This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.
Needle Exchange Programme:Talk
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Minphie on 06:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC).
Seems though as this dispute has conduct intertwined with content, a volunteer is not willing to pick up this dispute. I'd suggest proceeding with an RFC to get a clearer idea on the content issues, conduct can be dealt with separately. Steven Zhang (talk) 11:02, 24 September 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.
Dispute between myself, Minphie, and Stigmatella auratiaca over whether text describing a review of needle exchange effectiveness by the United States Academies of Science's Institute of Medicine is correct or misleading.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive discussion on the Talk page and requests for two Third Opinions which both suggested mediation.
How do you think we can help?
A third party might add some clarity to differences.
Summary of dispute by Stigmatella aurantiaca
User:Minphie posts exclusively in opposition to Harm Reduction.
Regarding the current dispute on Needle Exchange Programs, Minphie has selectively quoted, on multiple occasions and out of context, single words and sentence fragments from Chapter 3 of a 2006 US Institute of Medicine study, stating that "the evidence for the effectiveness of NSPs in preventing HIV was 'inconclusive' and that 'multiple studies show that NSEs do not reduce transmission of HCV(Hepatitis C).' "
Through such selective quote mining, Minphie makes it seem that the report concludes that NSPs are valueless in the fight against blood-borne disease. In reality, the authors carefully note that the inconclusiveness of available studies is due to unavoidable deficiencies of the study designs. It is practically and ethically impossible to conduct randomized controlled trials, and researchers must rely on study designs of far lower statistical power, such as cohort studies and ecological studies.
The following is a revised version of an alternative chapter summary that I offered, which Minphie rejected:
The available evidence shows that multi-component HIV prevention programs that include needle and syringe exchange have clear beneficial effects in reducing drug-related risk behaviors, although the statistical power of the available studies (mostly cohort studies) have been inadequate to actually prove that NSPs reduce HIV incidence rates. Multiple ecological studies show a positive correlation between implementation or expansion of NSP programs and a reduction in HIV prevalence, although it should be noted that correlation does not prove a cause-effect relationship. The statistical power of cohort studies have been inadequate to prove that NSPs reduce rates of HCV transmission and acquisition, although a single case-control study reported a dramatic reduction. Not enough studies have been performed examining the possibility of NSPs having undesired unintended consequences; the few existing studies on this point do not point to NSPs having unintended negative effects. Overall, although many of the studies have design limitations, the consistency of these results across a large number of studies supports the conclusion that NSPs have an important beneficial role in the fight against HIV and HCV. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Minphie
It was User:Gabbe that first placed the science on the effectiveness of NEPs front and centre of the Wikipedia Needle Exchange Programme article [1], a prominence given to the science that I believe is aligned with the need for evidence-based drug policy internationally.
User:Stigmatella aurantiaca has alleged on the Talk page, and backed this by constant deletions of my text, that I misrepresent, in the relevant Wikipedia article, the most authoritative review on needle exchange effectiveness completed in 2006 by the US Academies of Science's Institute of Medicine (which had backed NEPs since the 1990s before the current science was in). To this charge I assert that:
Stigmatella's suggested replacement wording could not possibly be acceptable because it implies, inadvertently or otherwise, that the 11 journal studies rigorous enough to meet the US IOM criteria for review are individually not statistically significant or somehow individually lack 'statistical power'. This is certainly not the case. The discredited 2004 WHO review which had concluded that the science did indeed demonstrate NEP effectiveness re HIV incidence found 3 studies which were negative for NEP effectiveness, all of which were statistically significant. The 2004 WHO review found 6 studies which they said demonstrated NEP effectiveness, however three were discarded by the IOM - one did not even study comparison populations, and the other two were inconclusive on their researchers' own admissions in-article. Two of the remaining 3 WHO positives were (statistically significant) ecological studies, which the IOM clearly says are unable to demonstrate any causality. But this is a far cry from lack of statistical power or lack of statistical significance for individual studies - it is rather that the studies positive for NEP are balanced equally against studies which are negative making any conclusion other than that the science is inconclusive inevitable. Questions on the validity of case-control studies vs RCTs, for instance, are not irrelevant, but neither are they determinative for the 'inconclusive' finding by the IOM.
The two 2010 Palmateer-initiated reviews of reviews found (correctly) that "there is insufficient evidence that NSP prevents transmission of the Hepatitis C virus", yet Stigmatella's wording suggests that this is wrong, and that the US IOM, which concurs with the Palmateer finding, is somehow the result of lack of statistical power in journal studies when in fact the balance of the studies do not demonstrate effectiveness (only one does) and that lack of demonstrated effectiveness is universally bemoaned, in print, by some of the world's most recognised proponents of NEP. Stigmatella's wording is optimistically misleading.
At no place have I ever stated or implied, as Stigmatella asserts, that "the (IOM) report concludes that NSPs are valueless in the fight against blood-borne disease." In fact I additionally quote verbatim their conclusion that multi-component programs which include NEPs have demonstrated effectiveness. Stigmatella charges that I have not referenced the IOM recommendations re NEP, but this is simply because I am addressing the science - their recommendations are a separate matter and can be covered in the Research section.
In summary, I have not misrepresented the US IOM report but rather given a verbatim rendition of its conclusions on the science. Stigmatella's interpretation leads to a more optimistic rendition of the science than is actually the case which will only open Wikipedia to the charge of being a source of biased rather than neutral or balanced information for the public. Minphie (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Needle Exchange Programme:Talk discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Wow, uh.. I'm going to spend tonight (and maybe more time) looking through the talkpage and previous discussion, and I'll comment further then. From a first look, I'm not sure DRN can offer anything more than just my uninvolved opinion - since I can't make anything binding, it's worth about $0.02. However, if I see some room for help, I'll be glad to help. ~Charmlet-talk- 20:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry that there is such a huge amount to wade through. Over the years, quite a number of people have been at odds with Minphie, and this is not the first time that Minphie has used selective quote-mining, original research, and fanciful misreadings to distort the conclusions of source material. Here is an example from before I joined Wikipedia:
I will spend some time tomorrow to do a summary of my side of the dispute, (I have been time-poor this week) however I cannot let the above comments about disruptive editing pass without comment as it may serve to prejudice an understanding of the real issues between us. 1. Stigmatella raises issues of allegations by Figs Might Ply from 2010. Go to the Sockpuppet Wikipedia page back around that time and it will be found that Rakkar and Figs Might Ply were the same contributor, subsequently blocked. Another party in that dispute, Steinberger, who figures in the Wikiquette complaint with Rakkar and sockpuppet Figs Might Ply, was blocked subsequently here for this discussion, and was the subject of my vandalism complaint. Read LiteratureGeek's comments on his behaviour at the time of the block and I don't believe I have any case to answer here. The Misrepresentation of Sources thread, if looked at in date order for that section, reveals that there was no misrepresentation of sources - the final comment in that section was made before my final reply to what was a baseless allegation. I guess that my concern here is that all of this has nothing to do with content, but rather behaviour, as baseless as these allegations were, and that we need to talk content only in a mediated forum. This does not mean that I am unwilling to answer any allegations re behaviour, as I have nothing whatsoever I am embarrassed about on Wikipedia when all the facts are known and verified, but content is the focus of mediation. Minphie (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Just based on this, I think this is too intertwined with a conduct issue for me to feel comfortable that I'd help you get to a resolution. I won't close this yet, but unless another volunteer picks it up, I think the best bet may be to hold RfC(s) on the content side of it, and take any conduct concerns to the appropriate channels. This is bigger (it seems to me) than one lowly person (me) can solve. ~Charmlet-talk- 22:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I sorta thought that might be the case. Minphie versus the rest of the world is an ongoing struggle. He/she doesn't believe in consensus and never gives up. I only happen to be the latest in a long line of editors who've unwillingly gotten dragged into this mudfight. Thanks for your efforts! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
From another DRN volunteer. While a RFC may be the appropriate next turn, I suggest that we wait until Minphie expresses a summary of the other point(s) of view here. I deleted two post scripts by Stigmatella aurantiaca that were not relevant to this discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hoping this discussion remains active. Minphie (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I was blocked. But Minphie's complaints had nothing to do with it. Rather, LiteratureGeek had enough and reported both of us for edit warring. ("All that I would like is for you all to work out some sort of a compromise and come up with a balanced article and the edit warring to stop.") However, Minphie strategically seized to edit at this time and thus nothing came of his report to the edit warring noticeboard. (Minphie habit of misrepresenting yet again...) Steinberger (talk) 20:48, 16 September 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.
One of the editors has filed an RFC to further discuss this issue. Steven Zhang (talk) 11:10, 24 September 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.
The television show is a historical drama. It was widely panned for many reasons, one of them is that it was not very historically accurate. One group of editors says that we should list historical inaccuracies that we find when we look at a history text book - the history book verifies the error. Another group of editors says that we can only include specific "inaccuracies" if a reliable source has published commentary specifically mentioning the historical error in the show- that comparing what happened in TV show to what is written in a history book and concluding that the TV show has an error is WP:SYN
Some weeks ago, I added a section called "Factual Inaccuracies" to this article. The title was changed to "Historical Inaccuracies" after a short time, and was added to by several other users. After about a fortnight, it was tagged by User:202.81.243.196 as "synthesis". A debate then began on the talk page about whether the section was valid, with two users (the anon and User:TheRedPenOfDoom) arguing that it constituted synthesis and original research, whilst User:Paul Barlow and User:fdewaele disagreed. I was not involved in this discussion until nearly a fortnight later when I noticed that the whole section had been removed by TheRedPenOfDoom. I restored the section on the grounds that there was no consensus for the removal of the referenced material, and an edit war quickly began. I made various concessions to the comments made by the two contributors who considered the section to be WP:OR and "synthesis", including adding further references to back up each statement in the section, adding further material to include positive as well as negative comments, and changing the title of the section to "Historicity", in response to the anon's accusations that the section was an implied criticism of the series. I consider that I have been stating historical facts (all referenced) which are not reflected in the series, in keeping with the widespread public discussion of the series. I do not consider this to be OR or synthesis, I believe the section to be valid and in keeping, and I feel that the approach proposed by these two contributors would actually result in non-NPOV edits, their argument being that you should not provide a reference for a historical fact, only for the fact that someone made a statement pointing out that this particular piece of history is not reflected in the series. Thus, they not only removed factual statements, they also removed any references relating to those facts. At Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard, 202.81.243.196 began a discussion of the question (not involving me), resulting in a lack of consensus either way. Paul Barlow also began a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#"Historical inaccuracies" sections, which again did not involve me and again does not seem to have resulted in consensus. In the meantime, I have made every effort to improve the section so as to achieve something that complies fully with the guidelines on OR and synthesis, but nothing seems to satisfy these two contributors.
Response by TheRedPenOfDoom
For reference, the content of "the whole section" that I removed. [2] (and note that it was removed in a series of edits with what i felt were appropriately descriptive edit summaries to explain the policy based rationale).
And my position is not at all "that you should not provide a reference for a historical fact, only for the fact that someone made a statement pointing out that this particular piece of history is not reflected in the series." My position is that: "Content in the article about the TV show must be sourced to a reference that discusses the content of the TV show" see for example the edit summaries [3][4][5] and talk page comments [6][7][8] I am not at all sure where the impression otherwise came from.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by 202.81.243.116
The section of the article originally titled "Historical Inaccuracies", later "Historicity", pointed out errors of fact in the TV series The White Queen. It did so by listing events shown in the series, then a phrase like "in fact" and then historical facts. All of these statements were clearly designed to support the contention by editors that the show lacks "historicity". Perhaps one or two of the points in the section were cited to a WP:RS making the criticism, the rest were all deductions made by editors. Which is WP:SYN. Any attempt to remove the latter, after explaining the problem, was reverted. When the original research policies were explained on the Talk page, they were simply ignored or dismissed as pedantry.
The entire "Reception" section of the article is now 593 words; the "Historicity" section is 693 words, giving that aspect an undue weight even if it was correctly sourced. It reflects only the opinions of a group of nitpicking editors who think that there is a need to point out errors of fact in a work of fiction. Only "errors" noted by reliable sources should be mentioned, and those should be under the "Reception" section.
On WP:NORN and WT:NOR, some of the "Historicity" advocates went to make their case. In every venue, they were told the same: that the list of errors they defend contravenes WP:OR. They ignored this and continued to revert any attempts to apply the policy. Unless there is some compulsion, I doubt there will be any change in this. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Paul B
I'm not sure that this is an issue that can be resolved by Dispute resolution, since it really raises general questions about editing practice that are not specific to this article ("bureaucratic" rule-following versus say-what-you-like free for all, as it were). Numerous articles have sections like this (see Les Miserables). Film versions of historical events often generate these sections, because editors who know about the history want to discuss dramatic deviations from fact, and readers who've seen the film want to know how much of it is historical fact. Often these sections expand chaotically and can end up including statements like "Prince Rupert had brown hair, but the actor playing him had black hair", which, though it may be verifiable, is pretty silly. In the end we have to decide for ourselves what's trivial and what's relevant to the article. It’s not OR to make such editorial judgements. The fundamental issue here is whether or not it is unacceptable to make statements about historical facts that do not come from critics commenting directly on the drama. This is an issue that has been raised in the past at the OR noticeboard, and there are differing views. My personal view is to favour common-sense over legalism and to recognise that WP:OR is not a Commandment, but a tool designed by the community to ensure that Wikipedia is not filled with idiosyncratic pet theories presented as fact. In cases such as these, most commentary comes from TV reviewers whose grasp of history is often hazy at best (e.g. their irrelevant obsession with "historically inaccurate" shiny white teeth, which only seems to come up when a drama is "medieval", even though there's no reason to believe that ancient Greeks and Romans had great teeth either). TV critics are not good judges of what is historically accurate or important. Historians of the period are better sources, but they do not comment on TV shows, at least they rarely do and rarely do so quickly (maybe in a few years someone will write an article on the Wars of the Roses in popular culture which mentions the show). In my view we should have a latitudinarian attitude to OR in such cases, because the overriding concern should be with what is encyclopaedic, verifiable and useful, not with blind adherence to over-rigid interpretations of rules without regard to their purpose. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by fdewaele
Wikipedia articles should be sourced but one must not overdo the principle or it’s to become unworkable. When the subject is media (books, TV, film) and its historicity, it behooves to take a middle ground course. Some things are just plain historical facts and pointing that out is not OR in my opinion. Of course, there will always be grey areas (like historical minutiae), but a fact is a fact. It’s the kind of dogmatic adherence to strict interpretation of the “scripture”, as some editors do, which debases Wikipedia and makes Wikipedia as rigid as a paper encyclopedia, which it was never meant to be. -- fdewaele
Summary of dispute by Rosemary Cheese
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by You Can Act Like A Man
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Gareth Griffith-Jones
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The White_Queen_(TV_series)#Historicity discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I wasn't going to bother with this discussion, since I don't think the exact content of trivia lists is important. (I don't like them, but life is too short to worry about them.) But I'm really bothered by the way a common-sense issue has been blown up into a lot of obsessive rule-parsing. This is not the way to encourage people to participate as editors, and it's certainly not going to make the content better. Indeed, a lot of smart, well-informed people are driven away because of all this bureaucratic nonsense. To see how this argument violates common sense, consider the following: "In the first episode, Julius Caesar is shown riding a moped, which hadn't been invented yet." Is this too synthetic? Fine, I can get around this by saying "Julius Caesar is shown riding a moped. The moped was invented in the 20th century." That's two separate statements, both properly sourced (by the links) and with no stated inference. So I've gotten around the rule, at the expense of making the text less readable. And that's a good idea why? As the rules themselves say, Wikipedia rules are not legislation. They are guidance. They are a synthesis of how Wikipedians think we should run the show. Here's the correct way to use the rules: begin with common sense. Use your knowledge of the real world. Read the rules to make yourself a better editor, not to find ways to bully people. If you think somebody's doing something wrong, work with that person to achieve something you can both live with. Refer to the rules only when friendly consensus breaks down. And above all, do not delete material that you think true simply because you don't like the way it's sourced. Which is not only common sense, it's the rules.Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:CIRCULAR wikilinks aren't proper sourcing. DonIago (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
A wholly irrelevant comment, since Isaac Rabinovitch is simply illustrating a point. Paul B (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I find that comment highly relevant, but not the way it was intended to be. As I've already said, the rules are guidance, not legislation. Tell me, does anybody honestly think "The moped was invented in the 20th century" needs a citation? You should read WP:CIRCULAR for help in avoiding circular logic, not as something that defines the concept. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The context of the statement is important. If the line about Caesar's moped had been part of a plot description, then adding an additional note or footnote regarding real mopeds is not a problem. If however it was part of a list of "Historical inaccuracies", then it is being used by the contributing editor to advance a position, that "the show is full of errors". Which correct or not, is WP:SYN. I don't think that the desire of editors to point out errors of fact in fictional works justifies changing or ignoring this established policy. If the "un-historicity" of a story is important, then reviewers will have discussed this and their observations can be quoted. Already, this article now has a section on "inaccuracies", as observed by editors alone, that is longer then the entire "Reception" section; and was growing daily as editors pounced on more and more trivia to add. It's fun to nitpick at TV shows, plenty of forums exist for those who like to do that, But Wikipedia is not a forum: "do not use Wikipedia for ... Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinion of experts)". To beat the example into the ground: the topic is not "mopeds" but "Caesar on a moped in this TV show" Cobbling together statements from different sources to synthesise a critique is not allowed. Also, I must state that this example is a strawman, implying that rule bound bureaucrats would prevent such a blatant anachronism being noted. If Caesar had been shown riding on a moped, every single review would have discussed it and editors would have no problem finding a citable quotation pointing out the anachronism. They however cannot find any to support all the trivial transgressions that they find in The White Queen. Because they were not important enough for critics to note. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" this request or opening it for discussion at this time. We're getting comments by folks who are neither listed in the DRN volunteer list nor listed as parties to this dispute and by folks who are listed as parties but who have not made an opening statement. @Isaac Rabinovitch and Doniago: Would you please clarify your roles here? If you are here as parties, please list yourself appropriately and make opening statements above (you can create your own section to do so); if you are here as DR volunteers, just say so, though it would also be well to list yourself as a volunteer on the volunteer page so the status bot identifies you correctly. @Paul Barlow: If you are going to participate in the discussion, would you please make an opening statement in your section, above, since you have been listed as a party? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Would you please check before posting such requests. Paul B (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, sorry TM. I've been following the filing since I've dealt with similar issues multiple times at film-related articles, but I'm not an involved party. My only intention was to point out that the claim that wikilinks provide proper sourcing is inaccurate. Other than that I wasn't planning to say anything unless/until the case was opened and it seemed appropriate. I'm not quite sure I want to escalate myself to the level of an actual DR volunteer, but I'll look into it. My apologies if I spoke out of turn! DonIago (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Paul, sorry, it was an edit conflict. Doniago, no problem, just wanted to be sure how you were here. It's not necessary to sign up as a volunteer to take on that role, we'd just like to know what hat you're wearing. Please feel free to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be very candid here. Paul says, above, "I'm not sure that this is an issue that can be resolved by Dispute resolution, since it really raises general questions about editing practice that are not specific to this article ('bureaucratic' rule-following versus say-what-you-like free for all, as it were)." That may, indeed, have some validity. I think that you're going to find that most DR volunteers, myself included, are pretty rule-oriented and that those in this dispute who are taking the position that the rules ought to be ignored may feel like they're not getting much of a hearing in DR. An ideal Wiki-world would work like Isaac suggests, "Refer to the rules only when friendly consensus breaks down." But the way Wikipedia works is through consensus and the rules themselves say that the rules are the "established consensus" of the community (see CONLIMITED). I take that to mean that when the rules clearly apply to a situation, then the rules govern unless a IAR local exception to the rules is established. But since there is already an established consensus, the IAR local exception must itself be established by a clear consensus (which can be arrived at via discussion or via default and silent consensus). Paul suggests that the rules ought to give way to special circumstances such as that which results from a topic area being one of popular interest rather than academic interest and, as a result, few high-quality reliable sources exist for matters of significant interest. I disagree: this encyclopedia is this encyclopedia and the same standards ought to apply throughout unless general exceptions are made for certain topic areas. That can be done either by the community establishing rules to create general exceptions or by creating specific local exceptions for individual articles.
