user was angry in response because I "rehashed" the same topic again. So I proposed another map which was a massive improvement of the last map and even had as many sources as possible to back it up, yet he still gets angry and we continue to clash on the talk page about the map. A few other users have gotten involved, but they have left. I simply want to put a more accurate map of the Sasanian Empire as the infobox image without anyone making a fuss over it and that is all, but still users refuse to aknowledge that, most prominently Constantine.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have proposed 2 maps as the infobox image of the Sasanian Empire: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sasanian_Persian_Empire_from_602-620_A.D.png, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png First map depicts the core territory of the Sasanian Empire prior to the Byzantine-Sassanid War with core territory shown in brown and territories occupied by Sasanian Armies shown in Orange. The second map simply shows the Empire at it's zenith altogether.

How do you think we can help?

Have as many Administrators possible to come onto the talk page and decide which map will be the infobox image of the article OR take a vote on having a brand new map being made by one of the Administrators or from somewhere on the internet.

Talk:Sasanian Empire#The_map_of_the_Sassanid_Empire discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Comments by User:Cplakidas

Well, the issue is simple: the "new and improved" maps are simply grossly inaccurate. They depict a situation which never existed, and include territories never occupied by the Sasanians for any significant period of time. Maps which include Cyprus, Rhodes, Chios, Samos and Lesbos, which even the most die-hard Iranian nationalist does not claim were ever seized during this time, can not be taken seriously. Let alone the much-debated question of Persian control over Anatolia (for which I refer to a careful reading of the well-referenced Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 article and my comments here) or Central Asia beyond the Oxus River (for which see [30], [31] or [32]). I also note that this is an endemic problem: Wikimedia Commons swarms with "super-Sasanian Empire" maps depicting wildly unrealistic borders, whereas every single map coming from professional historial atlases or academic institutions is far more modest. Compare the maps found here, especially the map here on the period in question with any one of Keeby's maps. Keeby, like many other users, confuses the question of "campaigning", "raiding", "invading", "overruning" etc an area with exercising actual control over it. Yes, the Persians invaded Anatolia on at least three occasions and even got as far as Chalcedon, yes they crossed the Oxus and defeated the Turks, in 619, but that does not translate into making these areas part of the Persian Empire, any more that the Romans' campaigning beyond the Rhine or the Arabs' raids into Anatolia for over two centuries does. Constantine ✍ 07:33, 9 August 2013 (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.

Unschooling

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Brycehughes on 20:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Unschooling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Since July 13, I have been reverting the edits of an amorphous cloud of limited-edit and single-issue focused users and IP addresses relating to the inclusion of the name Dayna Martin in the Unschooling article. So far as I understand it, Dayna Martin doesn't reflect particularly well on the unschooling philosophy, and these editors were prefer her name not appear. I believe the name should remain, given that she is a prominent and notable advocate, this is an encylopedia, etc. I have started a discussion on the talk page, but to no avail–the edits continue. At this point, I'm bordering on violating 3RR, and I'm not really sure what the next step is to resolve this dispute. I am happy to compromise, but that requires at least one of these editors to talk to me. Any help would be appreciated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Started discussion on talk page (no responses); posted to Starsuncloud's user talk page (the most recent of the users)

How do you think we can help?

I don't know. I've never been in a dispute before, so I'm not sure what the next step is. Any help notifying the users of the dispute resolution policies would be appreciated. Also, clarifying for me what the next steps are would be appreciated as well.

Unschooling discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

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.

Talk:Digvijaya Singh

Filed by Soham321 on 02:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC).

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Digvijaya Singh (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Soham321 (talk · contribs)
Sitush (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Sitush has changed the existing edit for the section 'Batla House Encounter' in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digvijaya_Singh (please scroll down to the section 'User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit' in the talk page of the main article for the discussion on this edit). Both the new edit and the original edit can be read in the 'User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit' section in the talk page (please scroll down). My objection to User:Sitush's modified edit is present in the talk page and i repeat it here: "The use of the word "reportedly' was because on the one hand we have reports of Singh stating that the encounter was fake and on the other hand we also have reports of Singh having denied reports of his calling the encounter "fake" on the ground that he cannot verify the authenticity of the incident. WP:NPOV being disregarded completed by User:Sitush. Singh's full clarification on this issue (that he had not called the encounter 'fake' but had only asked for a judicial probe) was also removed by User:Sitush for his own reasons.Soham321 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Additionally, the words of the journalist from the TOI article need to be removed because it violates the 'Impartial Tone' clause in WP:NPOV". I will also point out that Sitush has not tried to disguise his animosity/dislike for Singh. Additionally,the following demonstrates the fallacy in Sitush's approach: If a public personality is accused of rape or murder, User:Sitush would prefer the accusation to appear on the wikipedia page of that person along with a tendentious quotation of some journalist slamming the person. Further, any clarification of the accused would not be permitted to appear on the wikipedia page of the accused person if we go along with the logic being used by User:Sitush in the edit under consideration.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried engaging with User:Sitush on the article talk page but instead of discussing the edit itself, he prefers talking about all kinds of extraneous things like how often i have gone for dispute resolution or how often Singh--according to Sitush-- claims he has been misquoted.

How do you think we can help?

Please do whatever you think is appropriate under the circumstances keeping in mind wikipedia rules and guidelines. My own understanding is that Sitush's edit is in violation of wikipedia rules and guidelines as i have explained here and also in the relevant section in the talk page of the article.

Opening comments by Sitush

I have commented here. This report, as I suggested on the article talk page when it was mooted, is yet another premature example. I note the recusals of MM and TM below and would like to stress that I would not consider any past involvements with me to be a bar to their participation in this process. It is probably fairly well known that I don't have a great deal of faith in DRN as a process when it comes to India-related stuff but I do trust those who regularly participate here to do so in an impartial manner. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Digvijaya Singh discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hello and welcome to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm Mark and I am a regular volunteer. I will be recusing myself from the request because I have had previous interactions with Sitush. However, as an involved editor, I would have to wonder if that is extensive enough discussion.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 09:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm also recused because of prior interactions with both editors, but also feel that there's been insufficient discussion and I'd also like to correct an error stated on the article talk page. One editor said, "As per wikipedia rules, if there is a fundamental disagreement on an edit it has to be taken for DRN." That is incorrect: Both asking for and participating in content dispute resolution is always discretionary, never mandatory. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I've read over the discussion on the talk page. Long story short, I agree with the comments made by Sitush. The issue here is largely due to a misunderstanding of policy on the part of Soham321. Policies have been explained to them, both by admins on their talk page and ANI. I think the boomerang effect applies here, and would suggest that if this sort of conduct continues, that Sitush should consider ANI. I see no valid content dispute here, thus I am closing the thread. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 15:45, 6 August 2013 (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.

Talk:List of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Fifty7 on 22:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:List of football clubs in England by major honours won (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Basically, an agreement cannot be reached regarding which honors to include and which honors to exclude on the table this article is about.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page resolution, and page protection to foster it

How do you think we can help?

At this point, any kind of dispute resolution from uninvolved editors can be a good thing.

Talk:List of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Werieth

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by InMontreal on 15:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

User talk:Werieth (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

InMontreal (talk · contribs)
Werieth (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Werieth mass removes images in various articles stating WP:NFG and its variations. I reversed Vrak.TV, and we now reached limits to the "The three-revert rule", even after discussion in talk page that leads to nowhere.

Problem: WP:TVS is aware of WP:NFCC policies and recommends prudence, but User:Werieth doesn't agree with keeping the television station's old logos before rebranding, wanting to follow NFCC rule to the letter.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

User talk only. I tried the most civil way, I got biblical references and threats.

How do you think we can help?

Since historical logos of television channels and stations are mostly non-free and fair-use, is it in the best interest of wikipedia to remove any past history logos and keep only the current ones? Flexibility and rationale or strict rules?

User talk:Werieth discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Actually if WP:NFCC was met I wouldn't have an issue, however this user is not in compliance with either WP:NFC or WP:TVS. If the user thinks that this should be exempt from policy I suggested taking it to WP:NFCR (AKA Non-Free Content Review). But the over-use of non-free files is not acceptable. This user has also thrown multiple personal attacks directed at myself because they do not like policy. Werieth (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2013 (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.

Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks#Recent_dispute_about_allegation

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ali aff on 14:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks#Recent dispute about allegation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

1. Contribution based on latest development on the article is no being allowed and being deleted by cerain users, although contribution fulfill all wikipedia policies eg verifiability, reliability, truth, noticability.2. Issue is about a written affidavit given in a law court by an Indian Home Minister about an information passed to him by a high level CBI Officer for involvment of Inidan Govt. in the subject of article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Editing of artilce and extensive discussion on article talk page with reasons

How do you think we can help?

Make a decisive statement from neutral point of view.

Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks#Recent_dispute_about_allegation discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but with no participation here by any of the other users this appears to be futile. This request will be closed after 14:00 UST on August 15, 2013, unless a substantial number of participants indicate that they wish for it to remain open and move forward. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:59, 14 August 2013 (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.