While I've not looked at the specific edits in question in this case, the synthesis rule is a subset of the original research rule which is a subset of the verifiability rule. The purpose of the verifiability rule is to insure that the average reader can find a source for everything in Wikipedia and the reason for that, in turn, in my opinion, is that verifiability is Wikipedia's substitute for having a board of editors to make judgment calls on content. Paper encyclopedias obtain their authority from the quality of their editors. By allowing anyone to edit, Wikipedia cannot rely on that so we rely on other organizations' reliability for fact checking and accuracy. Once we verge into taking various pieces of information and drawing or implying conclusions about them, we've violated one of the most basic principles on which Wikipedia is built.
Whether or whether not this series was historically correct is absolutely irrelevant to Wikipedia except to the extent that the question contributed to its notability and notability is determined by reliable sources commenting on that issue. The degree to which those sources were right or wrong is also irrelevant except to the extent that their rightness or wrongness contributed to its notability due to their rightness or wrongness being discussed in reliable sources. For this article to engage in an analysis of whether the series was or was not historically accurate or an analysis of whether sources' criticism or defense of the series was accurate or inaccurate is outside the scope and purpose of Wikipedia.
If other articles have engaged in such an analysis, then those articles are either wrong and should be corrected or, equally possibly, they are examples of silent local exceptions to policy due to no challenge being raised there. However, I reject the idea that the existence of some such articles, even a large number of such articles, has created a general working exception to policy, one which is generally accepted but to which the letter of policy has not yet caught up. It's one thing to say that there's been a general change to policy which has not yet been formalized in the case of, say, hyphenization or the rules for exterior links; it's an entirely different thing to say that one of the most basic policies of Wikipedia has changed in that manner and that there is an entire general class of articles in which lower levels of sourcing are required than for general articles. To anyone contending that I would say put up or shut up: Drop the stick here at this one article and seek to create a policy which says just that, following the procedure set out in the Policy policy (not a typo). If the lower level of sourcing which you say the community accepts is in fact so widely accepted, the policy ought to be easy to pass.
If there is a question of whether a particular edits or set of edits engage in synthesis we can talk about that, but I seem to be seeing a tacit admission that the situation here — again I've not specifically looked at it to see if it does or does not — does violate the synthesis rule but that the rule shouldn't be followed. From my point of view, if the edits violate the rule, then the material should not go in unless there is a clear consensus here for it to do so as a local exception.
Sorry, tldr, but hey... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I feel that you are missing the point here. You say, "I've not looked at the specific edits in question in this case". I don't think you are in a position to comment until you have looked at it. You will find that the dispute is about the interpretation of the guideline, not about the fact that the guideline exists and exists for good reason. Consensus appears to me to be that the edits I made do not contravene the guidelines. You can see RedPen's interpretation of those guidelines below, which could fairly be summarised as "a book published before the TV series was shown cannot be used to reference a historical fact portrayed in that series". Deb (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The purpose and value of WP:SYN is not in doubt. What is in question is what consititutes SYN. Of course policies and guidelines can and do change, but that's strictly a matter for other fora. WP:OR can never be absolutely clear because there can be a variety of interpretations of what constitutes an "original" statement, and all editing involves the choice, interpretation and synthesis of sources by editors. Let's take an example. Scholar X says "King John was bad". Scholar Y says "King John was good". Is it OR to say "scholars disagree about whether John was good or bad"? A hard-liner interpretation of OR might be that the very statement that there is "disagreement" is OR - that it is an original idea synthesised from two separate statements. My view is that that's the route to madness and that such ultra-rigid interpretations of rules are profoundly damaging to the project, as they destroy the possibility of coherent and readable summaries of facts and debates. In this case the claim is that the historical events on which the TV show is based are fully documented and that noting those is not OR. It is not a "criticism" of the show, BTW, because almost all historical drama, including Shakespeare, involves departures from fact for dramatic purposes. It is background information relevant to understanding the show from which the reader can draw conclusions. My position is that it would only be OR if we interpreted such differences (e.g. "because they had so few extras they depicted the battle taking place in a dense forest rather than an open field" or "they put it is a forest to emphasise the feeling of confusion"). I do not think this is proper forum for discussing this issue because DR is not the place to determine the limits of what is and is not OR. Paul B (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
two examples of the specific content items that have been challenged as WP:SYN on the talk page:
“
In episode 6, "Love and Marriage", Jane Shore, Edward IV’s mistress, is portrayed as a youthful courtier. In fact, she was the wife of a London tradesman, probably in her thirties by the time she began her liaison with the king.[1]
”
References
^Kendall, Paul M. Richard the Third. New York: W.W. Norton and Company Inc., 1956, 173.
and
“
William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings, a pivotal figure in the transfer of power from Edward IV to Richard III, is completely omitted from the TV adaptation.[1] In fact, it was Hastings, not Anthony Woodville, who was Jane Shore’s lover and was disgraced along with her following Edward’s death.[2]
The first item is comparing the 2013 show to content from a book published in 1956. The second apparently comparing a post from the broadcast company which includes a cast list at the bottom and noting that a certain historical personage is not listed in the cast, and comparing it to the 2004 Dictionary of National Biography entry about the personage that says they played a pivotal role in the events of the times. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
@Paul B - I am not sure that I completely understand your position. It appears that you are stating that we should not use TV commentators views, but only historians view because only historians have an appropriate grasp to interpret history; but it is completely OK for the only historical interpretation to come directly from Wikipedia editors (because we are better than television commentators and the equivalent of historians?) But i do also share your concerns that we are basing "historicity" claims from someone who begins their commentary
"Look, I'm no medieval scholar – except on Tuesday mornings, time permitting".[1]
If she herself doesnt consider herself a good historian, why are we using her as a source for claims about history? But that was a situation I was going to address after what I thought was the more straightforward WP:SYN issues.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
If you don't understand my position, I don't know how I can explain it yet again, having done so in several fora. I never said "we should not use TV commentators views, but only historians view because only historians have an appropriate grasp to interpret history". Of course TV reviewers can be quoted, but historians are 1000 times better sources for what actual events were. That's obvious to anyone. I never said that "it is completely OK for the only historical interpretation to come directly from Wikipedia editors", or anything like it, since I have repeatedly stated that I am referring to verifiable facts citable to historians. Indeed no one who opposes your position has ever said anything like what you are trying to put into my mouth here. The argument of your opponents in this matter is that we do not have to use articles that comment directly on the TV series itself. Many good, and many featured, articles footnote sources that are not directly about the topic, but about background and contextual material relevant to it. Paul B (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Please don't forget that this quote was moved into the "Historicity" section from the "Critical reception" section in response to your request that critics' comments about the historical accuracy of the series should be included in preference to verification from history books. Deb (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
My requests have always been that in this article about the TV show the minimum requirement is that the sources be talking about the TV show. Since there was such huge opposition even to that requirement, I had not even begun to address whether or not the sources that do actually deign to discuss the TV show have been used WP:UNDUE in appropriate manner or are of the quality level that we expect.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Apology: I'd like to apologise to User:202.81.243.116 for implying in my edit summary that, in removing the original time stamp from his Summary above, he was trying to make it look as though he hadn't added to the summary a day after he began it. That comment was unworthy of me. Deb (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to comment here if I may. This seems to be rather simple. Should editors be allowed to mention historical differences between the fictional characters and situations of the series verses the historically documented information?
There are a few ways to look at this. As fiction, we are supposed to summarize the content without interpretation or analysis. The same is true with non-fiction. However, with historic docudramas I believe the community has allowed for notes to contain "explanations" of the major differences. Such explanations do not belong in the plot summary, but may contain explanatory notes to refer to. I have also seen separated sections on historical inaccuracies, but these do get challenged if not summarizing reliable sources. Generally, given time sources will begin to appear. However this show is very new and it is doubtful such sources may be found at this time. The article is not finished and I would assume no where near ready for a GA rating. For that reason editors still have the option of ignoring a policy if it improves the article and I am willing to support such an ignoring of the rules here as long as it doesn't lower the current rating and importance of the article. I would prefer notes and sources for analysis however. As a C class, low importance article...it doesn't seem as though it would do much harm to ignore a rule here and simply make note in the prose itself within the actual plot summary, however it does pose an issue when attempting to raise the rating above the C rating or for GA and FA. For that reason it is always best practice to just add explanatory notes and/or use create a section using RS.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
My understanding based on working with WP:FILM is that we generally do not include such lists of "differences" (differences from the novel, differences from historical fact, differences from earlier versions of the same film...the principle seems the same to me) unless sources took note of the differences. Wikipedia articles should not include trivia, and a list of differences that only Wikipedia editors took note of, IMO, falls afoul of that concept. How do we establish that a difference isn't trivial? By providing a third-party source that noted the difference. DonIago (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
@ Doniago, a project guide is not MOS or policy/guideline and cannot override the wider community consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
To what wider community consensus are you referring? DonIago (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
"How do we establish that a difference isn't trivial? By providing a third-party source that noted the difference." No, absolutely not. Film reviewers will commonly pick up on matters of great triviality, because they are interested in entertaining readers as much as anything, so noting that actress X is wearing lipstick while playing a Neolithic peasant is typical of just the kind of thing that "third party sources" do comment on, along with "bloopers" and endless other examples of trivia. Paul B (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Which may be the reason, Paul, that this Historicity section might not ought to exist at all. (Again, I'm speaking theoretically, not commenting on the actual section and sources.) The entire historicity issue, as I argue below in my note to Deb, is really only important enough to be in the article if it was significant to the notability of this show. That importance is not shown, in my opinion, by individual critics commenting about it, even if those critics' opinions are considered reliable sources for other reasons (and it could perhaps be mentioned in a criticism section). The historicity issue only rises to a sufficient level of importance to be independently discussed in the article if is is discussed as a topic itself in reliable sources, in my opinion. That is, the fact that critics A, B, and C mention or analyze or criticize it is not enough, there must be a third-party source D which says something like, "The historicity of the White Queen has been called into account by individuals X, Y, and Z." If no such source D exists, then the existence of a historicity section at all may be violation of the synthesis policy. I express no opinion about the actual section in the article, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
If you're arguing that a critic mentioning a difference doesn't establish non-triviality for that difference, then it seems to me far less likely that a WP editor in general is in a position to state that a difference is non-trivial. I'm open to a discussion of what means we could use to establish such a difference short of relying on third-party sources though. DonIago (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
@Deb: I believe both of Red Pen's examples, above, would violate the synthesis policy. They both contain a comment about the show, followed by a historical comparison from a source which does not address the show. Under the synthesis policy, the historical material is inappropriate for the article because it intentionally invites the article reader to draw a conclusion about the show not made by a reliable source. SYN says, in so many words: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (Emphasis added.) The implied conclusion in each of those examples is "therefore the show was historically inaccurate." To which, in any non-entertainment article, say one about dogs or buttons the reaction of Wikipedia should be so what? How is that historical inaccuracy relevant to Wikipedia? What does it have to do with the notability of that show? It is like including a "Biologisity" section in The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) describing the Munchkins and the winged monkeys and then quoting the Catalogue of Life to show that they never really existed. Does the fact that Munchkins and winged monkeys never really existed somehow make that film more notable or important? No. What makes the historicity issue at least marginally relevant to White Queen is that the show was criticized for it, at least to the extent that can be shown via reliable sources, not the fact that the show was actually inaccurate. Whether the critics were wrong or right is unimportant and the fact that people who read the article may wonder whether or not the critics were right or wrong is unimportant from the point of view of Wikipedia's mission, which is to describe — not analyze, but describe — the show through verifiable and reliable sources. Thus, it could not be plainer; indeed both of RedPen's examples are virtually identical to the first example given in SYN. There is no interpretation of SYN involved or needed. That being the case then you'll need a consensus, which you say that you have, to introduce the material into the article as a IAR local exception. Would you please say who supports that consensus? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Well - once again, I would refer you to the discussions that have taken place on other talk pages, which would give you the answer to your question. I do not think it's possible to come to a fair assessment of what has caused this dispute without doing so, and I'm disappointed that you are trying to "adjudicate" here rather than trying to resolve the dispute. It is essential to read the section on Historicity in total in order to assess whether it belongs in the article. As User:Mark Miller points out above, listing differences between historical fact and the adaptation (and note that some of these differences are introduced in the adaptation rather than in the novels on which it is based) could still be relevant to a historical drama even if everyone agreed on what constitutes "trivia" in the context of an action film. Also, if you were familiar with the reputation of Philippa Gregory, who is a somewhat controversial figure in UK history circles (especially at the moment, with the increased interest in this period because of the discovery of the remains of Richard III), you would recognise that the mere inclusion of this section has been seized upon by the anonymous contributor involved in the dispute as evidence that I have a personal interest in destroying her claim to historical accuracy in her fiction. Just as he openly questions my motives, so I may question whether he is really viewing this dispute from an impartial standpoint. My view is that the section is appropriate for a number of reasons, one of which is the notable concentration on historical "accuracy" displayed by critics (both those who write for newspapers and the general viewing public) of the series, particularly in the UK; another is the serious matter of the interpretation of history in a work of fiction. At the same time, I am not writing an essay on the topic of historical fiction or the art of screenwriting, and I have taken on board some of the less hypercritical points made by RedPen and had acted on these long before the debate reached this page; he has made it clear he is not interested in compromise, only in the enforcement of his own black-and-white view. The wikilawyering that has gone on over this issue is positively shocking, and is in danger of forcing two groups of contributors into entrenched positions. Deb (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
With all respect to my colleague, Mark Miller, I disagree. While I'm so-so (for reasons too complicated to go into here) about over-vigorously removing longstanding material from Wikipedia which does not conform to policy on the basis of the "no real harm" argument article, I do not believe that nonconforming material should ever be knowingly introduced without a showing that it benefits the encyclopedia more than adherence to the rules do. To do so weakens the standards which Wikipedia is built around and further invites criticism from outside and does, in fact, do real harm. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Inaccuracy and unreliability are what cause harm. Properly footnoted and accurate information is what gives credibility to the encyclopedia. The irony is that the interpretation insisted on by Red Pen and preferred by youself actually encourages the trivialisation of article content in this area, because articles will be written on the basis of what TV reviewers say about shiny teeth and seeing zips in fake-medieval dresses, along with their often garbled ideas of what "medieval" life was like based on populist assumptions. That's what "weakens the standards which Wikipedia is built around and further invites criticism from outside and does, in fact, do real harm", not the position adopted by Deb and myself. What we should be basing our content on is the work of serious historians of the era, giving readers a sense of what they say about the topic. Paul B (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
p.s. Your analogy with Munchkins is frankly utterly silly. No-one over the age of 5 ever believed they were real, so writers do not need to explain that they are not any more than they have to do so with other blatantly fictional creatures. That's the job of parents talking to their children, not scholarship. Departures from historical fact in historical drama and literature are, in contrast, a standard topic of debate both among viwers and in scholarly literature on popular and dramatic reworkings of history. If you are not aware of the huge body of literature on this issue and its significance to understanding the way history is continually reinterpreted, you have no grasp of this issue at all. Paul B (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would disagree that if a serious historian of the era has noticed an issue with White Queen then that would be appropriate for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Some people consider Philippa Gregory to be a serious historian. Not to make light of your comment, though, Michael Hicks is among the critics quoted in the section. Deb (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
As has been pointed out to you over and over and over, no one is advocating "ignoring the rules". The debate is about how they are best interpreted for the benefit of the project. Your link is so utterly irrelevant to the issues under discussion that I really wonder whether you are even hearing what is being said. This is not a matter of giving the show marks out of ten for accuracy. It's about noting instances of departures from fact. Such departures may be done for a whole host of sensible reasons. In The Tudors the names of some characters were changed simply to avoid having too many people with the same name which might confuse viewers. In Inglourious Basterds the whole of the Nazi leadership is killed in a Parisian cinema. We know, of course, that that's not an "error" on Tarantino's part. You seem to think this is about giving our stars for historical accuracy. Paul B (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
"noting instances of departures from fact", if the noter is a WP editor, is WP:SYN. It's not notable that a work of fiction departs from fact anyway, and listing all the tiny ways it does is purely a parlour game. IMDB welcomes that kind of stuff, Wikipedia does not. 202.81.243.116 (talk)
You can repeat that over and over until you are blue in the face, but repeating it dogmatically does not make it any truer. You have been given many reasons why your interpretation is disputed. Just failing to a acknowledge legitimate disagreement by repeating the same mantras incessantly is not helpful. You comment on goofs again demonstrates that you have not understood, or perhaps even read, the points made. The project is harmed by editors who prefer to diminish articles to affirm their dogmas. Paul B (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I acknowledge your disagreement; that is obvious since I have disputed it in detail. I understand what you want to do. You think you have a special dispensation to ignore policies because you have to tell everyone about some error you saw. You don't. "Historical errors" in a drama are no more than goofs. The article is diminished by that trivial point scoring. Really, submit it to IMDB. That's the "project" where it belongs. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Deb said, "My view is that the section is appropriate for a number of reasons, one of which is the notable concentration on historical 'accuracy' displayed by critics (both those who write for newspapers and the general viewing public) of the series, particularly in the UK; another is the serious matter of the interpretation of history in a work of fiction." As I commented above, the "concentration" is not relevant to this article unless someone in a reliable source commented on that concentration. We do not get to observe that there were a lot of people saying something about a topic here and then count heads and say "many people believe". While the interpretation of history in a work of fiction may be a serious matter, it's not a serious matter for purposes of this show unless someone in a reliable source says that it is. As for wikilawyering, wikilawyering is the misapplication of policy to obtain a result not intended by that policy, not merely the recitation of policy in the way it is intended or advocating for one reasonable interpretation of policy over another. I've seen nothing here that I can clearly identify as wikilawyering. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Can I be frank, TM? You're not actually doing anything to help achieve a resolution to this dispute; all you're doing is adding fuel to the fire. If you have an interest in resolving it, then please go and read the discussions before making any further comments. If, on the other hand, you're here because you consider yourself to be some kind of legal expert, carry on arguing but please don't expect anyone to take any notice, because I don't actually agree with a single thing that you said in the above paragraph. There is no such thing as an expert on wikipedia policy and guidelines, and this is because they are created by consensus, a consensus of human beings. Just like actual laws, they are open to interpretation and liable to be imperfect, as indeed we all are. Deb (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not exactly sure what TransporterMan disagrees with me on, but I will use this analogy: Where exactly was Caesar murdered? Interesting question. Many would assume he was murdered in the senate house or the capitol from the varying productions starting with Shakespeare. Well, we do mention that Caesar was actually murdered in the meeting hall of the Theatre of Pompey and in stating this fact in the article about the production, we clarify an important encyclopedic bit of information. I do not see it as trivia or trivial. It all depends on the differences. We need not mention that the time period between when the Bad Queen landed and when she was captured was not accurate but we may want to clarify some more important points, and this is actually common in many docudrama articles. I do not see this as being against policy when done in the proper manner. In fact I believe some freedom is given summarizing some content. Let me look into that.