Yeakley's Research on the Boston Church of Christ

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by JamieBrown2011 on 15:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Continuing Discussion on Yeakley Research (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Dr Flavil Yeakley conducted research in 1985 on the Boston Church of Christ. He had his book published by 'Gospel Adovocate'. There was some dispute over Gospel Advocate as a reliable source and the DRN ruled here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_73#International Churches of Christ that: (1) that Yeakley's publisher, The Gospel Advocate Company, is not a high quality source, because there is no evidence of fact checking, (2) that Yeakley's research may be cited in the article because it's referred to by other high quality secondary sources, (3) that it's preferable to cite the secondary sources to refer to the aforementioned material if they cover enough ground. Discussion has deadlocked with whether the reliable secondary sources "cover enough ground".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive debate on the Talk page over a number of weeks.

How do you think we can help?

Can you guide us to resolve whether the secondary reliable sources cover enough ground or whether material from 'Gospel Advocate' needs to included in the article?

Do the reliable secondary sources cover enough ground on Yeakley's research on the Boston Church of Christ

Have you considered that taking this to the reliable sources noticeboard might be a more appropriate course of action? My first instinct is to close this with that recommendation but I'd like another volunteers opinion. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue might be a little more complex as 'Gospel Advocate' was ruled as an unreliable source but Yeakley's research as admissible because it was referred to in reliable secondary sources. Two editors are happy to use the secondary sources and one is insisting in keeping the 'Gospel Advocate' material in the article, his assessment is the reliable secondary sources "don't cover enough ground" hence the deadlock. Guidance would be appreciated.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@JamieBrown2011, Nietzsche123, and JamesLappeman: Ok in 200 words or less, those stating the seconady sources don't cover enough ground: please explain your rational behind it. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've read over the material again. It seems to me that Gospel Advocate is an unreliable primary source (something seemingly agreed upon) however the material has been cited by reliable secondary sources. In Wikipedia we much prefer secondary sources because they do the analysis for us. The policy on primary sources states: be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]. It looks like the Yeakley source contains some fairly big claims ("highly manipulative" sects) which are not covered in secondary sources. This is the primary source drawing conclusions from its own statements. Generally we prefer a secondary source to cover these and do the analysis of the data presented by the primary source. Would I be correct in saying that there is no secondary analysis that makes the same claims (e.g. the bit about the sects, unhealthy ways)? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabe Yes, to my knowledge, that is correct. On the Talk page I have asked @Nietzsche to provide any secondary sources we are unaware of, to date he has not. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that those claims shouldn't be included as their is no reliable source for those parts explicitly. Considering the weight of what is being said I would say not to cite the GA source and remove those statements. In the interest of fairness I'll wait and see what the remaining editors opinions on the matter are. I am open to having my opinion changed. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, I agree that the strength and nature of the Gospel Advocate claims are not in line with RS and BLP policy. The secondary sources definitely cover the gist of Yeakley's research (although as you know from the talk page I still find the quality of these secondary sources questionable if they choose to see Gospel Advocate as reliable enough for their use). My opinion is that Yeakley is not relaible enough for the article since the primary data is so unreliable but, should it be kept by consensus, the secondary sources are preferable and adequate if used properly. I have been querying @Nietzsche's constant push to have such inflammatory (almost tabloid like) data included but other than continual reverts am still not sure why this is so. I would also like to propose that the title be changed to "Flavil Yeakley's 1985 Research on the Boston Church of Christ" as Yeakley's book is given a separate section (as opposed to being contained in the "history"). Since it was nearly 30 years ago and only in a single congregation of what is today around 430 congregations in 170 countries it is misleading to indirectly project these findings on the current entire ICOC. By qualifying it as much as possible in the title it would be better reflected. JamesLappeman (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the length of what follows; I tried to keep it as short as possible. If my understanding is correct, TransporterMan on behalf of the DRN board previously ruled that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, Yeakley's research is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources. This is why the previous ruling of the board was that we may cite Yeakley directly. I understand that secondary sources are to be preferred to primary (and even more specifically that the high quality Norton secondary sources are to be preferred to other secondary sources); but the previous ruling permitted citing Yeakley directly, especially when the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground. Specifically, while the secondary sources state that BCC members' personality types changed to match its leaders' types, the secondary sources leave out Yeakley's specific normative claims that "the discipling methods employed by that church" are "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" and the bit about "highly manipulative sects" already mentioned (see Norton p. 39). JamesLappeman and JamieBrown2011 have been trying to word the summation as: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm". My problems with this is that it's misleading since it's only a clarification Yeakley makes of his conclusion stated earlier. Moreover, JamieBrown2011 takes the bit from The Boston Movement, which quotes it right from the Yeakley text; so if you have a problem directly citing the Yeakley text, this bit shouldn't be included, either. The secondary sources also leave out Yeakley's claims regarding how the BCC operates three years after his study was completed: "[p]erhaps the most important development in the year since this book was written is that counselors in virtually every city where this radical movement exists are now being flooded with clients who are the psychological, emotional, and spiritual victims of this authoritarian movement. Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult". I take offense to the above suggestion that these observations are almost tabloid-like. These are serious charges that come from a reputable source. The question is: is the Yeakley text reputable enough? As far as articulating the section on Yeakley to be mindful that his 1985 research is limited to the BCC (not necessarily the ICOC as a whole), the WP article is already written in this way. What specifically, JamesLappeman, were you wanting to change? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this sums up the difficulty we have been having over at the Talk page. Nietzsche is determined to keep using the 'Gospel Advocate' material to the point of being "offended" when it is pointed out that making big claims from low quality sources is not really within the scope of Wikipedia or consistent with it's policies (but more akin to a tabloid). When an attempt is made to rather use the secondary sources (as per the previous DRN ruling by TransporterMan) and their summation of Yeakley's research, the repeated response is reject and revert back to the primary GA material. The high quality secondary sources describe the research Yeakley did, give an analysis of what his research revealed and quote from his writings the sections they endorse. (that is why I included those quotes in my suggested edit). None of them quote from Yeakley's appendix in the GA book, which Nietzsche insists should be included in the article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011's above summation is incorrect on many points, of which one point is particularly pertinent: the bit he suggested to include (previously mentioned in my edit above) comes directly from Yeakley's text. The editors of The Boston Movement (where Jaime gets his quote) included an entire chapter from Yeakley's text in their book. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That is the point isn't it, where the reliable secondary sources reference or quote Yeakley, that material is preferred to using a primary source on Wikipedia, especially a low quality one. Since Cabe's request is for the editors who feel the secondary sources don't cover enough ground to fully explain their rationale, I wont interrupt again until that is complete.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"TransporterMan on behalf of the DRN board previously ruled that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, Yeakley's research is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources." No. As volunteers we speak only for ourselves and not the entire board. It isn't a ruling. It is simply the opinion of one volunteer and has no authority. Having said that, it might be advisable to put a good deal of weight on Transportationman's opinion as they do know what they are talking about. But, this is an informal process at DR/N.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Mark and Cabe 6403 thanks again for your input. As you can see we have struggled to find consensus. I still find it strange that a source can be seen as unreliable according to WP guidelines but then legitimised because it is quoted in a few secondary sources. I guess I'm not convinced that because a few niche journals chose to include material from a family business publisher it means that it is of encyclopaedia quality. It is such a minute and debatable slice of research that seems to take up a large amount of space (more space than some other more significant and relevant sections). I think that Gospel Advocate is not a reliable source and should be removed BUT if we decide to keep it then a few short measured sentences from secondary sources would be the most balanced option. JamesLappeman (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The primary source isn't "legitimised" by being quoted in reliable secondary sources, rather because the secondary sources are reliable we can use their commentary on the primary source. Basically, the bits of GA that have received critical commentary can be cited in the article. My own feeling is that you are able to make claims in the article if they can be cited by the secondary sources. If a claim you wish to make is only covered by the primary source then it wouldn't be appropriate to cover it. The only time its appropriate to cite the primary source is when directly quoting it to clarify a claim made by a secondary source. Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that for me. JamesLappeman (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabe & Mark Thanks. This has provided a lot of help on how to move forward. With the clarity to use the secondary source material and not the primary GA stuff, we can go back to the talk page and work out the details of what that wording should be.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Do JamieBrown2011 and Nietzsche123 agree?--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I must confess that I'm a little confused. On June 14th (DRN archive 73) TransporterMan wrote that "with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory". From this and more statements he wrote I gather that it is TransporterMan's opinion that (1) Yeakley is a reliable source, that (2) Yeakley may be directly referred to in the WP article, and that (3) secondary sources are preferable to directly citing Yeakley if they cover enough ground. I concur with this opinion. While The Gospel Advocate Company doesn't seem to be reliable source, the Yeakley material does seem to be a reliable source since it's referred to by multiple high quality sources. The secondary sources fail to cover the normative ground Yeakley does. This shouldn't be surprising: for various reasons academic presses in general tend to shy away from making normative claims, especially about religious groups. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding link to archived discussion related to this dispute: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 73#International Churches of Christ for convenience.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nietzsche123, I feel we should show the full statement from the DR/N volunteer to better understand their intent. This in no way should be seen as agreement with any participant. This is just for convenience to understand the opinion of the volunteer from the past filing:

@Everyone: As for Jamie's last point, above, "mentions" may be enough if the study is mentioned or listed as a source on which the author of the reliable source relies. I've not been able to find a full copy of the Rambo article mentioned by Nietzsche, but the Gasde one seems firm enough. At Wikipedia "multiple" generally only means "more than one", so with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory. With that, and with Jamie going to be out, I'd like to close this DNR listing and kick this back to the article talk page for consideration of how and how much to incorporate the material into the article. If you get stuck on that, then you can relist here with a newly-focused request. I'll leave this open for a couple of days in case anyone wishes to object, in which case we can discuss further. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Generally I dislike trying to interpret another volunteers words, but it appears to me that what is being said here is that the Yeakley material can be used as a primary source when used with secondary sources that are confirmed to be reliable to Wikipedia standards. Multiple sources are required for BLP group articles as we are talking about living people. Thoughts?--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Without overcomplicating, my take on the above is simply: Secondary sources would be best. In light of that I feel that we are in a good place because the secondary sources describe the research without the weightier claims in the later added editors notes. I'm not exactly sure what @Nietzche means by 'normative ground' (it just sounds like he is trying to squeeze an accusation in which is not what encyclopaedias are for). I still stand by the observation that it is a strange place we find ourselves with Gospel Advocate not meeting encyclopedia quality but a few cultic studies journals (with questionable reliability as I've noted on the talk page) making reference to Yeakley. Given RS, BLP and even FRINGE there are enough problems with the fact that Yeakley (1) virtully published his own work, (2) is a communications and church specialist and not a psychologist (his research didn't make it into any major psychology journals) and (3) The journals he is cited in are very niche and even citing them is making a big and disputed claim about the ICOC (notice that established journals like 'The Journal for the Study of Religion' do/would not source from GA). I still opt for us all to look at the previous ruling and consider the prudence of taking Yeakley out altogether. If consensus goes against this then lets err on the side of concise, neutral and secondary sources. JamesLappeman (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I previously stated my take on TransporterMan's opinion, namely, that while 1) secondary sources (and the higher quality Norton sources in particular) are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, it's permissible to do so, especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground. The secondary sources fail to mention the normative claims Yeakley makes. It's not just several Cultic Studies Journal articles that refer to Yeakley; rather, at least two other high quality secondary sources do: 1) a Norton text edited by Michael Langone and 2) a Pastoral Psychology article by written Lewis Rambo. Yeakley's CV may be found here: http://www.pureheartvision.org/resources/docs/Vita2011.pdf. He was a professor for over 17 years, earning awards for teaching at Harding University and the Isabel Briggs Myers Memorial Award for Research in the year he published his work on the BCC. I'm not sure on what grounds JamesLappeman declares that Yeakley isn't a psychologist since he has a BA in psychology and a PhD in speech communication (and has published in a number of psychology journals). Where the secondary sources cover the ground Yeakley does, I agree that we should use them instead of citing Yeakley directly; but where they fail to cover enough ground, I'm in favor of citing Yeakley directly. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

So Cabe & Mark we are back to the same place we started. @Nietzsche has a predetermined disposition to wanting to use the primary Gospel Advocate material, even though everyone agrees that the GA book of Yeakley's research is regarded as unreliable for Wikipedia (no professional journalists, no editorial board, no evidence of fact checking) yet because @Nietzsche choses to interpret TransporterMan's comments to legitimise the primary GA source, therefore for all practical purposes, anything found in the primary GA book that is not covered in the reliable secondary sources is fair game because the "secondary sources do not cover enough ground". Hence @Nietzsche can conclude above:

Where the secondary sources cover the ground Yeakley does, I agree that we should use them instead of citing Yeakley directly; but where they fail to cover enough ground, I'm in favor of citing Yeakley directly JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me ping the participants and see if I can sort this threw enough to further the discussion. JamieBrown2011, JamesLappeman and Nietzsche123, I would like to make a few observations.

The material in question is: "Yeakley, Flavil (1988). The Discipling Dilemma: A Study of the Discipling Movement Among Churches of Christ. Gospel Advocate Company. ISBN 0892253118". The issue; is this reliable enough for Wikipedia standards to use in any way to source content if there are secondary (third party) sources, that should suffice. One editor believes that the secondary mentions are not enough and wishes to source directly from the Yeakley, Gospel Advocate (YGA) source where the secondary sources fall short. A sort of broad interpretation of the dispute, so feel free to correct any mistakes I might make.

Some of this has been slightly misperceived I think on both sides and that is not a bad thing. But let me try this.

The strength of sources is determined by several factors and in the last DR we seem to have had enough consensus from editors that the YGA was at least good enough to be a primary source, specifically because it had mention in multiple references in third party sources. That in itself means that we are able to at least show the primary source as illustration along with the secondary source references. Now, if there is something that is being cited directly from the secondary source, such as Yeakley's opinion, a quote could perhaps be used from the primary source, if it expands on the secondary mentions, but not if we are interpreting the primary source ourselves independent of the secondary (third party) sources. Thoughts.--Mark 23:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, so, here is where I think we had left off. On 07:50, 8 August 2013 , in a reply to JamesLappeman, Cabe6403 responded with clarification about secondary sources not necessarily "legitimizing" a primary source. I believe I have recapped much of what the DR volunteer stated about primary source use with the secondary sources. At 15:08, 8 August 2013, the editor that requested the DR/N stated that they were prepared to return to the talk page to continue discussion on the secondary sources-excluding the primary source being used, which was responded to by Nietzsche123 with concern that they felt Transportationman had indeed clarified that the YGA was a "reliable source" and therefore could be directly cited, "especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground".

Nietzsche123, you may only cite YGA directly if a secondary source as already advanced the information. If the secondary sources fail to sufficiently cover enough ground, we would really need further research and additional sources to fill that in. JamesLappeman, there is no actual reason to exclude the use of the primary source. For example, it may be placed third in line to the two secondary sources as inline citations to illustrate the commentary mentioning YGA. I actually think we are still where we left off, when JamieBrown2011 suggested that this could be closed and taken back to the talk page to discuss. But we just do not need to exclude YGA entirely from the article, it's use just hinges on the secondary sources for any material used. Perhaps a quote from YGA that is covered by commentary in secondary sources? Just a suggestion, not a recommendation. In other words there must be a way to get a consensus for content no matter what it is, and the DR/N won't really tell you what you have to do hear.

We could continue to discuss the content dispute and hash out eactly what is used from YGA if editors even agree that something should be at all. Thoughts?--Mark 02:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to accept only quoting from YGA if a secondary source has already advanced the information and if the quotes don't go beyond what is advanced by the reliable secondary sources.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand that it is Mark's and Cabe's opinion that YGA be cited directly only if high quality secondary sources cover the same ground, since YGA by itself is not necessarily a reliable source. But I also understand that it is TransporterMan's opinion that YGA may be cited directly, even if secondary sources don't cover the same ground, since YGA is a reliable source (since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources). TransporterMan, please correct me if I'm wrong. As I see it, we have two different "rulings" by the DRN board. If we may only cite YGA directly when the secondary sources cover the same ground, I'm in favor of something like the following summation of Yeakley's research.

In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members over extended periods of time (Gasde article citation and Yeakley citation). A majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions in convergence with the group's leader (Norton Langone citation (p 39), Gasde article citation (p 58), and Yeakley citation). After completing the study, Yeakley concluded that "there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Norton citation (p 39) and Yeakley citation).

What do you all think? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand me at least. I am stating what Transportationman has already helped establish, that the primary source (the YGA) could only be mentioned through secondary sources. Could you demonstrate how you are interpreting Transportationman to be saying what you claim?--Mark 02:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And I may also be misunderstanding this from TransporterMan: "[T]he Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory". That sounds like we are defining YGA as a RS to be cited when the third party sources do not cover it. So we are saying that there are enough multiple references that YGA is not a primary source in itself and has enough notability to at least allow some use to reference content. Not sure how I feel about referencing any facts though.--Mark 05:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche I am not sure where you are getting your information that Yeakley conducted his tests over an extended period of time, on pg 30 of Yeakley's book he says he conducted his research over 10 days and participants were asked 3 questions and asked to give answers how they perceived their personalities to be before conversion, currently and what they imagined they would be like in 5 years time. Here is the quote: "They were asked to answer the questions three times. One time the members were told to answer the questions the way they think they would have before their conversion-or five years ago for the few who had been members that long. The members were also told to answer the questIons the way they would at that present time. Finally, they were told to answer the questions the way they think they will answer them after they have been discipled for five more years." So stating that the majority of the members changed their personality types is factually incorrect. This was not a longitudinal study. So please word that part correctly. Not sure what @JamesLappeman thinks? Also, I am going to remove all the current GA material from the ICOC article until we reach consensus here.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, if this is true then either it must be explicitly mentioned as Nietzsches current suggested wording is, therefore, factually incorrect or it mustn't be mentioned at all. I don't have access to the source currently, would you be able to quote the relevant sections directly for me here? Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabe

Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC). He asked them to respond to each item one time as they would have responded before their conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves answering in five more years after discipling. Nearly all respondents tended to change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was towards the personality of the leader.^[1]

"The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm".^[2]

They were asked to answer the questions three times. One time the members were told to answer the questions the way they think they would have before their conversion-or five years ago for the few who had been members that long. The members were also told to answer the questIons the way they would at that present time. Finally, they were told to answer the questions the way they think they will answer them after they have been discipled for five more years.^[3]

I don't see where Yeakley discusses the duration of his research on page 30 of his work; rather, on page 23 he states that the "initial data-gathering stage" of his research lasted 10 days. On page 24 he goes on to say that the focus of his chapter (and our present discussion) is "a much larger psychological study that involved over 900 members of the congregation". Regardless, I cannot find where I got my "extended periods of time" from. In light of that, I'm comfortable dropping the phrase from the summation. What do you think?