In trying to decide which direction to take or which to exclude we do need to verify actual MOS, guidelines and policy are adhered to, but if there is nothing that strictly rules it out and consensus cannot be determined.....editors are going to need to work together and come up with some compromise to move forward.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primaryandsecondary information.
Exemplary aspects of real-world perspective include:
Careful differentiation between the work of fiction itself and aspects of its production process and publication, such as the impact a work of fiction has had in the real world (see also below)
Careful differentiation between narrated time and fictional chronology on the one hand, and narrative time and actual chronology of real-world events on the other (of particular relevance to all film and TV-related topics)
The presentation of fictional material
particularly for film and TV-related topics, this may include cinematographical aspects
Description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative
Making (referenced!) mention of the author's intention
See below for a list of exemplary articles which employ a consistent real-world perspective. However, consider that real-world perspective is not an "optional" quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles.
and in the exemplary articles the "real world perspectives" are brought in by third parties discussing the work and its impact and creation, not by Wikipedia editors doing so or making implications. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Note that "real world perspective" means details of how the show was produced in the "real world". The actors, not the characters; the sets, not the places depicted, etc. Actually, analysing the events in the show as if they were real history is doing the opposite: applying "in-universe perspective", which is discouraged by MOS. And in any case, no one was saying that a "Historicity" section was impermissible per se, only that the current one violated WP:OR in the majority of its entries. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Having now been chastised at least twice by Deb for having not read the talk pages, I've now gone back and done so. Some observations:
Nothing I've read significantly changes my opinion about anything I've said above, except that my comment at 19:39, 18 September about the historicity section as a whole (as opposed to the "show-said history-says" additional examples in that section) is more clearly off-topic than I thought.
I see that my comments about the additional examples really only repeat the positions already taken by the opponents of the edits represented by Red Pen's examples.
I did note that in the comments made at the NORN noticeboard and NOR talk page that everyone who weighed in who was not already involved in this dispute did so with the position that the current SYN rule prohibits this kind of material. Some (John Carter, Luke Warmwater101, perhaps Dougweller) were at least to some degree sympathetic to the idea of modifying the rule so as to allow them, but others (Masem, Someguy1221) were less friendly to such a modification. What was not there, outside the editors involved in this particular dispute, was any support for the idea that the proposed material does not violate SYN as it now stands.
I've spent a lot of time since my last post here thinking about this. While I have to say that I do think that SYN prohibits the additional examples, I also must admit that Paul's statement here is not entirely without merit:
"If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is in any way OR to assert that this is inaccurate. If there is no ambiguity about what the film shows and there is no uncertainty about the historical facts, then there is no original research, because no new idea is being 'sythesised'. It's not a new idea that the battles did not happen in the same year."
As I said, above, SYN is a subset of NOR which is a subset of V. At the end of the day, a SYN is objectionable because it creates an unsourced implied or actual assertion in the encyclopedia. And that's objectionable because, per V, everything in the encyclopedia which is challenged or likely to be challenged must have a reliable source. What Paul is saying is, in effect, that when a film unquestionably says a one-day event happened in 1805 and real history unquestionably says that the same event happened in 1815 that there is no reasonable chance that the actual or implied assertion that the film is not accurate is likely to be challenged.
The problem is that in this particular case that assertion has been challenged by the assertion of SYN and the rule under the verifiability policy is "challenged or likely to be challenged," not just "likely to be challenged." There has been quite a bit of discussion over at the verifiability policy talk page through the years about whether an editor must justify a challenge in order to remove an unsourced assertion. The conclusion has always been, though many editors have not been happy with that conclusion, that justification is not necessary. Paul's argument can only then become the assertion that such a challenge cannot have been made in good faith, but policy requires us to assume good faith and that requirement is one of the primary reasons, if not the primary reason, that a justification requirement for challenges has always been rejected.
Still, in a case like this where there is no reasonably possible doubt that the assertion is accurate and true, the fact that an unjustified objection is enough always feels very thin and unsatisfactory and wikilawyerish, but examined in that light the bare objection is indeed enough. It is not a matter of interpretation or wikilawyering, but, instead, years of discussion at V has established the right to make the unjustified objection.
Dispute resolution volunteers are not free to negotiate whatever compromise which will settle a dispute. We can only assist reaching those compromises which are in the best interest of the encyclopedia or, at the very least, those which are not against its best interest. In this case, the established consensus of the community in the form of the verifiability policy, as particularized in the synthesis section of the no original research policy, leaves no room for a compromise which would allow the additional examples of non-historicity to be included except through an IAR local exception derived through consensus. If the proponents of the material believe that such a consensus already exists, they may apply for a consensus evaluation through the administrator's noticeboard. If they are less than certain about that outcome — as they should be, in my opinion — they may file a RFC at the article talk page to try to confirm such a consensus or simply continue discussion there toward that end. Either way, it must be bourne in mind that verifiability is a threshold to inclusion, not a guarantee, and I believe that there is a further and substantial discussion about undue weight which must follow even if they should succeed in obtaining a local exception against SYN. It might be well to combine both issues into an RFC.
Unless the disputants want assistance from DRN in negotiating the terms of such an RFC, however, I cannot see any further reason to continue discussion here and feel that this listing should be closed as resolved against the inclusion of the material. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I too feel that the listing should be closed, as it has been a complete waste of time. However, there is no justification whatever for your statement that it is in any way resolved. You state that "that assertion has been challenged". No, the assertion has not been challenged at all; it is merely the inclusion of that assertion in the article that has been challenged. I am very surprised that you can't see the difference. Perhaps it is due to your relative inexperience as an editor of articles. Deb (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
No, perhaps I did not say it clearly enough, but that is exactly what is challenged in a verifiability challenge: the inclusion of an unsourced assertion in an article. The substance of a challenge is that the assertion in the article cannot be sourced through a reliable source, not that the assertion is true or false, accurate or inaccurate, because the purpose of the verifiability policy is to avoid discussion about those matters. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The example "If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is in any way OR to assert that this is inaccurate" is bogus, in the same way as "Caesar on a moped", mentioned earlier. Important, blatant, anachronisms ARE noted by reviewers. They will be citable without WP:SYN. Here is a real example, not a made-up one: Ip_Man_(film)#Historical_accuracy: a film with many completely made-up events. The article notes these, without synthesis, simply by quoting a reviewer. Those who want to confirm that errors are "factual" as well as verifiable can easily do so by looking at the linked articles on the real history of the period. That's how it can and should be done, without any need to ignore existing WP:OR policy. Instead of looking at fake examples, look at the actual "inaccuracies" that this is about. A minor character (Jane Shore) is portrayed as several years younger than she should be. Other secondary characters were in the wrong place. A plain has too many trees. Most absurdly, "Baron Rivers ... and Anthony ..., a real life sophisticate, appear naïve, even a little crass"? How a critique of an actor's style relates to "Historicity", I don't know, but any objection is swiftly reverted. This is fiction, drama, not a documentary. These quibbles aren't notable and certainly not notable enough to justify making the "Historicity" section larger than any other section of the article, and of course, ignoring WP:SYN to do so. This is a group of WP editors saying "The writers of the show made a bunch of mistakes that only we noticed, and we're going to list every single one", and that section is now the focus of the article. This sets a terrible precedent. Every editor who notices a character with the wrong coloured hair will feel empowered to add it to the list. 202.81.243.116 (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
given that there does not appear to be any consensus that by ignoring the rules improves the encyclopedia by the inclusion of of the two examples above, i have removed them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
and since they were immediately reinserted by an editor who did not participate here with an edit summary that declared that the discussion was not settled, I have taken TransporterMan's advice for the next steps and opened an RfC on the SYN and UNDUE issues. I guess we are done here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:29, 21 September 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.
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Death Note question
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Vashti on 17:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC).
This one looks like this one was resolved pretty quickly. Steven Zhang (talk) 11:12, 24 September 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.
Over at Death Note, I've been trying to decide on capitalisation for various in-universe terms which, while capitalised in some primary material, are often not capitalised in academic sources. I asked for help at WP:MOS and a dispute ensued.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I'm not sure it's really a dispute, though it did get a bit heated. But since reversion of the non-capitalised version is common, I wanted to establish a consensus on whether the primary or secondary sources should take priority. At the moment we really only have two editors with opposing views.
How do you think we can help?
While some advice was offered, it wasn't sufficient to resolve the dispute, and we really need more opinions to break the tie.
Summary of dispute by Ryulong
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I simply think that they should be capitalized as they are unique to the work of fiction. If its officially capitalized we should not rely on 4 English language academic papers to define how we format the words "Death Note" and "Shinigami (Eyes)" within the context of the work of fiction.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Robsinden
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I came to this somewhat impartially, to try to break the deadlock but I am unfamiliar with the source material - However, as an outsider I think the terms in question are probably proper names in the context, and thus should be capitalised, but willing to be proved wrong. "Death Note" is more of an clear case that "shinigami" mind you. One thing I will say is that we should not be following the outside sources for style - this is why we have a MOS. "Shinigami" should probably be italicised as it isn't a loan word though, especially if it isn't treated as a proper name. I have sympathy for both of the editors involved - it is a little difficult to know what to do. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Death Note question discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
This is not an easy answer because the official English manga is written in an "all caps" format and secondly, the introduction of the "death note" is given a proper noun by context as the "THE DEATH NOTE... IS THE BOND BETWEEN LIGHT THE HUMAN AND RYUK THE SHINIGAMI." Is that a proper sentence? Doubtful, but the context of "the" versus "a" is pretty clear.[9] The usage is consistently a proper noun despite numerous "Death Notes" existing at once, while it is a macguffin, it is used in a context as a proper noun and should remain one. Swap the term with "Gun" and you arrive at the same place, but the proof comes from the scripts themselves, even the earliest draft (nod to Gwern) shows explicit proper noun usage. Also, proper nouns can be both capitalized and plural, given that no item bears the same name and is not "common" the word should remain capitalized. Many "Enterprises" exist, real and fictional, but "A Enterprise" or "The Enterprise" can be both proper nouns owing to its identification. As silly as it seems, a "Death Note" is a proper noun because its identification is not "death" and "note", but "a Death Note" and its later usage as "the/a notebook/s" is indicative of the former's status. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's a slap in the face. I was hoping the uncapitalised peer-reviewed sources would carry the day, but it seems not. I do appreciate your help, though - that spat at MOS can't have been fun to wade through. Any input on "shinigami" so we can get this wrapped up? Vashti (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The usage in the official materials often wins the day, but in Death Note's case Shinigami is defined as a race and imply capitalization like "Chinese" or "Arabic" or "Korean". They may be shinigami, but the race is Shinigami. In the official materials, the choice for the author's notes is "Shinigami" not shinigami. All of this can be found in Death Note: How to Read 13 . With that being said if it doesn't sit right with you, make a note about the names and explain to the reader why the words are capitalized as a footnote. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thank you very much. I'll follow your advice. I do regret this decision, though, as I genuinely feel this call is going to make the pages awkward to read and unencyclopaedic in tone. Vashti (talk) 18:30, 18 September 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.
Delhi state assembly elections, 2013
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Resolved as noted by filing editor. Steven Zhang (talk) 11:19, 24 September 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.
Delhi is the national capital territory of India. Delhi State assembly elections are due in 2013 & various parties are gearing for it. The dispute is regarding whether to include the candidates per constituency from political parties in a table as & when they declare it. Those who believe that this should not be included have so far cited following concerns -
1) WP:POLITICIAN
2) WP:UNDUE
3) Practiced implemented in the 'Wikipedia's featured lists' can not be the reason why the same should be included here.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
-> Explained that 'even though many of the candidates are not notable' we can include them in the candidate lists without violating WP:POLITICIAN as creating separate article for every candidate is not our aim. Also cited an example of 'Wikipedia's featured list' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_Maryland_House_of_Delegates
-> Explained that WP:UNDUE is not applicable here because eventually all major political party's candidates will be included when they declare it.
How do you think we can help?
Please go through the talk page of this article to see whether we can include the list of candidates per constituency from all political parties.
Summary of dispute by Sitush
You could have waited a bit longer for discussion to develop on the talk page. I see that Binksternet has now responded with basically the same reference to concerns about WP:UNDUE as I had. The party in question is attracting a lot of promotional contributions and several experienced editors are regularly having to amend the excesses. If and when the official list of candidates is published then we can insert all of the names for all of the parties. Until then, adding info for just the one party is undue and it should be noted that even their list is incomplete and all proposed candidates are subject to scrutiny via the affidavit system prior to the election, ie: it is far from settled. We are not a news website and there is no urgency here. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping the claim of violation of WP:POLITICIAN made on 09:12, 22 September 2013 while reverting the edit history & many more thanks for using a sober language while responding back. Your point relating to 'proposed candidates are subject to scrutiny via the affidavit system prior to the election' is perfectly valid. It is noted down & therefore I withdraw my support to candidate list inclusion at this juncture. We can add it later when major parties have declared their candidates.--ratastro (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Iamgauravkumar
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Delhi state assembly elections, 2013 discussion
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.
Hinduism and other religions
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Justicejayant on 10:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC).
Stale, no discussion here or at talk page in several days. Appears to have died down or been resolved. May be refiled if dispute resumes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:05, 27 September 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.
I edited this article for 2 days, as the version of the article is very poorly written, unorganized and included a very less amount of knowledge, with many grammatical errors. My version is comparable to "Christianity and other religions".
Once i added about 10,055 bytes of the content, by some "Blackguard SF", who didn't show up, then again i saw my edit has been reverted, and this time over 12,000 bytes. In discussion, the editor named as Saddhiyama made about 3 suggestions that i accepted, but what's with removing the whole sourced content, i asked, the answer from this user was, "Volney lived 200 years ago so can't be added", "[10] is a dead link", "you copy pasted from earlier version of wikipedia", since none of these claims are relevant or coherent to the wikipedia's guidelines, they were refuted, so the user replied back with "i didn't knew where you copy pasted from"...
According to me such assumptions have been made by this user, because he or she don't like the content, and doesn't seem to be responding to this issue anymore either. Although i made a example page here[11] which would helpful to understand the version, that i have agreed on.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Talk pages.
How do you think we can help?
By letting know what should be added or removed at [12], such version can be posted at the main page.
Summary of dispute by Saddhiyama
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
To keep it short, Justicejayants massive edit was a mess of unattributed copypasting from other articles (including unidentifiable citations only stating author surname and pagenumbers), undue weight and WP:SYNTH. I am not sure which "3 suggestions" that JJ has accepted, because I made several (as can be seen from the talk page) and I have yet to read a response from JJ adressing or even acknowledging any of the issues I raised. The standard reply from them seems to be "it is a legitimate edit" and nothing further beyond that. It is btw funny that you mention the Volney-issue. I vaguely recall discussing that particular author in a similar edit in connection to another article some time ago, I forget which article it was, but I assume it was the article from which JJ copypasted that particular segment. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hinduism and other religions discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Once again Saddhiyama, the article is simply not "copy pasted", because it's original, not a duplicate article. You figured out 1 book source of Mary Boyce, and i had given the title of his book at talk page, but still you didn't agreed about the edits. But now it seems like you didn't read it, or you are in denial. The 3 suggestions of you, were related with income, a quote of Zaehner, it already clears that there's no more WP:SYNTH in the page, and the last one, the quote of Kushwant Singh. None of the theories of "Volney" are refuted, or he's disrespected that his arguement can't be counted, his references has been used in over 110 articles of wikipedia, which speaks enough, but if you still have issue, you can bring the sources that would prove the his theories wrong in the sense that he never wrote them, that may work instead, not any unknown claims "i forgot which article" that you just made. Justicejayant (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Your edit most certainly does contain numerous parts copypasted from other Wikipedia articles, you have yourself admitted as much (though most likely much less than the actual truth). That you provide the titles of the sources mentioned in the copypasted cites does not remedy the situation of the copypasting itself in anyway. I think you should once more read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia which I provided on the talk page.
And no, Volneys theories are certainly not representative of contemporary scholarship on comparative religious studies, and it really doesn't matter whether he is used in "110 articles in Wikipedia" (though I would very much like to see that list) as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. But again, we have been over this some time ago on some other article, which you could perhaps be so kind as to point out, with regards to investigating the extent of the copypasting going on. I can't check the amount of synth still present, since I have problems identifying many of the citations. You linked a book by one Shalomim Y. Halahawi, which is a self-published book and thus not a reliable source (and the claims made in that book so outlandish that it is obviously WP:FRINGE).
You have yet to provide identification of the "Laidlaw, pp. 154–160; Jindal, pp. 74–90; Tähtinen p. 110", instead you provided yet another copypasted citation (""Dundas, Paul: The Jains, second edition, London 2002, p. 160; Wiley, Kristi L.: Ahimsa and Compassion in Jainism, in: Studies in Jaina History and Culture, ed. Peter Flügel, London 2006, p. 438; Laidlaw pp. 153–154.") from God knows which article containing a repetition of one of the unidentified sources ("Laidlaw"). I am really amazed at the lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia policies like WP:RS and the aforementioned copyright policies going on here considering that you should by know have had plenty of time and opportunity to familiarise yourself with them, not least when they were pointed out to you during your many disputes. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess you are repeating same nonsense now, and wasting time. Because you have already failed to proved that the article is copy pasted or not. So it's not even a point, go on calling any article "copy paste" and never show the real article, what type of gibberish that is?
Simply you just said that you don't like Volney, so he should not be added, but point is, that's a childish argument. You can use the search bar of the wikipedia anytime to know, that how many refs mention Volney and his literature. And in fact there are number of reliable sources, that certainly says the same thing as he did. So what's your point now? As about the self published book, instead of criticizing source, you can better try to figure out that how common the info is, as the same information can be backed by multiple sources[13], [14],[15] and especially [16], [17]. And these are reliable source, not self - published either.
WP:FRINGE can't be applied either, because WP:FRINGE would be when some claim has been made which is just opposite or 100% different compared to the official statement(for eg. 9/11 inside job). Here, nothing is official or prove any of the statement of these known writers, such as Osho, Steven Rosen, and others to be incorrect, as they only wrote the similarities.(similar to china and japan are asian countries)
As for the source, how it's a "copy pasted citation"? And how it's violating the policies? You can definitely find alternative sources, and the same information that the book of Laidlaw, Jindal, Tahtinen is backed by numerous sources[18], [19]. Your attempt clearly shows, that if you read some fact like "Washington D.C. is capital of USA", you would simply blank the whole summary, just because you don't like the source, instead, you can add the better source, or just use common sense. Justicejayant (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
How? Well, you hardly know about these matters like it can be seen and it's hard to assume that you are having any good faith, as you remove the content(almost 80% content), about which you never even discussed. Justicejayant (talk) 05:50, 21 September 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.
Stale. No response from other listed editors. Vigorous discussion continuing at talk page. May be refiled if needed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:01, 27 September 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.
The BLP of an Indian politician Narendra Modi, is full of criticism, accusations, irrelevant topics even totally unassociated with the person concerned. Eg. a news article claimed about the politician for exaggerating Uttarakhand rescue operation in which the publisher printed without sourcing any authentic source/ office and caused an uproar following which the newspaper retracted it subsequently. But the section appears as though it was claimed by the politician himself. The introduction itself mentions the politician as controversial, whereas he was termed so only by some media reports. His activities are cited by a Leftist magazine with derogatory/ controversial terms and the same has been included in the article as such, reflecting it as a fact. Thus the article is full of violations of NPOV and BLP policies of wikipedia.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have initiated discussion on the talk page, but the users mentioned above have used languages which clearly reflect their biased point of views and malintention towards making the article look as biased.
How do you think we can help?
Compare the article with BLPs of other similar Chief Ministers/ politicians/ national leaders, even those with serious allegations against them, and look for the biased critcism that is being reflected in the article. None of the politician has been vilified in manner similar to the Narendra Modi.
Summary of dispute by Sitush
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Maunus
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Aurorian
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Pectore
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Gmcssb
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Narendra Modi 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.
Iggy Pintado
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 203.206.174.4 on 05:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC).
Help request, no extensive discussion at article talk page as required by this forum. Consider WP:HELPDESK or advice given at WP:AUTOPROB. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:48, 27 September 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.
I have requested that my name and affiliation with Iggy Pintado be removed from his page. I have requested that privacy be respected during a formal separation between him (Iggy Pintado) and myself (Kerry Pintado - nee Weir). Any references to my name married and my former unmarried name, or future mentions be completely removed from Wikipedia.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Sent a message to him requesting him to remove all traces of my name and maiden name appearing in his Wikipedia page: Iggy Pintado.
How do you think we can help?
By requesting Iggy Pintado to comply with my wishesas listed in the "Resolve the dispute" box.
Iggy Pintado discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I know that normally we wait for a volunteer to open, but I want to jump in here quickly. Kerry, I see that your name has already been removed from the article; I've actually gone in and removed the entire section it was in, because it didn't have any sources. However, the reason why nothing happened earlier is because Iggy Pintado has nothing whatsoever to do with that page; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia run by volunteers, and the subjects of articles we write usually have no connection to them (and, actually can't exert any special influence over them anyway). In any event, what will/should go into the article depends strictly on what we can verify in reliable sources; since I saw no source for your name or anything else about his family I've removed it.
To the relevant DRN volunteer, it would be nice if this were kept up for a little bit (a couple of days, or until the OP replies again), even though it's malformatted; the initiator did so on an IP, and it's the only edit that IP has ever made, so I'm expecting that if they check back for an update, they'll do so here first (I hope). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I have left a note on the IP's talk page (if they come back) with a link to WP:AUTOPROB; and I have the article on my watchlist as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 24 September 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.
Shaolin Wahnam_Institute
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Shorinjikempo on 11:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC).
Pending in another forum (AfD). DRN does not accept cases pending in other forums. Also no talk page discussion by the filing editor. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 27 September 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.
Wikipedia editing double standards.
I would like to raise a request for dispute resolution.
Timeline:
Many wikipedia articles on Chinese Martial Arts are stubs. Wikipedia requests they are expanded on.
Members of a worldwide Chinese Martial Arts school - the Shaolin Wahnam Institute (SWI) - create a page and content describing their school and Arts. Content and layout is structured after the informational pages of other marital arts bodies on wikipedia.
Editor Jmcw37 collapses the page into that of the founder of SWI, Wong Kiew Kit, without any discussion on the basis of the SWI page being composed of primary sources.
A discussion ensues. I am accused of being a Sockpuppet as I am one of three people who are not happy with the change that Jmcw37 has made(!).
Editor PRehse nominates the page Shaolin Wahnam Institute for deletion. I cannot access this discussion.
I can't access the deletion discussion so have no way to resolve it.
How do you think we can help?
Mediate between SWI editors (Markblohm, leeweijoo, myself) and the other editors currently active on the deletion discussion.
So that the SWI page can be edited according to wikipedia standards but not treated unfairly (i.e. deleted without an open and fair discussion by all interested parties).
Summary of dispute by Markblohm
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by leeweijoo
The Shaolin Wahnam Institute Page should be given a chance to be edited to meet Wikipedia's standards instead of getting deleted or redirected straightaway without constructive input from all parties involved. Leeweijoo (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Jmcw37
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by PRehse
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The history of the discussion and reasons for the AfD are clearly given in both AfD discussions as was the reason for the blocking (by an administrator). The case for notability is clearly not being made and that is the primary reason (not the lack of secondary sources). The fact that other articles do not have enough secondary sources is their own problem and has no bearing on this discussion. The discussion should remain in the AfD where a consensus from the overall community is becoming clear.
I would also add that quite a bit of help as gone into improving the standard of the article (please go back in its history) but the underlying issue remains. The school in no way operates at the significance of any of the examples listed above (ie. Kendo and Judo).Peter Rehse (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Shaolin Wahnam_Institute discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Agreed. Also note that the editor bringing this here and 2 of the other parties are WP:SPAs, 2, including this editor, with very few edits, the third being the creator of this article. Outside canvassing has been a problem here, see [20]. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
As above, there is nothing to mediate here. Off-WP canvassing resulted in the AFD being semi-protected. The initial redirecting was being done per consensus from a prior discussion. The rest is WP:OSE. Stalwart111 18:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Dispute resolution has no remit to "resolve" differences in opinion on an AfD, which should be allowed to run its course. I suggest that it is been brought here because the editors are afraid the article will be deleted again by a consensus of editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 27 September 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.
Marie Curie
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Tokidokix on 20:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC).
The disputants other than the filing editor have indicated a desire not to participate here. May be refiled if they change their mind or if their preferred method of dispute resolution proves to be fruitless. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:16, 27 September 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.
The issue is about the lead of the article, which the other editors insist on being "was a Polish physicist working mainly in France". Before their edits, the Good Article-qualified version of the article was stating "was a French-Polish physicist".
I argue that:
1- WP:OPENPARA point to emphasizing the country of notability (ie France) rather than the country of birth (ie Poland) in the lead.
2- Consistency with other Wikipedia articles, as well as with Encyclopaedia Britannica would point to use "was a Polish-born French physicist".
However, my opponents seem to refuse to address these issues and instead bring back all discussion to the supposed fact that Marie Curie had a strong feeling of Polish nationalism. My answers to these arguments are:
3a- there is little evidence of Marie Curie expressing such strong nationalism a few years after settling in France
3b- in any case, this supposed nationalistic feeling is not incompatible with a similar attachment to France, a country whom she had the nationality, where she spent about all of her adult life, where she made her career, and where she created her family.
3c- discussing the evolution of the feelings of Marie Curie is always going to be a matter of subjectivity and original research
3d- anyway, wikipedia guidelines are what should matter here (see points 1- and 2- above)
In the end, however, my arguments 1- and 2- remain unanswered. And I am unconvinced by the answers provided to points 3a,3b,3c. Unfortunately, my opponents seem to be likewise unconvinced by my arguments. Which mean we are in a deadlock.
Reverting to the Good Article lead seems to me to be a reasonable compromise for now, but this keep on being rejected. (Binksternet having first agreed, then opposing it). Since we are already bordering on edit warring (I think I did about 4-5 reverts in 3 days, vs the same number for the opposite side), it might urgent to have additional neutral editors have a look at this discussion.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
None, except of course discussing on the Talk page.
How do you think we can help?
Provide general advice on how to conduct the rest of the discussion and avoid falling into a long edit war. Possibly guide us to the most suitable form of Wikipedia dispute resolution: request for comment, mediation, ....
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.
List of species rumored/believed to still be alive
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Keeby101 on 18:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC).
Deletion issue, best handled by contacting the deleting admin to ask for restoration to userspace. Steven Zhang (talk) 05:11, 29 September 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.
I have ben planning to recreate my first articles originally titled: List of species rumored/believed to still be alive for a while now, the very same article that was almost voted to be redirected to another article and deleted by Administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise. 3 weeks later, I talked to Administrator Dougweller (Didn't want to put him as one of the users involved in the dispute because he essentially isn't. Also, I do not want to make him angry by doing so) about reviving my article under a different name and he told me that go to the deleting Administrator about it and if that did not work, I should go here to WP:DRN. I later proceeded to confront Future Perfect at Sunrise in a very polite manner on his talk page and I apologized for what happened in the past as we were and possible still are not on good terms with one another and explained that if he were to give my list article another chance, not only would it be under a different name, but I would most certainly cite proper, accurate and reliable sources as well. Rather than using websites that are deemed by most editors as dubious, I would use real books as sources and cite them properly.
I posted on his talk page about this specifically 4 days ago and he has not responded since then, but he has responded to ALMOST everyone else who has posted on his talk page after me so there is no doubt that I am most likely being ignored.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
As I said in the overview, I proceeded to confront the deleting Admin and he did not respond and as such I proceeded to do what Admin Dougweller told me to do and go to WP:DRN.
How do you think we can help?
With all that I have typed above being said, I have decided to take this matter to WP:DR on regards to reviving my first article titled List of Species Rumored/Believed to still be alive since confronting the deleting Wikipedia Admin did not work..
Summary of dispute by Future Perfect at Sunrise
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of species rumored/believed to still be alive discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. This may take some extra time, because the case was filed with a nonexistent name listed. In the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It has been 24 hours, so I am opening this up for discussion with whoever is here. It is possible to resolve a dispute without everyone involved participating.
Is anyone still participating, or should I close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm still here! Sorry if it's been a while. I haven't had time to respond to anyone lately because I have been really busy. Allow me to give you the information that I have gathered:
12 editors voted to delete it.
3 voted to keep it.
Best argument for deleting it was from IRWolfie and Kansas Bear when they said "Pure rumour mill and of no encyclopedic value. Sources are rubbish." and "Besides being an obvious POV fork, this is just another "list" article made up of personal blogs[1][2], opinions(ie. deadlinks) or no sources at all(ie. Glaucous Macaw). No, this is not how you create an article!"
Best argument for keeping it was from JOJ Hutton and jbignell when they said "To add this list under List of Cryptids would take away the science behind the intent of this article. I do think it needs a new title and a focus description of what this list is and the goal of the article." and "This is a very interesting and long needed topic. Its cited. And describing rumors that are cited is not taboo on Wikipedia. Seems to work on other articles, why not this one?"
List of Cryptids has mythological creatures as well as creatures such as the Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp.
List of species rumored/believed to still be alive takes a much more realistic tone and focuses solely on animals that have actually existed at a certain point in time and lists those very species that could very well still exist today.
No one take cryptids seriously!Besides, this article is leaning toward articles like this: List_of_critically_endangered_species like how it is supposed so. Basically, once I am finished creating my article, it will fit be part of this Conservation_status. The article itself is meant to be an offshoot of those articles within that template. Most likely an offshoot of the Data_Deficient and/or the Not Evaluated lists.
So there you have it! Keeby101 (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is something the dispute resolution noticeboard can help with - the deleting admin doesn't take sides on things like this, just evaluates the consensus of editors. I would recommend asking if they will undelete the page and move it your userspace so you can work on it a bit more. Steven Zhang (talk) 05:11, 29 September 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.
1948 Palestine war
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Filed by Ykantor on 21:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Do I have to add to the article a mistaken sentence (in my opinion) in order to balance my other sentence?
There is a disagreement in the talk page between myself and user:pluto2012. I wrote a sentence based on few wp:rs that the Arabs started the war. he opposed this statement. I proposed that each of us will concise his view to 1 sentence only, and add both to the article. (provided that both are well supported).
He does not agree. He ask me to write both opinions, otherwise he claims that my contribution is wp:npov. However, I do not agree to the other opinion and do not have a support for it.
I can not "balance" my sentence with a view which is a mistake (in my opinion). Hence I hope that he will be convinced to write a (well supported) sentence that presents his view, to complement the sentence I wrote (and he deleted):"under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating".
Summary of dispute by pluto2012
To Steven : Ykantor is a problematic editor who is involved in many conflicts and nobody wants to lose time with him any more. All this is a basic NPOV issue. Ykantor claims the right to edit only for what he calls "one side" and not to comply with WP:NPOV.
He now has opened the same topic on the 1948 Palestine War article (which covers the same period). I answered him that it had already been discussed but he refuses the result. So he brought the topic on the help desk and there he was not followed again. So he rejected the avdices and come here.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I believe that it was indeed the arabs who started the war, as they were against the creation of Israel, and even today. OccultZone (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
@Pluto2012:, are you able to make some opening comments so we can get started? (Other volunteers, please close this thread in 24hrs if there is no further response). StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 01:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Reading user:pluto2012 comments, he is doing his best to avoid the issue, while blaming me personally and trying to complicate the issue which is limited and simple: to write 1 concise and supported sentence which summarize his view. Unfortunately, I can not write it, because in my opinion his view is mistaken.