Mark, I think the following quotes from TransporterMan are relevant.

"Since the material about Yeakley's work reflects upon living persons, it would appear to me that the policy set out in WP:BLPGROUP suggests that Wikipedia needs to be particularly careful when dealing with controversial material such as this so that any doubt about sourcing ought to be resolved against inclusion unless high-quality sources can be found. Though my opinion would be the same even without WP:BLPGROUP, that policy further convinces me that the source is inadequate. That does not necessarily mean that Yeakley's research cannot be referenced in the article, but it does mean that a third-party source which is Wikipedia-reliable and high-quality needs to be found for it. In the alternative, if it can be shown that Yeakley's research (not the book in general, since there appears to be material in the book other than Yeakley's research) has been referenced or discussed approvingly or relied upon in high-quality reliable sources then that too may be an indicator of reliability sufficient to allow the book to be used directly"

"The Recovery from Cults book is published by W W Norton, a highly respected publisher. If what's said in there (and most or all of it can be viewed either through Google Books or through the "Look Inside" feature at Amazon) is sufficient to support the text that editors wish to introduce into the article I certainly would think that would be a reliable secondary source and would avoid directly using the Yeakley book as a source in the article at all [...] If however the secondary sources are sufficient to include the material without referring directly to Yeakley's work, that's a better choice under Wikipedia principles to begin with."

"so with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory"

In my eyes, the first quote suggests that while GA is not a reliable source, Yeakley may be, so long as his work is referenced by high quality secondary sources. And as I read the last two quotes, they suggest that while high quality secondary sources are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, we may cite Yeakley directly, especially where the secondary literature doesn't cover the territory Yeakley does. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@Nietzsche I think you are missing the point somewhat, the more important misrepresentation in your description of the Yeakley study is not so much in the 10 day timeline of the study but in your comment that "A majority of the members changed their personality types". The reliable secondary sources and Yeakley himself states that the forms were handed out to the 835 church members at a midweek church service and they were asked to answer the questions three times; 1) How they think they would have been before their conversion - or five years ago, 2) How they perceive themselves now (at the time of the study) and 3) How they think they will answer the questions in five years time... Your description is a significant distortion of the facts. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

JamieBrown2011, there is no distortion on my part. I ask that you be more careful with your use of language in the future. Again, you were wrong to assert that Yeakley's research was conducted over a 10-day period; contrary to what you wrote, Yeakley took 10 days to initially gather data, not to conduct his study of over 900 members. Both Yeakley and the Langone Norton source state that "a great majority" of members changed their personality types (see previous citations). So I'm not sure what your concern is. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123, you say yourself: "rather, on page 23 he states that the "initial data-gathering stage" of his research lasted 10 days.". From my understanding of the source, the "initial data-gathering" is the questionaires/forms he handed out. Any analysis of the data produced from that may have taken longer, he may have continued to revisit the data and further analyse it for years but the surveys were conducted over a short period of time, this needs to be clear in the article to avoid misrepresenting the source Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Nietzsche123 On pg 37 Yeakley states: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm." On pg 31 Yeakley again states: "It should also be understood that this was not a longitudinal study that determined the psychological type of people at three different times. What was indicated was the present psychological type manifested by these people, their perception of their past psychological type, and their perception of their future psychological type." I maintain, your description is a distortion of the facts.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

[WP:BLPGROUP] must have some precedent here even though Yeakley has been quoted in secondary sources. Whatever the eventual consensus I don't think Nietzsche's original claim (even stated in the heading at one point) that the BCC was changing the personality of its members is well enough sourced to carry the weight of the accusation? JamesLappeman (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} and Mark are you aware of any past cases where a serious claim itself to BLPGROUP was required to have more than a single source. i.e. there would need to be more than one body of research making the same exact claim in order for it to be included? JamesLappeman (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If the claim being made can be defined as an extraordinary claim, or one that directly refers to living persons or BLPGROUPS, then it requires more than s single reference.--Mark 17:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In pages 23-24 of his text Yeakley clearly distinguishes the 10-day initial data-gathering stage of his research from the larger psychological study he conducted with over 900 BCC members. The data gathering consists of sitting in on leadership meetings, observing training classes, "Bible Talks", house church meetings, and Sunday worship services. So where's the distortion on my part? Again, I'm ready to drop the "over an extended period of time" bit. JamieBrown2011, as I repeatedly pointed out on the talk page, your quote from page 37 of Yeakley's text is a qualification he makes. Yeakley's discusses his method on page 24:

"Considering all the criticism that has been directed against the Boston Church of Christ, it is remarkable that they were as open as they were in allowing this study. Their openness is strong evidence that they believed that they had nothing to hide. They even permitted me to conduct two different psychological studies. One study involved the two newest converts in each of the 35 house churches that were meeting at that time. Results and implications of that study will be discussed in Chapter 3. The focus of the present chapter is on a much larger psychological study that involved over 900 members of the congregation. A central element in the criticism that has been directed against the Boston Church of Christ, other discipling churches, and the discipling movement generally has been the charge that these churches employ methods that produce unnatural and unhealthy personality changes. Critics charge that discipling churches tend to make the members over after the image of the group leader, the group norm, or the group ideal. Supporters of the discipling movement deny that any such personality changes are taking place. This, of course, is an empirical question that calls for an empirical answer. There are many mysteries associated with the conversion process that can never be explained scientifically. This question, however, about the presence or absence of personality changes can be answered by the appropriate use of a personality inventory."

The following is from pp. 20-21 of his text, where he states the conclusion of his research.

The next chapter presents the results of some research conducted in the Boston Church of Christ. A psychological test was administered to over 900 members of that congregation. Results of that study provide convincing evidence of an unhealthy pressure toward conformity in the Boston Church of Christ. It is changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways. Later in this book, you will find several follow-up studies done after the original research in Boston. Results of these studies provide compelling proof that the personality changes are being produced by the discipling methods employed by that church. Various comparison group studies show that these personality changes are not generally found in other churches of Christ or in various mainline denominations--but the very same pattern of personality change is observed in studies of various sects that are highly manipulative.

Now, if we're only permitted to include material also mentioned by secondary sources, we can't include Yeakley's claim that the BCC is "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" (since none of the secondary literature I'm aware of repeats this claim). But we can and should include his claim that "a great majority of the members of the Boston Church of Christ changed psychological type scores in the past, present, and future versions of the MBTI" (Yeakley p. 34; Norton p. 39; and Gasde p. 58). In light of this, I propose the following (slightly modified from my previous attempted) summation.

In 1985 a Church of Christ minister and professor, Dr. Flavil Yeakley, conducted a study of over 900 members of the Boston Church of Christ (BCC), the founding church of the ICOC. In order to conduct his study Yeakley gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test three times to BCC members (Gasde article citation and Yeakley citation). A great majority of the members changed their personality types in the three different versions in convergence with the group's leader (Norton Langone citation (p 39), Gasde article citation (p 58), and Yeakley p. 34). After completing the study, Yeakley concluded that "there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences its members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm" (Norton citation (p 39) and Yeakley citation). Thoughts? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by TJRC on 00:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Elvey (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Elvey has continued to edit within my comments when I have requested him not to, and is undoing the reversions I made pursuant to WP:TPO.

Under WP:TPO, "If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found." I have reverted these interruption. Elvey refuses to allow me to do that.

This all stems from my attempts to find out what is confusing to Elvey that made him mark a section as confusing. However, Elvey insists, not only on reinstating his interruptions contrary to TPO, but deleting the comments trying to get to the bottom of his issue to get the article into a state that no longer confuses him.

See, for example, [33].

This has been discussed at a previous An/I; see here. Despite the counsel there to Elvey to try to work in good faith to resolve the issue, and his promise to do so, he still persists.

It is important to me that Elvey's misunderstandings of the subject matter and his hostile tone not be attributed to me, which is the primary reason why I wish to rely on WP:TPO. I also would like to address any valid issue he has, but I'm now frankly reaching the end om my patience. He categorized the most innocuous comments as "accusations," for example. He's very much a hothead, and I would like some help dealing with him.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page, discussion on user's talk page.

Note, since Elvey has deleted my note to him about TPO, a pointer to it is here. Please note my attempt at civility here and elsewhere, and feel free to compare and contrast with Elvey's comments.

How do you think we can help?

I'm open to ideas here; Elvey does not seem to be.

Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Comment by uninvolved AndyTheGrump

See the note at the top of the page: "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums." This issue appears to be currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TJRC AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Elvey did not notify me that he opened that. I will follow up there. TJRC (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The above is untrue. diff - Proof I notified over an hour earlier. But WP:IDHT is SOP for this user.--Elvey (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2013 (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.

Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by TJRC on 00:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Elvey (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Elvey has continued to edit within my comments when I have requested him not to, and is undoing the reversions I made pursuant to WP:TPO.

Under WP:TPO, "If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found." I have reverted these interruption. Elvey refuses to allow me to do that.

This all stems from my attempts to find out what is confusing to Elvey that made him mark a section as confusing. However, Elvey insists, not only on reinstating his interruptions contrary to TPO, but deleting the comments trying to get to the bottom of his issue to get the article into a state that no longer confuses him.

See, for example, [34].