This is not a content dispute. My view is well supported and concise. The question is whether he can write his view. Ykantor (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The policies managing this issue as well as your unappropriate behaviour are discussed on your talk page, on different article talk pages, on this talk page and no later than today here again.
I'm so sorry that this case hasn't been attended to by a volunteer for the past fortnight. This case turns on the interpretation of the "NPOV" policy. To kick off, how would parties respond to the following. PLEASE, these questions are important - they give me material to work on when considering how to resolve this dispute. These questions MUST be answered in full - they are not designed as simple "yes" or "no" questions:
1) If the sentence under dispute were considered authoritative by every source available on the matter, what effect would this have on the dispute?
2) Considering that NPOV doesn't mention editors' personal opinions regarding proposed entries anywhere, how should this dispute be reconciled with NPOV?
3) How do the parties define the word "balance", as mentioned in NPOV, considering the aims of wikipedia, and the provisions of NPOV?
4) If it were possible, would parties agree to merely stating "Some people are of the opinion that the Arabs started the war", rather than stating outright "The war was started by the Arabs"? If so, does this - in the honest opinion of the parties and coonsidering the aims and principles of this project and the NPOV policy - meet the requirements of NPOV?
Addendum to questions
I've gone back through Wikipedia history, to find anything else on the subject that may be of use. I've found an old Arbitration case from some 5 years ago that decided on user conduct on Arab-Israel articles IN GENERAL, without naming any specific article. By virtue of motion to amend the case adopted unanimously 1 year ago, the following finding of fact is relevant to this dispute:
"All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.". By my interpretation, this case falls under the "Arab-Israeli Conflict related" heading. As a result, I want to add a question to the list of questions:
5) Considering that arbitration committee determinations are considered as binding precedent, what effect does the quoted determination have on this dispute, and, applying the aforesaid provision, how can this dispute be resolved, without incurring discretionary sanctions per the determination?
I would like your answers ASAP, though by the end of next week at the latest.
--The Historian (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
@1 If the sentence under dispute were considered authoritative by every source available on the matter than I will accept it. I guess that Pluto would accept it as well.
@2 I have received a good help desk advice, to which I fully agree:" It is not your responsibility to make a statement with which you do not agree, but it is your joint responsibility (you and the other person) to make sure that all significant positions taken in reliable published sources are mentioned". However, as it seems now, Pluto's opinion is mainly supported by 1 source, which has yet to be checked for its significance. He states other sources as well, but those are my sources too. This does not make sense, so either he or myself does not understand those sources. Once those are verified, it might set the dispute solution.
#@3 The Wikipedia definition of balance is excellent: when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This is the reason that I proposed to write 2 sentences, one by me and the other one by Pluto. I am not sure if I fully replied, since the question is not so clear for me.
#@4 The question is not clear. It could be mentioned everywhere, but probably, it will not be interesting for other people.Ykantor (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I've rephrased the question. I've also put a strikethough through User:Ykantor's answer, since the question has been rephrased and, in all fairness to all parties, I would like User:Ykantor to answer the same question that User:Pluto2012 has to answer. The original answer is also redundant because the question has essentially changed, and the answer provided is no longer relevant. I am NOT discounting opinions just by inserting a strikethough in place of the original answer.
As for question 3, Ykantor, the question is asking how would you yourself define the term "balance". I don't want a regurgitation of the Wiki policy - I can find that myself. You are welcome, however, to use that as your starting point, to be built on. Your answer to question 3 will be replaced by a strikethrough, so you can replace it.
Finally, in question 1, please don't presume answers for other parties - for the sake of fairness, I don't want parties to try and say "I think this party would say X", or anything of the sort. That part of your answer to question 1 will also be replaced by a strikethrough.
So, for the questions (or parts thereof), please remove or rewrite the bits that are covered by a strikethrough.
I hope I've provided enough clarity.
--The Historian (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
@1 I have read the question few times, and I could not understand what for I have to reply for what effect would this have on the dispute? rather than what effect would this have on your opinion. It seems that eventually I understood the wrong meaning. Sorry.
@3 i AM SORRY, BUT i CAN NOT FIND A BETTER DEFINITION THAN Wikipedia's definition. Anyway, I will try: Wikipedia should be balanced i.e All wp:rs opinions should be represented, in proportion to the significance of the RS. I hope that this is an acceptable reply.
@4 Yes, of course, for both questions. Moreover, the helpdesk excellent advice clearly said so. The assumption is that both views are well supported.
I am sorry if my reply is not comprehensive. If so, please let me know, and I will try to re-write it. Ykantor (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
1) The sentence is not considered authoritative by every source and that is the reason why there is problem with it. If every reliable source would have the same analysis, there would be no problem, of course.
2) As you say, our personal opinions are not assumed to prevent us to complying with NPOV. It is understandable that an Israeli editor doesn't fell at ease with an article about evolution (and vice versa), but it doesn't offer them the opportunonity not to comply with WP:NPOV.
3) Generally speaking, "balancing" just consists in stating that A thinks A* and B thinks B* (at the condition that both A and B are reliable source of equivalent notoriaty on the matter). The due weight of each point of view must also be taken into consideration and may justificaiton the rejection of point A or point B. Note that in the current case, it is a more complex situation. The fact to know who started the '48 war is a very complex matter that cannot be solved in 2 lines and that would certainly deserve several paragraphs. Adding these paragraphs in the article to talk about this would certainly unbalance the global article. I mean that the controversy about the fact to know who would have started the '48 war is unrelelvant and undue weight. That is what was explained in the talk page of the article and supported by all editors who commented.
4) You talk about "parties" as if it was Ykantor vs Pluto2012. There is no reason to start again and again a discussion that reached a conclusion because it is not the conclusion that Ykantor wants. The matter was discussed here and a conclusion achieved. It was endorsed (before) by Nishidani and during the discussion by Visite fortuitement prolongée and LuA. Ykantor opened a DRN. Then he opened the discussion again on another article : 1948 Palestine war where I refered to the former discussion. Now, he comes here and all that was said and written should be forgotten to get some sort of weak consensus ? What about his WP:POINT and what about all that was discussed and endorsed by different contributors ?
To answer to Historian's question : I am not a representative of all parties who gave their mind and cannot decide for them and what you suggest is of course not acceptable for the reason that was debated on the talk page and lead to a consensus.
I confirm to you that this article is under WP:ARBPIA. Ykantor was already warned of this here and also here again whereas he archived some of these warnings and removed them from his talk page.
5) I don't know (but don't think) that this dispute is covered by WP:ARBPIA but it The dispute is covered by Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing and WP:POINT and it could be brought in front of the ArbCom to ask for discretionnary sanctions to solve the issue. Ykantor has launched at least 4 DRN and he is in "so-called" disputes"in different articles with different editors. He never insulted anybody but he refuses to comply with advices that are given to him and always bring the same matters at different places. Several editors already complained about the fact they don't have time for such a game.
Right. The point of those questions was to get parties thinking, and to see if they agree on anything. Now, there is a principle that states that "he who asserts must prove", so I want Ykantor to provide at minimum five valid sources that support the idea that the disputed sentence SHOULD go into the article, and, conversely, Pluto2012 should provide a minimum of five valid sources that support the idea that the sentence should NOT go into the article. Parties need to provide detail on the specific parts of the sources that support their assertions --The Historian (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
the sentence is:"under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating".
The supporting sources:
book|author1=Edward Alexander|author2=Paul Bogdanor|title=The Jewish Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=oEGEBjk-6CkC&pg=PA107%7Caccessdate=13 August 2013|date=31 December 2011|publisher=Transaction Publishers|isbn=978-1-4128-0933-7|pages=82, 107 | quote="p. 82 .when the united nations voted for a two state solution in 1947, the jewish community under british mandate overwhelmingly accepted the plan, while the arab world unanimously rejected it. fighting immediatelly erupted, with arab leaders frankly admitting that they were the aggressors (35); p. 107 (35) jamal husseini, of the higher arab committee of palestine, informed the united nations:"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight". Security Council Official Records, April 16, 1948."}}</ref>
p. 79 ,"Arab armed bands attacked Jewish settlements, and Haganah units occasionally retaliated" , "during the war’s first four months the Arabs were generally on the offensive and the Jews were usually on the defensive." ,
p. 98, "In January 1948, High Commissioner Cunningham assessed that “official [Palestinian] Arab policy is to stand on the defensive until aggression is ordered by the national leadership. That widespread assaults on Jews continue and are indeed increasing illustrates the comparatively feeble authority of most of [the National] Committees and of the AHC. . .
p. 98, "armed bands attacked convoys and settlements, often recruiting local militiamen to join in. Gunmen sporadically fired into Jewish neighborhoods and planted bombs. The Haganah, busy reorganizing, and wary of the British, adopted a defensive posture while occasionally retaliating against Arab traffic, villages, and urban neighborhoods.
p. 101. "Most of the violence was initiated by the Arabs" ,The Arabs "planted bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads" , "The first organized Arab urban attack was launched against the Jewish Hatikva Quarter, on the eastern edge of Tel Aviv" ,
p. 117 , "For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv had largely held itself in check, initially in the hope that the disturbances would blow over and, later, in deference to international— particularly British—sensibilities. In addition, the Haganah had lacked armed manpower beyond what was needed for defense"
Benny Morris, refugees revisited, "On 8 January, Ben-Gurion said that so far, the Arab countryside, despite efforts to incite it, had remained largely quiescent. It was in the Yishuv’s interest that the countryside remain quiet, and this depended in large measure on the Yishuv’s own actions. ‘We [must avoid] mistakes which would make it easier for the Mufti’ to stir up the villages, he said. Regarding the countryside, the Haganah’s policy throughout February and March was ‘not to extend the fire to areas where we have not yet been attacked’ while at the same time vigorously attacking known bases of attacks on Jews and, in various areas, Arab traffic.75 This policy also applied to the Negev. The JNF’s YosefWeitz, the chairman of the Negev Committee (the Yishuv’s regional supervisory body), put it this way: ‘As to the Arabs, a policy has been determined: We extend our hand to peace. Every beduin who wants peace, will be satisfied. But if anyone dares to act contrariwise – his end will be bitter.’76 A few weeks earlier, on 12 February, the commander of the Negev Brigade, Nahum Sarig, instructed his officers:
Our job is to appear before the Arabs as a ruling force which functions forcefully but with justice and fairness.
We must encourage the Arabs to carry on life as usual.
We must avoid harm to women and children.
We must avoid harm to friendly Arabs."--------------------------
book|author=Yoav Gelber|title=Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=UcSUgrDsD_sC%7Caccessdate=13 July 2013|date=1 January 2006|publisher=Sussex Academic Press|isbn=978-1-84519-075-0|pages=3| quote="the Palestinians and the Arab League — not the Yishuv — promptly rejected the UN resolution on partition following the vote in the General Assembly on 29 November 1947. Immediately and intentionally they embarked on frustrating implementation of partition by violence. At first, they instigated disturbances and gradually escalated them to a lull- scale war. The Arab League backed the Palestinians’ campaign from the beginning and the Arab states joined in the fighting upon termination of the British mandate, invading the newly established Jewish state. The Arabs stubbornly repudiated any compromise that provided for a Jewish state, no matter what its borders were to be. Only in the wake of their military defeat did the Arabs make UN resolutions a cornerstone of their case and demand their strict fulfillment. Any study describing solely Palestinian suffering is one-sided and incomplete without properly weighing this plain truth: As victims of war, the Palestinians’ own conduct gives adequate cause to deny them the adjective “innocent”. Truly, they have paid a heavy price in this and ever since. They have been victims. But to a large extent they are the victims of their own follies and pugnacity, as well as the incompetence of their Arab allies."}}</ref>
Jewish Transjordanian Relations: 1921 - 48, Gelber, p.243, "in mid december 1947...the Arab league determination to embark an organized anti Jewish terrorism in Palestine instead of the sporadic disorders"------------------------------------------
An internet site, quoting "middle eastern studies" ,Moti Golani, middle eastern studies, Apr 2001, 37,2 , p.93? , The “Haifa Turning Point” The British Administration and the Determination of the Civil War in Palestine, December 1947-May 1948, Golani p 105 :"Cunningham was aware that the Arabs had triggered the violence, but he was dumbfounded by what he thought was the Jews’ eagerness to retaliate------------------------------
A Guide to Documents on the Arab-Palestinian/Israeli Conflict: 1897-2008, edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni, Shlomo Ben Ami, books.google.com/books?isbn=9004175342, M. Cherif Bassiouni, Shlomo Ben Ami - 2009 - p. 24 ; "The first Arab-Israeli war started in November 1947, as an immediate response of the local Palestinians to the Partition Plan decided by the General Assembly (Resolution 181), which the violently opposed. This immediately developed into a civil war between the two communities in Palestine"--------------
Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East, By Michael Curtis, books.google.com/books?isbn=1412851416, 2013 -ch. 5.6, "At the London Conference, September 1946—February 1947, the last attempt by Britain to reconcile the conflicting points of view, the Arab League strongly rejected any plan for partition of Palestine or for any Jewish state. ... In October 1947 the Arab League set up a Military Committee ... this Committee was given weapons, money, and authority to dispatch a force of three thousand volunteers to Palestine, who then crossed into the area and began attacking Jewish settlements. ...In March 1948 the mufti, al-Husseini, stated that the Arabs would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated by a holy war and the whole of Palestine became a purely Arab state. At best, this might include Jews who had lived in Palestine before 1914 or 1917."----------------------------------
Coffins on Our Shoulders: The Experience of the Palestinian Citizens of Israel, books.google.com/books?isbn=0520245571, Dan Rabinowitz, Khawla Abu Baker - 2005, p. 31, "The palestinian refusal to accept any form of partition of their homeland was absolute...The resolution by the U.N in favour of partition on November 29, 1947, triggered an immediate wave of Palestinian guerilla warfare against Jews, with hits and skirmishes in various parts of the country."----------------------- Ykantor (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Historian,
See the section material and next one "Proposal" in the article. These are not just quotes sometimes taken out of context but long and global excerpts.
Again, I remind you that I am not the representative of the Party of a dispute and that this analysis was endorsed.
user:dailycare deleted my edit. During weeks of discussion, he raised content objections of all sorts, sometimes returning tp previously discussed issues. I spent a lot of time in order to reply and have the proper RS quotations, but to no avail. Eventually he stopped with the content disputes and return (again) to the editing size issue. I do not like endless discussions. We have to stop and compromise somewhere.
Hi guys, we've had a three-week discussion on the talkpage during which we've ageed on some changes to the article text. YK seems to persist in wanting to additionally introduce some quite specific material to a summary section in the article, the problem being in the main that the connection to the subject-matter of the article, and to the summary section in particular, is tenuous. Further issues with the proposed texts have been undue weight and selective simplification. In the past few days however a few previously uninvolved editors have weighed in in the discussion, so things seem ok. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the delay in replying. I still feel that the talkpage collaboration has worked quite well since changes have been agreed, and the new editors have brought more perspective into the process. I'm not sure what the aim of this DRN process is over and above what's been discussed on the talkpage. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The content which was deleted by Dailycare is still missing, and results in an article with rather important inaccuracies. e.g. As is, it seems that Israel was unilaterally diverting water for its needs, creating the wrong impression that it might have been not legitimate.
It is quite frustrating for me, that Dailycare does not refer to the argument itself ( was it incorrect to delete it?) but each time is raising a new indirect claim e.g. whether it was quoted from the same source, the need to concise the section, What Israeli region would be irrigated with the diverted water etc. I feel like climbing a never ending ladder. Ykantor (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Six-Day War#Events: Israel - Syria ; Syria diversion plan discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi there, sorry about the delay. Is our assistance still needed here? Steven Zhang (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I would like to have your assistance. Ykantor (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Armenians in Cyprus
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filing party indef blocked. Steven Zhang (talk) 23:58, 1 October 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.
Hello. The article "Armenians in Cyprus" has somehow attracted unwanted attention. A while ago, I was told it was too long, so we decided to create new pages for some sections(Armenian religion in Cyprus, Armenian education in Cyprus and Armenian monuments in Cyprus). Very recently, some users decided on their own that the article should not include much information from the three other pages. So, according to what they wanted, we decided to include only books and published articles in the bibliography, and I added only a paragraph for each of the other items (churches, monuments, schools). You should also know that they used offensive expressions, like "shame on you" and "watch out your tone", while it was their tone that needed attention... I tried speaking to them, but they only cited wikipedia policies and I somehow feel they have made this issue very personal, like a personal crusade. Then, some users (you can see who they are from the history of the page) reverted all the changes, without seeing that I added only the minimum. Without giving any explanation, even though what I added was considerably smaller than the original, they undid what I added and then I reverted it and so on. As a result of that, I have been blocked until tomorrow. The issue, however, remains. I firmly believe that there is nothing wrong with adding the basic minimum information, together with a link to the three other articles. Please help me, I don't know what else to do. Thank you. My only concern is to have correct, accurate and comprehensive information on the article... And I seem to have lost faith in wikipedia now that I realised that it's an oligarchy... Alexander
I received comments regarding that it's not right to repeat what is in other articles, which I completely understand, so I tried to add the minimum that should be added, so that - on the one hand - the three sections are not just 2-4 lines long and - on the other hand - they only contain the basic information. However, these users refused to even selectively edit, only to delete. Some of what I added must stay, I believe.
Summary of dispute by PantherLeapord
Firstly to give credit where it is due: Thanks to Neo for not resuming their reverting. After they continued trying to insert the already rejected material I withdraw that statement.