This has been discussed at a previous An/I; see here. Despite the counsel there to Elvey to try to work in good faith to resolve the issue, and his promise to do so, he still persists.

It is important to me that Elvey's misunderstandings of the subject matter and his hostile tone not be attributed to me, which is the primary reason why I wish to rely on WP:TPO. I also would like to address any valid issue he has, but I'm now frankly reaching the end om my patience. He categorized the most innocuous comments as "accusations," for example. He's very much a hothead, and I would like some help dealing with him.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page, discussion on user's talk page.

Note, since Elvey has deleted my note to him about TPO, a pointer to it is here. Please note my attempt at civility here and elsewhere, and feel free to compare and contrast with Elvey's comments.

How do you think we can help?

I'm open to ideas here; Elvey does not seem to be.

Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Comment by uninvolved AndyTheGrump

See the note at the top of the page: "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums." This issue appears to be currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TJRC AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Elvey did not notify me that he opened that. I will follow up there. TJRC (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The above is untrue. diff - Proof I notified over an hour earlier. But WP:IDHT is SOP for this user.--Elvey (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2013 (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.

Talk:Yuilop

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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.

Filed by WCS100 on 14:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Yuilop (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Many articles about software, up until a few days ago, use the word "free" to describe the product. I assume this is because many primary and independent secondary sources do so. Recently, a question has been raised as to whether or not these articles belong in categories whose definitions are described by articles on Wikipedia. For instance, Freemium or Freeware.

The question posed is, do we use a definition made in another article to define a category to define the subject of another article? Do we do so even if that definition is different than the way that several secondary sources describe the subject?

Palosirkka posted {{help}} templates a few places but eventually, an RFC was started. I've tried to discuss this with the other listed editors but they have provided no evidence for their claims.

Furthermore, they have decided that consensus has been reached and edited the article to support their beliefs which they have provided no evidence for.

Codename Lisa also made a statement that the references that I added that call the software "free", don't support the claim made, which is patently false. When I asked him/her to correct themselves, they said that, "as long as you agree this computer program does not fall within the domain of Category:Free instant messaging clients and Category:Free VoIP software, I can safely withdraw that objection."

Codename Lisa now feels that I'm calling them a liar (a personal attack) when I simply asked them to either clarify their statement or correct themselves.

Today, I've been called a kid and accused of personal attacks. I think we've run off the tracks here when there was really no need to do so.

Lastly, an anonymous WP:SPA has recently entered the discussion, right when things seem to have really blown up.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I think that we're having trouble communicating with each other, which I told them yesterday and asked that we start over.

Today, I log on to see Codename Lisa calling me a kid and accusing me of making a person attack.

How do you think we can help?

As usual, I think that more outside attention is always productive and dispute resolution may help us come to a conclusion on this issue by helping us get the discussion back on track.

Talk:Yuilop discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I was going to make a post on WP:NORN but I decided to wait until this case was addressed before inviting anyone else into a conflict. WCS100 (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2013 (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.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Capitals00 on 06:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

In this page, 2 users are trying to prove that Saudi Arabia and United States played no military role in the whole conflict, in fact these users had the Rfc in the page Bangladesh Liberation War, but what i see is, that those who didn't wanted such removal of "Saudi Arabia" and "United States" from the infobox had poorly defended the case.

It's documented by the multiple reliable sources that both of the nations have played role in the conflict. I sourced such information on the talk page as "Reverting/adding of US and Saudi Arabia as Belligerents in the infobox". "USSR" and "china" as unofficial supporter should be added as unofficial supporters as well.

The concerned RfC was meant only for 'United States' and not for Saudi Arabia or Soviet Union. I second Capitals' edits, only because the RfC did not endorse the removal of anything other than 'United States'. Fai zan 07:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on talk pages of the page, as well as User's own talk page.

How do you think we can help?

It would be helpful if the sourced content is added back, which can be viewed in the 2nd last revert of the page.

Opening comments by Yintan

Very surprised to see this here, as far as I'm concerned there's no need for DRN. The matter is discussed on the article's Talk page. Also, the overview by Capitals00 above is incorrect. He didn't list SA and the US as 'unofficial supporters' but repeatedly as 'belligerents'[35]. Big difference. I've tried to explain his error to Capitals00, and so has Smsarmad, but it's like talking to a wall and I've given up. He completely fails to see the point, calls sourced WP content "your made up theory", etcetera. I can't be bothered with that level of ignorance anymore. For some reason Capitals00 sees my decision not to waste more time on him as proof that he's right (see edit summary here[36]). Go figure. Smsarmad is still trying to reason with Capitals00, he is obviously more patient than I am. Not that it helps much, Capitals00's beliefs appear to be set in concrete. See the Talk page mentioned above. To make my position clear: I have no horse in the India/Pakistan race. I happened to come across Capitals00's edits on Recent Changes Patrol. Yintan 15:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Just added some more information and sources on the talk page. OwnDealers (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)This user is a sock of User:Capitals00.

And like Capitals00's sources, they don't prove a thing. See Talk. Yintan 01:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You just don't like them, but not even a matter for real. Looks like, soon we will see you claiming like pakistan played no role in USSR's war of afghanistan. Capitals00 (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Get real. Yintan 11:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Better you, now i got to see that the removal of US was only meant for Bangladesh liberation war, you and your friend edited just every related page, which is wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's been explained to you before. Like basically everything in the thread has been explained to you before. God, this is boring. Yintan 12:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest reversion to the last undisputed and agreed upon revision. Fai zan 07:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Just saw your comment on the talk page, i agree 100% that this US had no involvement in Bangladesh Liberation War, but if we talk about the whole Indo-Pakistan war, they had the military presence and involvement. Capitals00 (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Show they declared war and you're right: they would be belligerents. But they didn't. By listing Russia and the US as opponents in the belligerents section, you're basically saying they declared war on eachother. That's, without any doubt, wrong. Again, see Talk. Yintan 12:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

US went there because their base in pakistan was attacked by India. USSR had given only training and supplies, same way China had to pakistan, so they were added as "unofficial supporters", which made sense. Capitals00 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to DRN. I'll do what I can to help with this dispute to resolve it but, keep in mind, I have no more authority over the article or user conduct than any other editor involved.

Firstly, the term beligerent has a definition when referring to international law and that definition is: "A nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law.". Emphasis mine. The US / USSR were not beligerents in this context and, as such, should most certainly not be listed as beligerents in the infobox.
Secondly, they supported their respective allies for various political reasons but this does not bring them into the war in the legal sense according to the Laws of War. A good example to follow is the Syrian civil war where "supported by" lists entities that were involved in combat in one way or another (e.g. Turkey is listed as they are actively sheltering the rebels, offering them a safe zone as well as providing them with weapons and supplies)
Finally, it seems to me that the best way to proceed would be to remove all references to the US/USSR etc in the infobox as "beligerants" or "co-supporters". The "Foreign reaction" section could be renamed "Foreign reaction and involvement" (similar to the Syrian article) and expanded if necessary. Thoughts? Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Yintan 22:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cabe's suggestion, and I ammaking the changes as suggested. Fai zan 06:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The same apply should for China and Saudi Arabia, whose political and diplomatic positions cannot be misinterpreted and exaggerated into unofficial belligerents.--Bazaan (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Capitals00 is going to be blocked soon for sockpuppetry, he had three socks on the go. I reccomend this thread be archived due to this. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I am, like Cabe, a regular volunteer here at DRN. The SPI investigation is being monitored and if any participants in this discussion are blocked, a volunteer will consider that fact and take appropriate action depending on the length of the block and other factors, but now that the SPI investigation has been noted all participants should refrain from further discussion of that matter until the investigation is closed and a volunteer proposes or takes action here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

With Capitals00 blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry, there's nothing more here to do. Closing. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:43, 18 August 2013 (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.

Fascism Talk

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mryan1451 on 08:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Fascism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Capitalismojo refuses to allow Fascism to be defined as a rightwing movement. Yet all existing dictionaries and encyclopedias characterize it in that way. Here are two. The first is the Oxford English Dictionary: "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization." Here is the google definition: "An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. (in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice." The list could go on and on. The entire first section of the Fascism entry has always been up for debate. This is just one small part of the problems with it. In general, the first section seems to being used for propagandistic ends. It seems written with a libertarian conservative bias. Libertarian conservatives would be interested in making leftwing socialism and rightwing fascism seem interchangeable. As part of that effort, it would be important not to hae fascism be identified as "rightwing." The Fascism entry strives to blur the boundaries between socialism and fascism. That is out of step with all existing encyclopedias.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requesting third party comment.

How do you think we can help?

Capitalismojo should be advised to respect existing definitions of Fascism in dictionaries and encyclopedias. If they characterize F as "rightwing," Wikipedia has a duty to do so as well. He should be requested to stop undoing attempts to insert that word into the definition in the entry.

Fascism Talk discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Please note: I have fixed the malformed submission template and notified two additional editors who were involved in the discussion. Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This is extremely premature DRN. A new editor made a bold revision of a lead that appeared to be stable. I reverted and suggested moving to talk. (My only edit ever on the article.) This issue has been discussed since at least 2009 according to my viewing of the article archives. The new discussion started by this editor has barely begun (1 or 2 days?) on the article talk page. I don't think this has even risen to the level of a dispute. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I have had only one comment on the talk page as yet. I think perhaps this should be shelved until the talk page discussion (likely) resolves the issue. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Like Cabe6403 I am a regular DRN volunteer, but I am neither "taking" nor opening this request for discussion at this time. I've looked at the discussion at the article talk page and at Capitalismojo's comments about this being premature and want to comment that, first, there has been sufficient discussion there to prevent this listing from being closed under DRN's requirement that extensive talk page discussion occur before listing here but, second, that if Capitalismojo is saying that he will not participate here (which is his right: participation in dispute resolution is always voluntary) and if Mryan1451 sees this dispute as mainly being between Mryan and Capitalismojo, then there's not much we can do here. Is that what you both mean? Just as a personal observation, I kind of tend to agree with Capitalismojo that it seems to me that the discussion at the article talk page has really just started, not stalled, and has room to grow. Next, I'd like to note to Mryan that his response to "How do you think we can help?" seems to suggest that he may have a false belief that we are judges or administrators or other enforcers or decision-makers here at DRN. We're not, we're just regular editors who try to help folks work out their differences. We can certainly "advise" or "request" but our advice and requests are only opinions and carry no more weight than those made by any other editor, except perhaps that they come from a neutral position. No one here at Wikipedia has the right to make binding decisions about article content: that's decided exclusively by collaboration and consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC) @Capitalismojo: Would you mind answering my question, above, about your intent here? — TransporterMan (TALK) 04:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss this here or elsewhere. Five or six editors at the article talk page have been gently urging this editor to take a more moderate and incremental approach to the talk page and editing this article, which has been described as disruptive. He seems now to have agreed and has begun editing in a more ususual fashion. The article talk page has had the beginning of movement towards an improved lead using some or Mryan's proposed additions. I'd be willing to talk here if it would be helpful. I do think it is clear that this was started by someone who was unfamiliar with and just learning Wikipedia's processes. Capitalismojo 14:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion could continue on the Fascism talk page, but bear in mind it's been going on for several years. That suggests there is a problem. Thanks for trying to help. I will continue to propose revisions to the other editors. But I think the problem is not going to go away. And I think we will need outside mediation. Now that you've pitched in, we can move on to that next DRN step if need be. Mryan1451 (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451

Observation: It looks like we can close this DRN request as premature for now as the editors are working together on the talk page. I'll close it within 24 hours if no one objects. Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:32, 19 August 2013 (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.

Talk:Toledo Express_Airport

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Dfw79 on 01:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Toledo Express Airport (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dfw79 (talk · contribs)
Tim Zukas (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute escalated into an edit was as parties didn't agree on the formating/wording on content on the article. Warnings were issued and it was recommended to discuss on the talk page to come to a compromise. The other party has since becoming unyielding and will not offer any suggestions as far as a compromise. The goal is to come to an agreement on acceptable wording for the article that doesn't remove important details that the other party considers useless and makes the judgement for the reader.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted continued dialog through the talk page. Would prefer to discuss this properly and come to an agreeable resolution to everyone involved. Unfortunately Tim Zukas refuses to to compromise on their position. They have a long track record of similar activities of visiting pages to remove content they feel is unnecessary.

How do you think we can help?

Need help just to get things back on a calm and level playing field so a solution can be reached. There are many updates to the article that are planned but I don't want to proceed until this is completed.

Talk:Toledo Express_Airport discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

There's no disagreement on the info in the article. One version has much useless verbiage and the other has less; if a jury of twelve read each version and voted, the verdict would be clear (I hope). But no way to do that? Tim Zukas (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Tim Zukas has removed uncited claims which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. E.g. "The airport is also a considered secondary airport for Detroit, Michigan and the surrounding northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan region." - I see no citations for this anywhere in the article. In fact, the statistics given later in the article seem to say the opposite: "3,241 of which TOL only captures 5.7%. Detroit Metro captures the most of 64.3%".

The burden would be on whomever wanted that statement included to provide a citation for that claim. Additionally, your "jury of twelve" is pretty much how a request for comment works on wikipedia.

On the flip side ""The airport's main role includes serving commercial passenger, cargo and general aviation aircraft the airport as well as being a base for the Ohio Air National Guard's" is a perfectly valid statement as opposed to just mentioning that it is a base. At this point in the article the reader doesn't know if it is primarily a military base or not. By removing the first part and leaving only "The airport is a base for the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing with F-16 Fighting Falcons;" you're introducing confusion by implying its primary use.

Basically, you both have valid points. Neither of your versions is perfect, work together and come up with a comprimise Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of hard to do when one side is unwilling to do so... PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 07:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We could definitely reword the secondary airport wording utilizing details in the recent True Market Study that shows the overlap of markets for Detroit and Toledo. It would probably be better word that it is a secondary airport for the Lake Erie West region instead of naming Detroit specifically first. Like Panther said though, working to a compromise is the goal here but it is hard to do when the other side is unwilling. Dfw79 (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Both of you say "the other side is unwilling". I'm assuming you are referring to Tim Zukas. Tim, see my comment above, are you prepared to work on a compromise? Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Compare the two versions of the first paragraph:

"Toledo Express Airport (IATA: TOL, ICAO: KTOL, FAA LID: TOL) is a joint civil-military airport located in the townships of Swanton and Monclova situated 10 miles (16 km) to the west of the city of Toledo in Western Lucas County, Ohio, United States. The airport was opened in 1955 as a replacement to then Toledo Municipal Airport located to the southeast of Toledo. TOL is located near the crossing of State Route 2 and Interstate 80/90 (Ohio Turnpike Exit 52)."

After we delete some useless stuff we have

"Toledo Express Airport (IATA: TOL, ICAO: KTOL, FAA LID: TOL) is a civil-military airport in Swanton and Monclova townships 10 miles (16 km) west of Toledo in western Lucas County, Ohio, United States. The airport opened in 1955 as a replacement for then Toledo Municipal Airport southeast of Toledo. TOL is near the crossing of State Route 2 and Interstate 80/90 (Ohio Turnpike Exit 52)."

Which of the useless stuff needs to be compromised back in?

Likewise with most of the rest of the deletions-- it's impossible to guess why any writer would prefer the long version. Certainly no reader would.

(The reader doesn't need to be told what county and township it's in, once he knows its lat-lon and where it is in relation to Toledo. That too is useless info, but we know Dfw79 will fight to his last breath to keep it. So there's a compromise.) Tim Zukas (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned on the talk page for the article, this specific revision is already mentioned as acceptable except for changing the terminology of "joint civil-military" to "civil-military" since the first is the current language used on all airport pages that haven't been altered by Tim Zukas. The rest of the modification though are already fine, but they were meant by further disparaging remarks from Tim Zukas instead of simply being implemented. The other modifications can be cleaned up some. Removing content that states Toledo Express serves the Detroit market (which I will go back and cite sources for), the specific roles of the airport, and specific passenger statistics is where the remaining dispute remains and where Tim Zukas has either refused to compromise or has completely disregarded any suggestions and in turn followed the path of demeaning commentary. Dfw79 (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So Dfw79, you are happy with the first paragraph Tim Zukas has proposed except from the removal of joint in joint civil-military airport? Is this correct? Personally, I see nothing wrong with putting joint in the lead as makes it clearer for those who, perhaps, don't know much about the topic. Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabe, yes it is fine with me as long as joint remains in. This is probably one of the more minor change disagreements. Dfw79 (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case I propose the following for the opening paragraph. If everyone is happy with this we can move onto the next bit of disputed text. Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Toledo Express Airport (IATA: TOL, ICAO: KTOL, FAA LID: TOL) is a joint civil-military airport in Swanton and Monclova townships 10 miles (16 km) west of Toledo in western Lucas County, Ohio, United States. The airport opened in 1955 as a replacement for then Toledo Municipal Airport southeast of Toledo. TOL is near the crossing of State Route 2 and Interstate 80/90 (Ohio Turnpike Exit 52).

How about this instead:

Toledo Express Airport (IATA: TOL, ICAO: KTOL, FAA LID: TOL) is a joint civil-military airport in Swanton and Monclova townships 10 miles (16 km) west of Toledo in the west side of Lucas County, Ohio, United States. The airport opened in 1955 as a replacement for then Toledo Municipal Airport southeast of Toledo. TOL is near the crossing of State Route 2 and Interstate 80/90 (Ohio Turnpike Exit 52). Syxxpackid420 (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Either seem pretty acceptable. I tend to favor the wording of the of Cabe's. Dfw79 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Next paragraph-- Dfw79's version:

"The airport's main role includes serving commercial passenger, cargo and general aviation aircraft the airport as well as being a base for the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing with F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft. The airport is also a considered secondary airport for Detroit, Michigan and the surrounding northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan region. It is frequently used as the primary diversion point for arriving traffic to Detroit Metro Airport as well as other regional hubs. The airport is operated by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority on a lease agreement from the City of Toledo."

Leaving in some unnecessary info, we can still cut it to

"Passenger and cargo airlines and general aviation use TOL, and Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing with F-16 Fighting Falcons is based there. The airport is a secondary airport for Detroit and the surrounding region; aircraft arriving Detroit Metro Airport and other hubs use it as an alternate. The Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority operates the airport on a lease agreement with the City."

Previous post was made by Tim Zukas but wasn't signed in case anyone wonders. Keeping in mind that the version isn't all mine, I would go further to better improve it.