I saw Neo's continued edit warring after the ANI thread and decided to stay out of it until this revert which to me demonstrated a continuing WP:IDHT problem that ultimately led to Neo's 24 hour block and will lead to more blocks unless they stop edit warring. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Seric2
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Darkness Shines
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Kintetsubuffalo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Neo just keeps bloating the article and inserting his own POV, and what now six other editors say about it be damned, he's going to get his way because the rest of us are somehow not as smart as he is. I would support a complete topic ban of Neo until he cleans up his act.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Looking at Neo's edits here and on Commons, ownership issues aside, it looks like there is a real feeling of persecution for him. Nobody really is, but to shoehorn him into compliance is going to take a lot of work, and be very painful for him. I just had a look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Armenians_in_Cyprus and just with renames and the fact that most images are clearly not his work (though they may well be in his collection), this is going to be a long process.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ishdarian
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Armenians in Cyprus discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I sincerely believe that instead of just 2-3 lines regarding the monuments, the churches and the schools, the basic minimum (a small paragraph for each) should be there. Anyone who is interested for more, can go to the main articles. However, some users disagree. Neo ^ (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I added a small clarification and a small expansion on another section (none of which are disputed) and immediately one user (PantherLeapord) reverted my changes, stating "STOP trying to put in your POV edits that were rejected already!". He didn't even bother to see what they were about and, as I repeat, they have nothing to do with the disputed sections. I think this is harassment, plainly telling me "no more editing the article"... Neo ^ (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems that even factual corrections are not liked by certain users, such as PantherLeapord. THis has become ridiculous. Please someone fix it. Neo ^ (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
With Neo^ indef blocked, I think we're done here. Steven Zhang (talk) 23:57, 1 October 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.
Novi Sad
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Filed by Iadrian yu on 07:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC).
This one has chilled down on the talk page. See closing comments. Steven Zhang (talk) 00:01, 2 October 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, We have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute is either to remove or to include the pushpin map of the Vojvodina at the article of Novi Sad.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Tried 3rd opinion on the talk page, but no success.
How do you think we can help?
Since this is a "yes" or "no" problem I don`t know how. The current version of the article (without the pushpin map) is unacceptable to me but I am willing to accept the solution provided by an uninvolved party, whatever that might be.
Summary of dispute by No such user
The issue is not just on Novi Sad article, but on any article of Category:Municipalities and cities of Vojvodina, where Adrian was bold to add {{Location map Vojvodina}}, created by himself. Take, as an extreme example, article Ada, Serbia: the infobox starts with a tall image, then pushpin map of Serbia, then pushpin map of Vojvodina, then come the contents. This is contrary to any usability guideline; imagine a poor reader on a mobile device who opened the article just to examine basic data (the purpose of infobox), and ended up scrolling four screens down. Not any piece of information on the topic is worth including, and particularly not if it is already presented in a slightly different manner. We are currently having an arbitration case on infoboxes, due to the dispute where some editors tried to impose infoboxes into articles whose primary authors didn't want them. I don't reject the infobox, I only reject two near-identical maps in it, which just produce visual clutter, and I particularly reject the arguments that it's needed because "everyone does it". I haven't seen, like any other editor but Adrian at Talk:Novi Sad#Vojvodina pushpin map, any added value in that template, and I have a strong sense that Adrian pushes that template recklessly into articles just because it is a creation of his. Thanks, I believe in your good intentions, but it is superfluous.No such user (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Novi Sad discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Please bare in mind that users opening wikipedia by a mobile device open a specially optimized version of the wikipedia that is optimized for phones, tablets...etc.... so this argument doesn`t really apply in this case. Adrian (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Closing as this has gone quiet on the talk page. For what it's worth, I would suggest keeping just one of the maps, three that show very similar info is probably not needed. Steven Zhang (talk) 00:01, 2 October 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.
Listing editor has now filed a RFC on this topic and DRN does not handle disputes pending in more than one forum. If the RFC does not resolve anything after its 30-day run, another filing may be made here, but not much can be gained here if major disputants choose not to participate (as is their right; participation in dispute resolution is always voluntary). — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:24, 30 September 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.
Disagreement on addition of systematic review showing that fluoridated water causes decreased IQ in children. No clarity is given as to why. All I can see, is that TippyGoomba avoids talking about the issue, and will undo any change I make to the article.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Third Opinion sought, on other related topics in the talk page, but for this particular topic, there are three editors (although Noformation has left the scene, as far as I know... he did not respond to my request on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noformation#IQ_citation). Because there are three editors, third opinion request was removed, and i came here to dispute resolution
How do you think we can help?
Generally by promoting the use of logic in deriving an outcome
Summary of dispute by TippyGoomba
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Water fluoridation#IQ_citations discussion
Hi I am Flat Out and a volunteer here at DRN. I have reviewed the article talk discussion, and it seems that this dispute is essentially about (a) the quality of a source that links fluoridated water to adverse outcomes and (b) the weight given to that source. From a review of the talk discussion and the source being discussed it would appear that the source is in fact not a systematic review (Fails WP:RSMED) and to include it in support of adverse effects of fluoridation would be giving it undue weight. Can the parties please respond to this summary of the issues to make sure I'm not missing something. Flat Outlet's discuss it 12:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I am involved in the content discussion at the article Talk page. Would it be too late to add myself as an involved editor? Zad68 15:10, 30 September 2013
Which citation were you refering to, when you said that it was not a systematic study? Campoftheamericas (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
(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.
List of current world boxing champions
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Mac Dreamstate on 17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC).
Claudevsq has been blocked due to edit warring. If this continues, I'd suggest going to WP:ANI, as they don't seem interested in discussing. Steven Zhang (talk) 13:38, 3 October 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.
Over the past year, one user has continuously reverted my edits without explanation. There are numerous inconsistencies within the article which I have attemped to correct at least seven times, but he always reverts them and refuses to provide edit summaries. Furthermore, he never responds on either his own or the article's talk pages.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Have tried to engage in discussion on his talk page many times, with no response. Nine months ago I requested the opinion of other users via the article's talk page, but no other editors came forward.
How do you think we can help?
By asking him to engage in actual discussion about the issues I have regarding the article's inconsistencies, rather than reverting my edits outright or providing half-hearted and nonsensical explanations via edit summeries.
Summary of dispute by Claudevsq
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of current world boxing champions discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
It looks like there has been a little bit of discussion between you over the past few days. Please let me know how things are going - I'll pop in to their talk page and encourage them to comment here tomorrow. Steven Zhang (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately "a little bit of discussion" is barely the case. There has been no discussion whatsoever—1, 2—but rather a whole lot of reverts sans edits summaries, including reverting the edits of another user who tried to help out. As it stands, User:Claudevsq's edition of the article remains rife with inconsistencies and pointless redirects. Sergio Martínez is not widely known as Sergio Gabriel Martínez (neither mainstream boxing press nor the article title itself uses his middle name), nor has Oscar De La Hoya ever been referred to as Óscar De La Hoya (with an accent). The way User:Claudevsq insists on labelling them is flat out inaccurate, and refusing to discuss it is unconstructive. Furthermore, having both international flagicons—{{DEU}} rather than {{GER}}—and English language flagicons—{{GBR}}—together in the same article creates needless syntax inconsistencies. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
As the other editor hasn't come and commented them, I've sent them a reminder. Let's see if we can get this going. Steven Zhang (talk) 04:27, 29 September 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:RealClearPolitics
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by TParis on 19:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC).
Resolved. Discussion can continue on the talk page, if necessary. Steven Zhang (talk) 06:15, 12 October 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.
Dispute concerning whether a source supports the statement that the article's subject was founded by conservatives.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion on the talk page, offering an alternative.
How do you think we can help?
Offering an outside opinion on the relevance of policies like WP:OR and WP:BLP
Summary of dispute by TParis
After seeing User:ThinkEnemies got blocked at WP:ANI, I reviewed this article to understand the background. User:Gamaliel graciously emailed me a electronic copy of the source in question. Gamaliel, DD2K, and goethean argue that the sentence "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." supports the sentence in the article that "The site was founded in 2000 by conservatives." Arzel and I argue that if the source said "We have the same frustration that other conservatives have," then Gamaliel, DD2K, and goethean might be right. But the subject is not identifying himself as a conservative, he's saying he shares a frustration with Conservatives. There is more political diversity than Liberal and Conservatives and even if it were polarized as so, there are some Liberals that share the view that Conservatives arn't treated fairly in the mainstream media. Other sources have called the site Conservative-leaning, but not have defined it as founded by conservatives. I've offered conservative-leaning as an alternative but it was turned down by goethean. I believe the use of this sentence to support saying the site was founded by Conservatives violates WP:OR because it requires us to infer the subject's meaning. It is not clear what the subject means. In addition, it violates WP:BLP because we're attributing a trait to a living person without a clear and unambiguous source.
Summary of dispute by Goethean
It is difficult for me to understand the issue here. The founders are clearly conservative. Before the disputed content was removed through edit-warring, the article cited an interview between the right-wing periodical Human Events and the founders of the RealClearPolitics.
The cited source quotes two high-profile conservatives, Fred Barnes (journalist) and Tony Blankley, on how important the website is to them. Then the interviewee discusses how liberal and awful the US mainstream news media is:
RealClearPolitics offers its own commentary as well. On March 24, it offered this assessment of the mainstream media's coverage of the tiny number of American casualties thus far in the Iraq war: "Did the media really expect no U.S. soldiers would die? That no one would be taken prisoner? That there wouldn't be any civilian casualties? That is exactly what you'd believe if you read the headlines today: 'U.S. Forces Take Heavy Casualties'--Susan Glasser, Washington Post, 'Doubts Raised on Strategy'--Thomas Ricks, Washington Post....
...
"Even worse, on the index pages of the three largest online newspapers in the country there is no mention of the 100-acre chemical plant discovered by U.S. troops yesterday. To most people this would seem like a pretty significant development--after all, isn't discovering WMD facilities one of the main objectives of the invasion?"
"We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."
After that, McIntyre continues to discuss how liberal and awful the U.S. mainstream news media is:
This morning, only the LA Times gives the story any play on its main page.... The New York Times, by contrast, puts the story on its 'National' page and does the most blatant PC whitewash imaginable....
The idea that this author, interviewed by a right-wing periodical, throwing out the usual red meat to the periodical's right-wing audience, is not conservative — which is what User:TParis claims — is completely untenable. McIntyre claims that WMDs were indeed found in Iraq(!), a false claim which was quickly debunked and which no one outside of the conservative news media ever took seriously.
A plain reading of the bolded text indicates that the authors consider themselves to be conservatives.
The context here of course is the right-wing media in the United States. It is extremely important to conservative news outlets that they be seen as "Fair and Balanced", to use the most notorious example. To be seen as partisan cancels the website's raison d'etre. That is why this small, well-cited addition causes such intense fury among conservatives, so much so that one long-standing editor has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia over this dispute. — goethean 23:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Arzel
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There has been an attempt to WP:LABEL this site as conservative for the better part of 5 years. McIntrye himself has denied the conservative label and the following is in the article.
McIntyre denied having a conservative bent, stating, "We're running a business, We have no interest in screwing around with that for partisan purposes".
This article is a close parallel to 538.com, which was started by Nate Silver, a former editor at the Daily Kos. Some of the same participants which would label RCP as Conservative have actively argued against any such Liberal label for 538.com even though Silver actively supported Obama during the 2008 election. If some feel that the founders of RCP should be labeled as Conservative with what is clear synthesis then they should be equally open to labeling Silver in the 538.com site as a Liberal.
I have argued against such attempts to present this kind of POV on both. WP should not be a place to try and score political points, but if editors insist then it should be balanced on both sides of the isle. Arzel (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Gamaliel
I don't believe this is a matter of interpretation or synthesis; if it were, I would be on the opposing side in this matter. I believe the statement is clear and unambiguous unless you parse it determined to discover ambiguity. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Update: If you read the article Arzel's quote is from, you'll see that it is clear that McIntyre is rebutting charges that his website has a conservative bent, he is not denying that he is a conservative. How do I know this? Because it says exactly that:
Mr. McIntyre denied that his site had conservative leanings. “We’re running a business,” Mr. McIntyre said. “We have no interest in screwing around with that for partisan purposes.”
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
RealClearPolitics discussion
Any volunteers yet? We're all reasonable people, there hasn't been any name calling by the parties, this should be an easy case.--v/r - TP 15:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yup, I'll take this one on. I'll need to look over things and comment in the morning. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 11:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, did you ever get a change to review this?--v/r - TP 00:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Bumping again so this isn't closed, we still need this addressed.--v/r - TP 00:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, this week was flat out. I'll comment in the morning. Steven Zhang (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
OK. I've had a read of the talk page and think I have a clearer understanding of the situation. Can someone please send me a copy of the source ""Conservative Spotlight: Real Clear Politics". Human Events 59 (11): 16.". Thanks. Steven Zhang (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Will read over it and comment tomorrow. Steven Zhang (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
@TParis:, @Goethean: (and please notify others), sorry for the delay. Thanks for sending it through. From what I gather, the dispute is whether to call RealClearPolitics "conservative" based on a quote from the source, which says "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." Now, looking at this, if this is the sole basis for referring to RealClearPolitics as "conservative", I wouldn't. I would consider Having a frustration that all conservatives have is not saying we are conservative. I agree with TParis, for us to write that the subject of the article is conservative requires us to infer the meaning of their statement, which is indeed original research. I would ask the participants here to consider the value of this addition, and if there are any other sources where the subject, or others describe RealClearPolitics as conservative, but until that time, it shouldn't go in. Steven Zhang (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the question is whether the founders can be referred to as conservatives. — goethean 03:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a reasonable request for clarification, I won't bicker about it. @Steven Zhang:?--v/r - TP 12:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Got it. My comments still stand though. Steven Zhang (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
@Steven Zhang: So does that mean the founders can or cannot be described as conservatives?--v/r - TP 18:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Should not. It's not clear enough from the source. Steven Zhang (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe Steven is correct -- I have placed some additional sources on the article's talkpage which support the stance that 'conservative' is an imprecise label for the founders of RCP. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Closing. I think we are done here. A compromise can be discussed on the talk page, but based on more than the provided source. Cheers, Steven Zhang (talk) 06:15, 12 October 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.
Aam Aadmi Party
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Feedback and opinion given. Version A is the way to go here, Version B creates undue weight issues. Steven Zhang (talk) 06:25, 12 October 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.
Which version of the protests conducted by Aam Aadmi Party, can be included in the article:
Version A:
"The AAP has supported various regulatory complaints raised by rickshaw operators in Delhi." with two citations (one for the ads, one for the e-rickshaw stuff). Or some equivalent one liner.
Version B:
In June 2013, Aam Aadmi Party protested Delhi Government's ban on putting ads on rickshaws & contested the issue in court which resulted in Delhi High Court ordering stay on this ban.
In September 2013, Aam Aadmi Party supported demands of e-rickshaw drivers to have a clear guidelines/policy on e-rickshaws & also suggested a subsidy on the purchase of e-rickshaws due to e-rickshaws environment friendly nature.
There is no dispute over sources/citations.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussed the issue extensively but it appears that out of 7 parties the opinion is split & consensus can not be reached.
How do you think we can help?
Request expert opinion on different claims made & assistance in suggesting the version that could go into the article.
Summary of dispute by Sitush
Placeholder: apologies but I did not get notified of this thread & have only just spotted the notification on another contributor's talk page. I'll replace this placeholder with a comment tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm leaving my note above in situ because it is apparent to me that the notification bot is not working properly, eg: I was named in a recent report for Narendra Modi which was closed as "stale" when it got no responses at all. Like here, I got no notification.
Regarding this case, I agree with the comments made by Qwyrxian. I further note in relation to Ashwin's opinion that we do not record things that might become significant and then remove them if it turns out not to be in a couple of months' time. For fairly obvious reasons - people's movement, new political party, elections in a couple of months - the article is at present subject to a lot of almost-messianic and usually policy-naive promotional contributions. The party has four main agenda items per its own website and those are covered, along with brief mentions of some of the many other protest pies that it is involved with. If we begin expanding on one particular campaign then we'll have to expand on all the others to avoid imbalance: that is unfeasible and will ultimately mostly be trivial, bearing in mind that the party intends to publish 70 separate constituency manifestos in the coming weeks.
If an issue becomes a part of the post-election psephological analysis then we can include it at that time; until then, we need to be careful not to become a soapbox, especially for an organisation that seems basically to be trying to stand on as many diverse soapboxes as this. Finally, it should be noted that protests and legal applications are two-a-penny in India: most are vociferous, most get some headline-type impact initially and most ultimately fizzle out or are overturned/bogged down in a notoriously slow appeals process. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Binskternet
Like Qwyrxian, I believe that the conservative path is the best for this article. If and when the election results are analyzed such that the erickshaw issue is seen as having been important, we can tell this to the reader. Before the election it is too soon to know. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Qwyrxian
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
In policy terms, the dispute revolves around WP:UNDUE. Myself and others hold that this protest in question is of a limited duration, and no lasting effects from the protest on either India or the political party in question have been (yet) demonstrated. It is certainly possible that this event will have a lasting effect, but our long-term, encyclopedic approach (encapsulated in WP:NPOV and WP:NOT) is that we need to know first that the event is of lasting significance to give more than passing coverage in the article. Should there turn out to be long term significance (say if a political scientist dubs AAP's connection to the protest a major factor in their polling results, whatever those are), then we would definitely expand the coverage. But until that happens, I (and others) want to take the conservative route, and believe that is what our policies ask of us. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Rayabhari
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Considering the encyclopedic nature of any article in WP, I prefer option A, which may give brief details of protest activities of the party. As observed elsewhere in talk page by some editors, giving lengthy details of each and every protest and mass appeal activities by the party may result in distorting the article.Rayabhari (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by RouLong
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Ashwin147
I would go with version B, but better phrased and slightly shortened. In the next couple of months as Delhi goes to the polls, the rickshaw issue could have an impact and I assume people looking at the article in the meanwhile would like greater details on AAP and its stance than a couple of one liners about these. In the longer run, as the article evolves if the detailing seems unnecessary, it should get edited out.