Suggestion: "TOL is used by passenger and cargo airlines, general aviation, and is home to the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing. The airport is a secondary airport for Detroit and surround region, including as a primary diversion point for aircraft arriving Detroit Metro Airport. The airport is operated by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority on a lease agreement from the City of Toledo. The airport also serves as headquarters and ground cargo hub for BX Solutions."

"Passenger and cargo airlines and general aviation use TOL and the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing is based there; the airport is a secondary airport for the Detroit area and flights to Detroit Metro Airport use it as an alternate. It is operated by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority on a lease agreement with the City of Toledo. The airport is also headquarters and a ground cargo hub for BX Solutions." Tim Zukas (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Flow of the paragraph seems very awkward with the semicolons being put in. To me that is an unnecessary change and is just there to have a change. I'll defer to others for opinions, but I'm not seeing any need for additional changes. Dfw79 (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the semicolons are unnecessary and disrupt the flow Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I would also say we could probably look at the last two paragraphs remaining since there isn't much left and we seem to be finally making progress.

Current:In 2012, Toledo Express served 143,383 passengers which was a 0.9% drop from 2011 (144,076). American Airlines, operated by American Connection, was the largest operator in 2012 with 79,619 passengers (up 12% from 2011–70,939 and 58,540 in 2010) and reported a load factor of 66%. Allegiant Air carrier 54,412 passengers in 2012 for a 91.5% load factor. The remaining passengers were carried by charter outfits Direct Air (operated by Xtra Airways) with service to Punta Gorda and Vision Airlines with service to Myrtle Beach.^[4] Through the first half of 2013, TOL as recorded a 3.6% gain in passengers over 2012 including an 80% increase in passengers by Allegiant Air.^[5]

Tim Zukas Change:In 2012 Toledo Express served 143,383 passengers, a 0.9% drop from 2011. American Connection (American Airlines' affiliate) was the largest airline in 2012 with 79,619 passengers (70,939 in 2011 and 58,540 in 2010) and a load factor of 66%. Allegiant Air carried 54,412 passengers in 2012 for a 91.5% load factor. The remaining passengers were carried by charter outfits Direct Air (operated by Xtra Airways) with service to Punta Gorda and Vision Airlines with service to Myrtle Beach. Through the first half of 2013, TOL as recorded a 3.6% gain in passengers over 2012 including an 80% increase in passengers by Allegiant Air. ^[6]

Suggestion:In 2012 the airport served 143,383 passengers versus 144,076 compared to 2011, a 0.9% drop. American Airlines, operated by American Connection carrier Chautauqua Airlines, was the largest airline with 79,619 passengers to Chicago O'Hare. Allegiant Air carried 54,412 passengers to Sanford and St. Petersburg. Direct Air and Vision Airlines were accountable for the remaining passengers to Punta Gorda and Myrtle Beach respectfully. ^[7] Through the first half of 2013, TOL as recorded a 3.6% gain in passengers over 2012 including an 80% increase in passengers by Allegiant Air which added service to Punta Gorda. ^[8]

"143,383 passengers used the airport in 2012 versus 144,076 in 2011. Chautauqua Airlines, an American affiliate, was the largest airline with 79,619 passengers on its Chicago O'Hare flights. Allegiant Air carried 54,412 passengers to/from Sanford and St. Petersburg; the rest were on Direct Air's Punta Gorda flights and Vision Airlines' Myrtle Beach flights. ^[9] In the first half of 2013 TOL had 3.6% more passengers than in Jan-June 2012; Allegiant Air added flights to Punta Gorda and carried 80% more passengers." ^[10] Tim Zukas (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the main issue I have in this one is starting sentence/paragraph with a number not typed out. No real need to modify the first sentence I proposed. At this point it seems the edits are just for the same of having an edit and the flow of the paragraph is very choppy and doesn't read correctly. I'll let others post feedback and see what is suggested there so we can finally close this out. Dfw79 (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"No real need to modify the first sentence"

Indeed, no one will die if the article tells people AA flies to Toledo, though it doesn't. No one will die if the article says flights to Chicago carried 79619 passengers, even if that's the total both ways. Ditto for flights elsewhere. No one will die if the article tells them 143383 is 0.9% less than 144076, though it isn't. No one will die if told 143383 is 0.480996% less than 144076-- so the article should tell them that? Or would it be better with still more decimals?

"it seems the edits are just for the same of having an edit"

Do you make edits "just for the same of having an edit"? If not, why do you imagine anyone else does? Tim Zukas (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand the desire to streamline the article but remember Wikipedia is not paper, we essentially don't have any maximum page length or prose length. You should write the article from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about aviation, airports, the US etc. Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Current:Toledo Express also serves as a cargo hub for BX Solutions, a freight handling company started by former BAX Global executives that use to maintain an air cargo hub at the airport.

Tim Zukas Change:Toledo Express is an air cargo hub for BX Solutions, a freight handling company started by former BAX Global executives.

Suggestion:Removed and added to second airport utilization paragraph. Main thing here is that Tim Zukas changed it to "air cargo hub" which is incorrect as BX Solutions does not have any air operations currently - it is all ground at this point.

Dfw79 (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

The editors involved here have all shown a willingness to engage in discussion and come to reasonable consensus. I would propse then that this DRN be closed and discussion is moved to the talk page of the article itself. If editors involved feel that this is an incorrect summation please indicate Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabe I agree we are probably at the place where nothing more can be accomplished here. It seems the solution I presented brings in a lot of the changes everyone wanted. I think there is probably still some disagreement from the point of view of Tim Zukas, but I'm not really sure what more we can do on that end. Cutting words for the sake of cutting words does not equal a good article. As you said, Wikipedia is a resource and should be targeted to those that are coming here for information that are going to be unfamiliar with a lot of specifics. It isn't proper to chop articles down so much to where they are difficult to read and gut out details one person thinks is irrelevant. I definitely appreciate the feedback here and feel its time for everyone to move on to the next project. Dfw79 (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Mayor of Casterbridge

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Santamoly on 22:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

The Mayor of Casterbridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I have edited the article "The Mayor of Casterbridge" to include content about the 2001 ITV film version, and the edit is promptly deleted without discussion by a small group of editors who appear to be acquainted with each other. Their common complaint is that my edit is POV and entitled to revert without discussion. Since I'm adding useful content, I feel that discussion on the article's Talk Page would sort out any differences and improve the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried asking the 3 users to discuss any issues before reverting, but their uniform response is to threaten to have me blocked for posting "POV" content. They're not willing to discuss any of their concerns, so I'm unable to help sort out any differences.

How do you think we can help?

Remind the 3 users that discussion is required before reverting, and that reverting is a clumsy, brute-force remedy that is inappropriate except in cases such as vandalism.

Summary of dispute by David J Johnson

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Charlesdrakew

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by PaleCloudedWhite

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Santamoly shouldn't have brought this here - there hasn't yet been any discussion on the talk page, as Santamoly hasn't replied to the concern raised by David J Johnson. Santamoly also has made some incorrect claims in the statements above. For instance, the claim "their uniform response is to threaten to have me blocked" is untrue - all I have done is make one revert and inform Santamoly not to revert again or they would contravene 3RR. Similarly, the claim "They're not willing to discuss any of their concerns" is again untrue - where's the evidence for this? David J Johnson spelled out concerns quite clearly, to which Santamoly hasn't responded. Furthermore, Santamoly's instruction to "Remind the 3 users that discussion is required before reverting" doesn't appear to me to be based on an understanding of normal Wikipedia practice - it's "Bold, revert, discuss", not "Bold, discuss". PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Mayor of Casterbridge discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I'm Theodore!, and will be assisting you with this case. I'll wait for all concerned to give opening comments before offering any ideas. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- As a general rule, disputes must be discussed "extensively" (see the instructions at thee top of this page) before they are brought to DRN. I am only seeing discussions at Talk:The Mayor of Casterbridge and at User talk:Santamoly. Neither discussion seems particularly long. However, they do seem heated. To all concerned in the matter - what are your opinions regarding the amount of discussion? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am going to wait a few hours, to see if anyone else contributes to this. Otherwise, I am inclined to close it for a procedural reason, as the issue has not been sufficiently discussed on talk pages. In addition, I realize that this may not be an appropriate way to use DRN, and am conscious of that. I do want to give the others a chance to respond, though, before this is closed. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that David J Johnson is on vacation at the moment and is therefore perhaps not likely to be aware of this discussion. In the meantime Santamoly has reverted the article for the 4th time, without responding to David's concerns on the talk page, nor indeed to anything written here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving this update. I'm fairly doubtful anything good will come of this discussion; it seems as if the three editors mentioned by User:Santamoly are merely trying to prevent unreliably sourced content from being added to the article. There is no legitimate dispute here; while I would encourage all parties to make use of discussion pages, reversion of original research is understandable and appropriate. I will close this shortly. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

For information: after Santamoly's most recent and 4th reversion of the article, I filed a report against them at WP:AN3, and they have been blocked for 48 hours. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will close this thread. It's pointless to leave it open, and it's quite apparent that there's no real dispute here. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:49, 20 August 2013 (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.

Talk:North Korea%27s_cult_of_personality

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Coinmanj on 05:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC).