Aam Aadmi Party discussion
These are not at all election issues. Election issues are those for which parties put forth their action plan/intentions if they come to power/win elections.
Issue related to ban on Advertisement (June 2013) on auto rickshaws was protested & contested in Delhi High Court by Aam Aadmi Party. Based on the argument, Delhi High Court put a stay on the ban & government has not appealed against High Court order. So In short, this issue was taken to logical conclusion by Aam Aadmi Party.
Issue related to battery operated rickshaws (September 2013) was supported by Aam Aadmi Party. They not only asked government to draft a proper policy but also asked government to give subsidy on its purchase. Till this moment, government
was hostile towards e-rickshaws & also banned sale of e-rickshaws in capital(Delhi) a month ago. However post these protests, Delhi Chief Minister constituted the committee to review the situation & asked it to come up with guidelines. So again, Aam Aadmi Party was a catalyst in bringing change in Government's attitude.
So in my opinion these two protests show 1) Work Done by Aam Aadmi Party & 2) views of Aam Aadmi Party & hence warrant inclusion in this article.--ratastro (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Qwyrxian has hit it right on the head; undue weight is the issue here, and upholding neutral point of view is critical. If the impact of the protests is shown later down the road, then it can potentially be expanded, but for now, keep things as brief as possible, so I'd recommend to go with option one. Steven Zhang (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
@ Steven Zhang: Thanks for taking this issue up as volunteer. I do not think that Option Two will make it WP:UNDUE. Aam Aadmi Party has conducted many protests. But only few of which have been contested at High Court. And only above two cases, party was instrumental in taking issues at its logical conclusion. Moreover no other party assisted Aam Aadmi Party in this. So how can this issue be WP:UNDUE? Also the article we are discussing is Aam Aadmi Party so how is not including these two protests in the article justified?--ratastro (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't really add much to what Qwyrxian said. I'd just be regurgitating his words, to be honest. Steven Zhang (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Putting a 24 hour notice on this one. Steven Zhang (talk) 10:06, 6 October 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.
Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by HelenOnline on 19:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC).
Resolved as to the source in dispute at the time the listing was made. See my closing notes, below, as to the new proposed source. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:13, 11 October 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.
There has been ongoing edit warring since August over content related to Goldsmith ancestry which Virgosky wants qualified.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Today I weighed in on the article's talk page after watching the ongoing edit war for some time and now taking the time to review the relevant content and source. I also posted a user warning on Virgosky's talk page after they continued edit warring today without discussing it on the talk page first (they have removed the user warning from their talk page).
How do you think we can help?
Please help to defuse the issue.
Summary of dispute by Virgosky
There is only one source that suggests Carole Middleton is the direct descendent of King Edward IV. There are no other sources to back the claim. The statement 'possible descendent' is not POV as every article which discusses the Duchess of Cambridge in relation to her Fairfax ancestry states 'possible descendent'. I am only suggesting that we find more sources and until then the question of it should be noted. I removed the user warning from my talk page because if both parties are guilty of an edit war why would only one receive the warning? Should not both users? I hardly think that the way to resolve a dispute between two users is to give edit warnings to those you disagree with. Apparently, HelenOnline sees it differently. Virgosky (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by FactStraight
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Since 7 August 2013 Virgosky continues to revert a statement in the article properly sourced to a journal regularly published by one of the English-speaking world's most respected genealogical research societies, despite failing to obtain any support for his position on the talk page where he declared, "I am through with this discussion", insisting that additional research and confirmation are needed, even though the statement correctly reflects the online journal's report and his edit would misrepresent that journal's finding. Only one reason for ignoring our reliable sources standard is repeatedly suggested: the cited source is "American" rather than British -- an inadmissably biased and elitest objection. FactStraight (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge 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. I've looked at the content issue in question (we do not discuss conduct here at DRN) and I'm afraid that I cannot agree with either side. One side wants to qualify the material from the Child article with "possible" and "further research is needed" comments, the other does not, but the actual problem is that the material is inappropriate because it is not from a reliable source and should not be included, whether qualified or unqualified, at all. Reliable sources are, per the verifiability policy: "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." While American Ancestors may (or may not) be a respected journal from a prestigious society, per its own terms and conditions it does not vouch for the accuracy of its articles. On page 4 of the issue where the Child article appears, this statement appears: "Opinions and statements expressed herein are attributable solely to individual authors and are not endorsed by American Ancestors or the New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS)." That being the case, the journal is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. The articles which appear there are, therefore, for all intents and purposes self-published and the Biographies of living persons policy strictly forbids the use of self-published materials in articles about living persons, including groups of living persons such as a family. All material based upon the American Ancestors article should immediately be removed from the article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks TransporterMan, I have added a secondary source today. Is that acceptable? HelenOnline 18:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
No, letters to the editor are also self-published and non-reliable. The section is still inappropriate. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks TransporterMan. Removing that material is what I had suggested from the beginning, but I was still willing to compromise. I am glad that you are agreeable to that instead. Hopefully the issue can now finally be put to rest. Virgosky (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I am placing on record that I was unaware of this discussion and have changed the article in question. While I agree that in general letters to the editor should not be treated as reliable, this one is different - the author of the letter is writing about his own refereed article. As such, I believe that Wikipedia should either cite both article and follow-up letter or cite neither, but not one without the other and accept that the letter was an early notification to the genealogical community that he was amending the conclusions that he had arrived earlier. Martinvl (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't be one without the other, but the correct answer is that neither should be used. Self-published materials such as letters to the editor may be used in non-BLP articles if written by recognized experts, but may not be used in BLP articles per WP:BLPSPS even if written by a recognized expert. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
@HelenOnline: I'm sorry for the slow response, I've been away for a few days on real world issues. I've looked at channel4.com and they do have a policy requiring fact-checking and they do, at least on first blush, appear to be a reputable news agency. Though an in-depth review might prove otherwise, they would seem to be a reliable source. Be careful to distinguish between what the article reports as a direct fact — "The sky is falling." — and what it reports as being said or held out by someone — "Astronomer Charles Skygazer says that the sky is falling.". If it's the latter then it's only a reliable source for an assertion that Skygazer says that the sky is falling, not for the fact that the sky is falling, and the assertion must be qualified in that manner. Whether Skygazer's assertion is important enough in the context of the article so as to not offend WP:UNDUE is a matter to be worked out through consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much TransporterMan, I appreciate your time and wisdom. HelenOnline 18:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
24-hour closing notice: It would appear that we're done here. Unless someone objects, I or another volunteer will close this as resolved after 19:00 UTC on 11 October 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I object. That is still not a good enough source. Once again we are back to where we started. Channel 4 has claimed in the past that the Duchess of Cambridge descended from Elizabeth Knollys, as did the Daily Mail and other media outlets. That proved to be incorrect. Clearly, Channel 4 did not check all its facts. I am open to the suggestion that the Duchess descends from Edward IV but when dealing with genealogy the assertion must be vaild or these sorts of edit wars will continue in the future by other editors. It should be noted that Cracroft's Peerage states, "There are times when we miss a piece of information or the sources we use are misleading." Therefore the person running the site, Patrick Cracroft-Brennan, is not a genealogy 'expert' as Channel 4 has claimed. Real experts do not put up sources that mislead. I would also like to point out that Patrick Cracroft-Brennan's site is new and it is difficult to find the sources that assisted in his conculsions. Patrick Cracroft-Brennan says that the Duchess of Cambridge descends from King Edward IV but that is his assertion, where is the research to prove his assertion as fact? Virgosky (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Closing notes: The fact that a reliable source makes mistakes does not cause it to cease to be a reliable source. If that were the standard, then we would have precious few sources to use here. Most major newspapers, for example, are ordinarily accepted as reliable sources but they also regularly make mistakes. I stand by the idea that — again at least at first blush — Channel 4 is a reliable source for either what it says outright or for the fact that someone said something. You can feel free to challenge its status as a reliable source, but the fact that it sometimes makes mistakes or relies upon someone who isn't so much an expert as it says is not a reason to challenge it as a reliable source. When reliable sources report something, then it can — not must, but can — be included in Wikipedia so long as all other considerations such as UNDUE are met. If that is the case, and you believe the material to be incorrect, then the way to challenge it or qualify it is to find a different reliable source which says that it is wrong. But you cannot do so by researching and attacking the credibility of what it says yourself: that's prohibited original research. Note that I'm not saying that the information in the Channel 4 article should go in the article, that has yet to be determined and is beyond the scope of this particular case, I'm just saying that the article appears to cross the threshold; whether it makes it into the parlor is yet to be seen. To say this differently, you say, "when dealing with genealogy the assertion must be valid or these sorts of edit wars will continue," but the way that we determine validity at Wikipedia is whether or not it appears in a reliable source, if it does then it is verifiable and, as it says in a footnote at the verifiability policy, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." In any event, the dispute upon which this case was filed is resolved since it has been conceded that that source, as opposed to this new one under consideration, was not reliable. I am therefore going to close this case. A new case may be filed if a dispute on the new source or on some other matter cannot be resolved. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:10, 11 October 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.
Jorge Erdely Graham
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Ajaxfiore on 00:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC).
Deferring/Referring to other venue until such time that parties come back from various wiki-breaks, per Hasteur's closing statement, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:55, 11 October 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.
I created the article for a rather controversial individual named Jorge Erdely Graham.[21] Within a week the article was edited by various IP addresses, AbuRuud, and BaSoroka to remove the same information from the article and making the same arguments.[22] The editors removed information that linked Erdely to the Casitas del Sur human trafficking ring. The same edits were made on the Casitas del Sur case article. The problem quickly escalated when AbuRuud reported me to Mark Arsten,[23]BLPN, and AN3.[24] I ended up being blocked without warning for "edit warring without breaching WP:3RR"[25]
As stated in the talk page, the deleted information is well sourced and should remain in the article. Erdely first became famous in 1997 when he "single-mindedly attacked La Luz del Mundo".[26] He kept a low profile after that, occasionally making outrageous claims such as saying that 30% of Mexican priests commit sexual abuse.[27] What really made Erdely famous was the Casitas del Sur case as he was identified as the person responsible for the child abductions. The latter alone justifies the existence of a Wikipedia article for Erdely. Ajax F¡oretalk 00:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We have discussed the dispute in the talk page. The issue has also been brought up at BLPN.
How do you think we can help?
I have been involved in other disputes that have been brought up at DRN, which has been effective in resolving the disputes.
Summary of dispute by BaSoroka
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ajaxfiore (or Ajax F¡ore) recently created an article (BLP) on Mexican writer and scholar Jorge Erdely Graham and stated that he is a fugitive wanted by the Mexican police. The statement was very poorly sourced so I removed it. It resorted to guilt by association or to what seems to be gossip picked up by Mexican media 4 years ago.
Not a single authoritative source (The Police or The Courts) was quoted or cited by Ajaxfiore to support the allegations of criminality. The user would just revert my edits, saying that his/her sentence on Erdely's alleged fugitive status were properly sourced and cited more squalid sources echoing the same to try to account for the lack of quality sources.
Controversial or not, Dr. Erdely is a widely respected best-selling author in Mexico and among Hispanics in the USA. His research on human rights and religious abuse, both within Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism, has been published in peer-reviewed sociological journals. His books have been published by Random House, Ediciones B (Spain)and Editorial Unilit ( Miami, Florida). He belongs to a host of professional associations like the American Academy of Religion and the International Association for the History of Religion (funded by UNESCO) and has been interviewed and regarded as an expert by mainstream media like The San Francisco Chronicle, The Guardian (London), UNIVISION (USA), The London BBC and The Times (London.) Revista Proceso, one of the most influential Mexican political weekly magazines, regularly quotes him and regards him as a specialist in religions and human rights.
All of these information is readily available on the web and easy to find and link. One would expect to find some of it in a biographic summary. Instead, Ajaxfiore initial BLP on Erdely Graham curiously omits most and chooses instead to focus on poorly sourced highly contentious material that is possibly libelous, or what seem to be outright fabrications. At stake are the meaning of BLP guidelines but also essential neutrality when creating and nurturing an article of encyclopedic value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaSoroka (talk • contribs) 12:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by AbuRuud
Ajaxfiore has added the same poorly-sourced allegations on three different pages: Jorge Erdley Graham, Casitas del Sur case and La Luz del Mundo. As I originally wrote on the talk pages of Jorge Erdely Graham and Castias del Sur:
"Someone was arrested as the mastermind of the child trafficking ring: Antonio Domingo Paniagua. News articles talking about Paniagua’s arrest mention Paniagua’s connection to Erdely (Paniagua was Erdely’s personal secretary), but do not talk about Erdely being the leader of the ring nor being an international fugitive, as one might expect. (http://www.elporvenir.mx/notas.asp?nota_id=500836, http://www.elmanana.com/diario/noticia/nacional/noticias/dictan_formal_prision_a_lider_de_casitas_del_sur/1167485) Why would they mention Erdely but not the most newsworthy piece of information relating to Erdely’s connection to the ring (i.e. he is wanted as the leader of the ring)? In fact, a news article from the same source from source 12 (El Universal) ran an interview with Erdely on the subject without any mention of a warrant (http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/588070.html). Further, it makes no sense that INTERPOL would be involved in Paniagua’s case but not the alleged leader of the trafficking ring."
Ajaxfiore also added this to La Luz del Mundo: Journalist Gastón Pardo, speaking after Erdely became implicated in the Casitas del Sur human trafficking ring, said that the Instituto Cristiano de México is a sect that in 1997 launched a smear campaign in the media against various religious leaders, trying to discredit them with the systematic use of defamation and slander.[2]
Now, as Ajaxfiore pointed out himself, he made the Jorge Erdely Graham article. He should well know that the Casitas del Sur case happened in 2009, not 2005. I really want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he clearly and gratuitously added a clause about Erdely being involved in the trafficking ring using a source from 2005. I would assume someone as interested in the subject as Ajaxfiore would figure out that the source doesn't work, especially when someone like myself--who knew nothing of the situation before I stumbled upon the page--figured it out.
Erdely is a living person and therefore information on his page is clearly covered by wp:blpremove. wp:exceptional also should apply. The information Ajaxfiore tried to insert four times is poorly sourced. I'm not sure how I can prove a negative (that Erdely isn't a wanted a fugitive) when there should be an overwhelming amount of reputable sources quoting the judiciary, police, or a tribunal. There simply isn't. user:Bbb23 clear agreed, as Ajaxfiore was banned for edit warring and the very same wp:blp issues I brought up.
I'm incredulous as to what dispute needs to be resolved. Three people agree that the information should not be on the page. As far as I'm concerned, this is just a continuation of the edit war that Ajaxfiore got previously banned for.
Jorge Erdely Graham discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Just to clarify, although the Casitas del Sur case exploded in 2009 when the government finally intervened, the accusations were there for a long time (as far back as 2005). The article is titled "Those responsible are backed by the government", because at the time the government refused to get involved, i.e. it took 4 years for the government to finally do something.
I don't think AbuRuud can say that Bbb23 clearly agreed, and I will now request his input. Ajax F¡oretalk 03:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I determined that Ajax's conduct warranted a block, both for edit-warring and for BLP issues. Since expiration of the block, Ajax opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RidjalA. A CU determined that the technical relationship between AbuRuud and BaSorka (the new account) was "entirely inconclusive". At the same time, the CU admin said there was "a lot of suspicious editing going on here", although they weren't specific. I have no comment on the content dispute except to the extent that it spills over into editor misconduct or clearly affects WP:BLP policy. Here, I thought that the BLP violation allegations were sufficient to at least WP:BLPREMOVE the material pending a resolution of the content dispute. Some of the content issues might better be addressed at WP:BLPN. AbuRuud opened a discussion there on September 30, and other than one procedural note on October 2, there have been no additional comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I have not been able to verify all the claims made by BaSoroka in his second paragraph. In 1999, Erdely claims his book Pastores que abusan 1994 is a bestseller having sold "over 40,000 copies".[28] I have not been able to verify this claim with independent sources, and doubt that a book that sells 8,000 copies per year is a best seller. I doubt Erdely "widely respected" in "Mexico and among Hispanics in the USA". Univisión, the largest Hispanic network in the US has a forum filled with the controversy regarding Erdely and Casitas del Sur because there was an user named daxan who actively promoted Erdely in the forum.[29][30] Revista Proceso also identifies Erdely as the leader behind the Casitas del Sur kidnappings[31][32][33][34][35] and cites arrest warrants from the Attorney General.[36]Ajax F¡oretalk 13:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Note:BaSoroka has been blocked indefinitely and AbuRuud has been blocked for one week. I will be taking a short Wikibreak. I think the DRN case should be closed for now. As Bbb23 suggested, the matter can be brought up to BLPN at a later time. Ajax F¡oretalk 16:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Per the suggestion by Ajaxfiore This thread will be closed in 24 hours as "Deferring/Referring to other venue until such time that parties come back from various wiki-breaks." and marked as failed Hasteur (talk) 22:27, 9 October 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.
Marina Oswald Porter
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Owl uprising on 00:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC).
No extensive article talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. If you cannot get them to discuss, consider following the advice given here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:21, 8 October 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.
Please look at the talk page of Marina Oswald Porter. I have stated my case there. The article contains false information presented as fact. The information is sourced, however the source is a discredited, extremist publication. Every time I try to change it, my changes are reverted as vandalism. Thanks.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have attempted to fix the article.
How do you think we can help?
Look at the article objectively and decide if the information is appropriate.
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Marina Oswald Porter 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.
Of the three parties named, Chris and Ryu will be engaging in MedCom, and I am happy with the current consensus. No need to keep this thread open. --erachimatalk 01:51, 8 October 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.