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

North Korea's cult of personality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Coinmanj (talk · contribs)
BlueSalix (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Continual disputes over the inclusion of content between myself and another editor. I have been expanding an article using multiple sources for the content, the opposing editor rejects the validity of the sources and the importance of the content. We are at a stalemate. A third editor has given his opinions as well, but the "edit war" continues between myself and the opposing editor.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to explain myself and my justifications, we have had extensive talk page discussions (for a full month).

How do you think we can help?

By breaking the stalemate. Either helping us to craft the language of the content so that the opposing editor can accept it, or by bringing in multiple opinions and reach some form of consensus to finally resolve the issue.

Summary of dispute by BlueSalix

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

It's not possible for me to respond to this dispute at this time. Dispute initiator, Coinmanj, will need to provide details about the nature of the edit war he believes we're involved in first, with specifics beyond "continual disputes over the inclusion of content between myself and another editor." The process of editing wikipedia is a collaborative one that often involves disagreement and discussion. I appreciate that entries being "sat on / guarded" by the original creator of the entry - particularly those that have had little previous attention from persons other than that creator - sometimes come to be perceived by the creator as their "turf." If I have not been sensitive enough to this dynamic I am happy to accept the counsel of other editors as to ways in which I can more gently assuage Coinmanj's concerns about including others in collaborating on his entry. Beyond that I can't offer a more formative reply to this complaint without further details as to its nature. To the best of my knowledge, processes of discussion, disagreement, accommodation and editing is the manner of operation of Wikipedia, they are not violations warranting complaint and intervention. I invite anyone viewing this dispute entry to review the Talk page and edit history as I'm certain it will show a rather routine and unremarkable - at times, passionate - edit process at work, and not what would be correctly described as an "edit war." I was frankly surprised to see this complaint opened. BlueSalix (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:North Korea%27s_cult_of_personality discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, I am a regular volunteer here. The following response to BlueSalix's request, above, is copied from Talk:North_Korea's_cult_of_personality#Disputes.2FEdit_war, verbatim except for correction of the paragraph numbering. BlueSalix should feel free to respond, point by point, below the box. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

For clarification, below I have included the following texts in the article which User:BlueSalix takes issue with. A simple check of the article's history will reveal constant reverts (which defines an edit war, a war I'd like to stop). Italic texts are the actual texts with supporting references. Any non-italic text following are just explanations.

Kim Jong-un

1) According to the Korean Broadcasting System, North Korean overseas embassies have been replacing photos of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il with photos of Kim Jong-un. ref (which is a significant event in the context of North Korea)

Kim Jong-il

2) After the line Numerous commemorative stamps and coins have also been made. BlueSalix removed this reference this helps to support the rest of the paragraph dealing with the statues and serves as a non-western source to help maintain a broader view of the subject.

Monuments and costs

3) Marriages are usually performed in front of a statue or image of the Kim's and the newlyweds will bow to them, in a sense receiving the blessings of their leaders. ref 1 ref 2 I can add an additional reference (from the book Nothing to Envy) which supports the "blessing of their leaders" part if I need to.

4) The costs for maintaining the personality cult have increased over time. In 1990 the cost was estimated at 19-percent of state spending, in 2004 it was 38.5-percent,ref and by 2007 the figure had grown to 40-percent. ref The 23-m-tall statue of Kim Jong-il erected in Mansudae in 2012 is estimated to have cost $10 million, yearly maintenance costs for Kim Jong-il's body is reported at $2.5 million, and North Korea has reportedly spent another $500,000 on new badges with the faces of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il. ref

Coinmanj (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused - who added the "non-italic texts for explanation?" TransporterMan or Coinmanj? In the history of the Talk page on this issue, Coinmanj has repeatedly used a very unconventional style of editing in which he rearranges other editors comments, injects mid-sentence invections into editors comments and leaves large blocks of white spaces. This has been the source of much confusion in discussion and might be a genesis of some of his anger with regard to this entry; the Talk page has become very difficult to follow.

In any case, there are two parts to the above post: (a) the correctness of my opinions, expressed on Talk page of the entry in question, and, (b) a newly injected allegation there have been "constant reverts."

To the first point, here are my point-by-point responses to specific items of content discussion: Talk:North_Korea's_cult_of_personality.
To the second point, there have been exactly 3 "undid revisions" and "reverted to revisions" in the the last four months of this entry (the time period during which I've participated) - I have initiated 1, Coinmanj has done 1, and a third editor has initiated 1. I believe this indicates a healthy discussion/dialog and not an "edit war."

Again, I appreciate Coinmanj ideated, crafted, and built this very verbose entry from the ground up by himself with little outside participation. I appreciate entry creators can become territorial and react with offense when a person disagrees with their manner of editing or alerts them to issues of WP:SYNTH, etc. Regardless of individual editors feelings, these are items that can - and were being - resolved in normal Talk discussion. Rather than trying to summon the palace guard to defend his castle, Coinmanj's efforts might be better spent in choosing to engage in constructive dialog on the Talk page and spending more time carefully editing his comments to allow a more logical and easy-to-follow progression of discussion. If Coinmanj would like to make entries that are not subject to comment or collaborative editing, he could always create a blog. Wikipedia is not an archive of individual editors monologues. BlueSalix (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything in the box is from Coinmanj, except for the paragraph numbering (which I re-did because there were two #1's), I just copied it verbatim from the article talk page. The "constant reverts" and edit war allegations are conduct matters which will not be dealt with here directly (just like everything in your "Again, I appreciate" paragraph, above, which are also conduct allegations). DRN is only to help to try to work out content disputes. Whatever may have gone before, Coinmanj appears to have very clearly summarized the edits and sources which are in dispute. If you wish to copy over your point-by-point responses, please feel free to do so, but merely pointing to the article talk page and expecting a DRN volunteer to dig them out of the wall-o-text there is not reasonable. I get the distinct impression that you may not want to participate here. If that's so, that's okay and is your prerogative since participating here at DRN is always voluntary. If that's the case, just say so and a DRN volunteer will close this request and make recommendations about what to do next. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will not address this summary offered by Coinmanj; as I explained on the Talk page: "I dispute, and totally reject, the accuracy of the summary of my objections crafted by Coinmanj. It does not accurately represent my position and obliterates and ignores my repeated cautions to him about WP:SYNTH, a central issue I've raised with this problematic entry. I will not address this summary since it is an independent argument created by Coinmanj and not a summary of anything I have positioned. My positions can be read above, here, on the Talk page. I thank Coinmanj for offering to abridge my comments, but kindly request he not do so."

Further, the Talk Page provides context and depth to the discussion that Coinmanj's perception of the situation (described by him as "summaries") do not. Persons monitoring this thread who feel Coinmanj's position is correct are welcome to join the discussion on the Talk page; this would be warmly welcomed by me as it would break the 1-vs-1 loggerhead we currently have going on and help achieve consensus. Recreating the Talk page discussion on the Noticeboard, however, is not a constructive use of editor time and is not in the spirit of the Noticeboard. To maintain the spirit of the Noticeboard, I will not address any content-oriented discussions here (those can be broached on the Talk page - the correct venue), only concerns about the "edit war" Coinmanj believes is occurring. To that point, I have addressed that concern (above) totally and completely (see: there have been exactly 3 "undid revisions" and "reverted to revisions" in the last four months of this entry - I have initiated 1 ...). Anything else? BlueSalix (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A look at the articles history will show approximately 6 distinct instances (representing around 12 individual edits in total) of content being added (by myself) and then removed, either via the "undo" button or manual removal since July 17. This constitutes an edit war. My summary was only showing the *specific content* that has been added (by me) and then removed (by BuleSalix), e.g. the controversial content. Another editor (User:Richard BB) had given his opinion on the matter and concluded that the information should remain, he also reverted the removal by BlueSalix. Despite this, the content was removed again by BlueSalix. Coinmanj (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2013 (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.

^ Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2)
^ Giambalvo and Rosedale, Carol and Herbert (1997). The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ, page 219
^ http://www.somis.org/TDD-02.html, The Discipling Dilemma, pg 30
^ http://forum.flytol.com/showthread.php?tid=260
^ http://www.flytol.com/?p=70
^ http://www.flytol.com/?p=70
^ http://forum.flytol.com/showthread.php?tid=260
^ http://www.flytol.com/?p=70
^ http://forum.flytol.com/showthread.php?tid=260
^ http://www.flytol.com/?p=70

[1] Bricker, Darrell; Wright, John (2005). What Canadians think about almost everything. Doubleday Canada. pp. 8–28. ISBN 978-0-385-65985-7.

[2] "REPORTS ON ACTS OF PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY AGAINST SHIPS - Acts reported during February 2012, pp.17" (PDF). IMO GISIS database. 2012-04-30. Retrieved 2013-07-15.

[3] Irene Gasde and Richard Block's (1998) (published in Cultic Studies Journal 15:2)

[4] Giambalvo and Rosedale, Carol and Herbert (1997). The Boston Movement: Critical Perspectives on the International Churches of Christ, page 219

[5] ttp://www.somis.org/TDD-02.html, The Discipling Dilemma, pg 30

[6] ttp://forum.flytol.com/showthread.php?tid=260

[7] ttp://www.flytol.com/?p=70

[8] ttp://www.flytol.com/?p=70

[9] ttp://forum.flytol.com/showthread.php?tid=260

[10] ttp://www.flytol.com/?p=70

[11] ttp://forum.flytol.com/showthread.php?tid=260

[12] ttp://www.flytol.com/?p=70

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]