During the creation of a page, a team of editors engaged in reverting immediately during its initial creation and improvement. They claim it is a "redundant split" and revert it out of existance after pushing me to 3RR with good faith improvements and during both the "in use" template and during a brand new merge discussion. This violates WP:BLAR and subjects that meet N/GNG cannot be precluded from splitting; contested redirects are to go to AFD and this process is not being followed.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Talk page discussion prior to the page's creation at WT:MOSAM and on the Talk:Bleach (anime) page until Erachima's reverting.
How do you think we can help?
Resolve the dispute around its out-of-process removal in violation of policy and identify whether the page is "a redundant CFORK".
Summary of dispute by Erachima
While going on my usual patrol of the Bleach articles for vandalism and lousy edits (series usually gets a new batch every week after the latest chapter lands), I noticed a merge tag on Bleach (manga).[37] I read the linked page, Bleach (anime), discovered it was a purely redundant content fork made out of content copy-pasted from the main Bleach article, and redirected it in accordance with guidelines and standard editorial practice. Then Chris showed up with his usual cocktail of bullying, paranoia, and lawyering. Oh, and he accused me of being a sadist. Overall, I think this is more of an WP:RFC/U issue. --erachimatalk 17:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ryulong
Chris's split was contested by myself first, and later by Erachima. He then claimed, as he does here, that because I made these edits to the page ([38][39][40][41]), none of which were reverts of his content that he would be breaking WP:3RR with another edit. His proposal is now completely contested on the redirect's talk page as well as at WT:MOS-AM. I don't know why we're here, again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Bleach (anime) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Comment ChrisGualtieri unilaterally decided to splitBleach (Anime) from Bleach (manga), while it had been set up as a redirect ever since its creation in 2005. The action was opposed a first time by Ryulong, who was then reverted by ChrisGualtieri. Following that, Ryulong refrained from further reverting and opened a talk page discussion regarding a split or a re-merge, in which five (myself included) of the six total participants were unanimous against ChrisGualtieri's split, and one of them, Erachima, proceeded to restore the redirect to Bleach (manga). In short, ChrisGualtieri did not have a consensus to force a split of Bleach (Anime), and his move to open a thread at DRN is all the more pointless: he argues WP:BLAR as a justification to force his opposers to open an AfD instead of just restoring the redirect, but the page specifically states that an AfD should be submitted only "if editors cannot reach consensus". ChrisGualtieri being the only one in disagreement, there is no question that a consensus does not mean unanimity, and that one was obtained at Talk:Bleach_(anime). Therefore, the issue is pretty straightforward and for all intents and purposes, already resolved. I concur with Erachima that there might be ground for a user conduct complaint against ChrisGualtieri for an abusive procedure, but as far as the DRN is concerned, I recommend that the thread be closed without further notice.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: This user is involved and supports a refusal to abide by WP:BLAR and WP:BRD. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I was not aware that there was anything unclear in that sentence: "WP:BLAR specifically states that an AfD should be submitted only "if editors cannot reach consensus". ChrisGualtieri being the only one in disagreement, there is no question that a consensus does not mean unanimity, and that one was obtained at Talk:Bleach_(anime)." WP:BRD was followed to the letter because Ryulong opened a discussion, which resulted in a consensus against you. Therefore, I reject any accusation of "refusal to abide by WP:BLAR and WP:BRD" and warn you that anymore unfounded accusation from you will be followed by a user conduct complaint on you. I maintain that the editorial dispute was resolved, if you keep on refusing to abide by consensus, that is a matter for ANI, not DRN.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Well said. If you WOULD like to become involved though, I'll note with a wink and a nudge that Chris is one return to redirect away from being forced to follow consensus via 3RR, which appears to be the only way to get him to listen to anyone. --erachimatalk 15:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Whether the discussion happens here or elsewhere I don't much care, but the article in question has been userfied to User:ChrisGualtieri/Bleach (anime) so that he can keep working on it without continuing the edit war. Hopefully this will also force him to engage in discussion rather than attempting to ignore everyone he disagrees with. --erachimatalk 14:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Close this thread. The underlying issue will be resolved at mediation. In order for mediation to continue, this unrelated by page, but related in arguments must be closed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:44, 7 October 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.
Ivica Dačić
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 23 editor on 17:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC).
Moot. Editor representing one entire side of dispute has departed from Wikipedia. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:19, 11 October 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.
User:QueerStudiesRS is engaging in an edit war and constantly inserting highly-biased and non-neutral material to the article Ivica Dačić. When I've attempted to explain to the user over my edit summary that the language they were using was non-encyclopedic and non-neutral, the user began edit-warring. Subsequently, the user launched a personal attack against me on their edit summary, calling my edits "homophobic", thus implying that I was a "homophobe" because I wanted to ensure that the article was properly sourced, objective and neutral. I then took the discussion to talk, where I indicated to the user that they were engaged in an edit war and stated that they were engaging in personal attacks against me. The user then launched another personal attack, again calling me a "homophobe" and saying that I was employed by the person in question (Ivica Dačić), thus implying conflict of interest. I then messaged another editor (User:Jreferee), who has also taken note of User:QueerStudiesRS's behaviour, and asked him what should be done.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've attempted to have a discussion on talk, trying to explain why User:QueerStudiesRS's edits are biased and poorly sourced. In return, I've been the victim of personal attacks by the mentioned user.
How do you think we can help?
Bring all parties together to have a normal discussion as one has already not been able to occur on the article's talk page.
Summary of dispute by QueerStudiesRS
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The User:23 editor is promoting an extremely biased POV, removing referenced data (indeed sometimes three references pointing out to the same fact of extreme homophobia -- as the topic in question is specifically about inappropriate and indeed criminal according to the Serbian Criminal Code action, to wit a homophobic statement by a person who happens to be makingit in the role of a Prime Minister).
Why that would be an issue that the User:23 editor -- who has already been in an editing war about the same Ivica Dačić before, as seen in the first topic on the Talk page of the Ivica Dačić article is hard to understand unless s/he had a vested interest, perhaps as a person employed by Ivica Dačić. That would be no surprise as there is already another person who, on the very same Talk page, admits the ground for a COI -- working for an agency hired by Ivica Dačić's government -- so the question is legitimate and not a reason for a personal attack by User:23 editor
Eventually s/he is expounding his/her animosity by making silly unsubstantiated claims e.g. viz. my English (mother tongue), so obviosuly this is not just an issue of the accuracy of the article for him/her.
Summary of dispute by Jreferee
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
QueerStudiesRS's first Wikipedia post was 2 October 2013,[42] and appears to post with little regard for Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:POV, WP:BLP, WP:OR due to his/her newness to Wikipedia and apparent strong feelings behind text QueerStudiesRS posted.[43] Looking at QueerStudiesRS's use of "you" in an example reply from QueerStudiesRS to 23 editor shows: "you ARE homophobic," "your ilk," "judging by the way you edit," "you seem to be in the employ of the horrible individual about whom that article is," "if you cannot read English," "your competence".[44] Merely avoiding using the word "you" in a discussion message goes a long way in demonstrating the WP:AGF assumption that the person receiving the message is trying to help the project, not hurt it. QueerStudiesRS has replied in discussions,[45] so there is a willingness to communicate. QueerStudiesRS has been clearly warned, and the article protection now in place should provide time to help the situation. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ivica Dačić discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Now that this dispute has spilled over onto Tomislav Nikolić's article, I must emphasize that this thread should focus solely on Ivica Dačić, per the heading above. With that being said, I would like to address User:QueerStudiesRS's claim that I am "working for an agency hired by Ivica Dačić's government", that I am "expounding [my] animosity by making silly unsubstantiated claims," and that I have "a vested interest" in Ivica Dačić. First off, I am not involved in any political organization anywhere in the world, nor do I live in the Republic of Serbia or on the European continent. I mostly edit Wikipedia articles related to the former Yugoslavia because I am interested in Balkan history and because I am partly descended from this location. Second, I possess no animosity towards anyone (be that a LGBT person, or otherwise). To say so is argumentum ad ignorantiam and Proof by assertion, and does not even fall within the bounds of logical discussion because I have never expressed animosity towards any group. The next statement claims that I have "a vested interest" in Ivica Dačić. The truth is I couldn't care less for Dačić, Nikolić or any politician from the former Yugoslavia. I merely saw non-neutral comments being added to the article and I intervened like any good Wikipedian surely would have. Other users intervened as well, including Jreferee, who has been invited to this discussion. Overall, on the article in question, as well as Tomislav Nikolić's article which has been given a similar treatment to that which Ivica Dačić's article has experienced, six unrelated users have reverted User:QueerStudiesRS's edits and three, including myself, have warned him/her to refrain from pushing his/her non-neutral, non-encyclopedic ideas. QueerStudiesRS subsequently responded by erasing these warnings from his/her talkpage, calling them garbage sent by vandals . In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that I take great offense with QueerStudiesRS's claim that I am a "homophobe" . This personal attack is clearly in defiance of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I have not said anything remotely homophobic to this person and yet I am labelled as such. I look forward to a civil discussion. 23 editor (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I am tired of this nonsense. As for homophobes denying their homophobia, there is a Google Search result list of over 9 million such mentions:
I have very many much better things to do than to illuminate the bigots on how and why they are bigots, unless that is directly putting me at peril. And even though homopohobia overall does hurt me too, I have done my share. There are about 400 million LGBT people in the world to fight User:23 editor and his/her ilk. I will just disregard his/her existence.
Administrator note Because of the continued edit warring, I have fully protected the article for three days. Favonian (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Great, that should give the parties in question time to talk things over. As for QueerStudiesRS's link, that is a groundless Ad hominem which has nothing to do with the Ivica Dačić article or the comments that the person made. 23 editor (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I told you I had enough of you, but you just won't stop, will you? OK, I'll waste a few more minutes on you, with utmost disgust for havign to do so:
To the contrary to your lies above, it is you who has been acting Ad hominem since the start. I didn't even know you existed and it would have been better if it had stayed so. If this were Facebook, you'd be blocked and out of my sight and everythign would be fine.
As for your homophobia, there is nothing "groundless" in showing you are just like 9 million other homophobes listed on Google Search alone who deny that they are homophobes.
Moreover it was you yourself who brought the idea that you as a person were a homophobe. In the first comment I said your edit was homophobic. Which it was by and through. But you said it sounds to you as if somebody accused you you were homophobic and that was unacceptable to you. Tough luck. I was civil enough not to call you a homophobe until you yourself identified you felt as one, even though I did think you were before that, continue to think you are, and with every stupid edit you do, I am even more assured of it.
This especially applies to your vandalising the article Divine (performer) by removing the [Category:Serbian LGBT people] from the Article even though the person (Divine (performer)) has the follwoing categories in the Artcile: [Category:American people of Serbian descent], [Category:Gay actors], [Category:Gay musicians], [Category:LGBT singers]], [Category:LGBT Christians] which more than justify the inclusion into the [Category:Serbian LGBT people], and even though Divine is indeed 50% Serbian through mother an 50% a Heinz 57 mixture of Unitedstatesian origin through father, ergo: primarily and mostly Serbian.
Eventually, why are you going after my edits and vandalising them? Why are you bullying me? Because you are a homophobic criminal or because you are just a criminal about whose obvious homophobia we are supposed to keep tacit and turn a blind eye and deaf ear? Well, if your eyes are blind and your ears are deaf, not all of us are crippled like you are.
So I am telling you: bugger off. It is easy for me to close this account and make a sockpuppet and pester you equally if not more. I do not wish to waste my time on the likes of you, though, as you are not worthy my time, but I might do it if you persist.
your only option of this ending here and now, is -- I repeat -- to bugger off and get away from me and my edits and mind your own business of working for Ivica Dačić on more improtant projects than editing Wikipedia (which, BTW, is a blatant COI on your part).
DRN coordinator's note: I've been away for a couple of days and will be away for a couple more, but I want to put everyone here on notice that no further discussion of conduct or one another's COI, biases, motives, or other characteristics will be tolerated here at DRN. Any further such comments will be deleted by a volunteer in accordance with this section of policy. Talk about content, and content only. If you feel you must discuss conduct, then make a report at WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U, do not raise it here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
24-hour closing notice: It appears from this edit that QueerStudiesRS has either abandoned Wikipedia or chosen to begin engaging in sockpuppetry. Either way, it would appear that this listing is probably no longer needed and I or another editors will close it as being moot after 17:00 UTC on 11 October 2013 unless someone objects and states a reason to keep it open. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 10 October 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.
Pedophilia
There has been no discussion on the article talk page, as required before filing a case here. The person filing the case is the only party named, and his only participation has been four edit requests -- no discussion. See WP:CONSENSUS for instructions as to how to proceed Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 6 October 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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Research bias on 11:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The Causes and Biological Section is biased towards findings from a Canadian team.
To the best of my knoledge, findings on left-handeness, height with no account of parents height, mean IQ, comparissons with education level, etc., have not been corroborated or duplicated exactly, on all accounts, by any other research team. They have MRI scans (from same team) on a small subset of mostly carefully selected inmates (65), but their findings don´t fully corroborate to MRI scans on even fewer inmates (19) from Germany. Perhaps the difference in findings should be clearly stated. I am suspcisious of the findings of the Canadian team, so I recomended the inclusion of a paper as well which partially contradicts their findings. My paper was rejected on the accounts that it is too old. However, just being old does not mean it is wrong, and dubious MRI scans on 60 people does not invalidate nor correlate to a population of millions.
Please take a look at the Edit request for more information.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I did a couple of edit requests which were rejected until further discussion.
How do you think we can help?
Please edit the article as I requested.
Summary of dispute by [no editor named]
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Pedophilia 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.
There has been no discussion on the article talk page, as required before filing a case here. The person filing the case is the only party named, and his only participation has been the single edit filing this case -- no discussion. See WP:CONSENSUS for instructions as to how to proceed
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.
Please add SearchMothers.com to the list of social networking websites page or to an appropriate page on Wikipedia.
Summary of dispute by [no editor named]
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of social networking websites 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.
Darkhawk
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Fortdj33 on 16:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC).
No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. If other editor will not engage in discussion, consider following the advice given here. Report edit warring violations to EWN or request page protection. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 10 October 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.
The first issue of the Darkhawk title has been established as his first official appearance. However, one editor insists that the 5 page preview in Marvel Age #97 supersedes this, but it's my understanding that it is just advertising, and should not count in a character's bibliography. I tried to explain that Marvel and DC issue previews of titles all the time, and in house ads for upcoming books are not considered official appearances, but this editor is now edit warring, and using the Marvel wiki to justify their edits.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Left a RFC both on the WikiProject Comics talk page, and on the talk page of the editor.
How do you think we can help?
Explain to him the merits of WP:BRD, and possibly the dangers of original research.
Summary of dispute by Smallclone10
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Darkhawk 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:The Road_Not_Taken
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by LeoRomero on 17:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC).
No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. If any editor will not engage in discussion, consider following the advice given here. Report edit warring violations, if any, to EWN or request page protection. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:33, 10 October 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.
Whether or not to include the full text of the poem "Road not taken" by Robert Frost. One user has been reverting all edits that included full text, just repeating the same explanation "full text does not belong here".
Cite Wikipedia guidelines on including full texts of short poems from Wikisource, if any (I could not find any).
Cite precedents (eg all Shakespeare sonnets, several other poems by Frost)
Request user TheOldJacobite to "revert only when necessary" etc so as to encourage users, rather than discourage them.
Thanks!
Leo
Summary of dispute by TheOldJacobite
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Philip Trueman
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:The Road_Not_Taken 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.
No extensive talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. Please continue discussion at the article talk page before seeking dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:41, 11 October 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.
We have a conflict about the selection of the leading picture in the infobox. He thinks that a painting of an ancient emperor should be used because it's a famous person and "looks nice". But I think a picture of modern people in Hanfu should be used because this picture can represent the latest design and style of Hanfu. Hanfu is the folk costume of Han Chinese and it looks different in different period of time in history.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have undertaken a talk with him but there's no consensus yet. In addition, there is no third people take part in the discussion. This conflict may hard to be solved by only two people.
How do you think we can help?
Inviting more people to take part in this discussion and provide some advice from various aspects.
Summary of dispute by Balthazarduju
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Hanfu 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.
wiki/Talk:Ronan Farrow#RfC_Ethiopia
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by BlueSalix on 00:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC).
Filed at DRN accidentally, as this is a conduct issue. Steven Zhang (talk) 06:31, 12 October 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.
Background: The entry Ronan Farrow has recently been heavily edited through insertion of promotional language by a large number of single-purpose sockpuppets. A seven-identity sock was recently uncovered and banned. The two remaining editors, myself and Tenebrae, had been engaged in a cooperative process of resolving much of the promotional language that had been inserted in the article (involving many dozens of edits), but came to a disagreement on one sentence. I believed the source of our disagreement to be grammatical in nature. Tenebrae believed the source of our disagreement was content-based and thought my suggested edit constituted POV insertion. Since there were only two active editors, and to resolve this impasse, I posted a RfC. Unfortunately, the RfC has become - I believe - derailed through aggressive name-calling by Tenebrae who - prior to the RfC - had been extremely gregarious and civil. Specifically, in a period of 24 hours:
- accusing me of being a single-purpose account that exists for the sole purpose of inserting "derogatory" content in Ronan Farrow [x3]
- describing my contributions in the RfC as "child-like" [x1]
- describing my contributions in Ronan Farrow as "biased" [x3]
- summarizing my contributions in the RfC with "la la la" [x1]
- calling me an "extremist" [x1]
- calling me a "liar" [x1]
- describing my opinion in the RfC as a "smokescreen" and 3x declaring he will get an admin to block me if I do not publicly state my agreement with him that my suggested edit is POV
- several other name-calling episodes that can be read in the original RfC but I have not included here for sake of brevity
I don't have a problem with being the subject of name-calling, but it has become so singular - to the exclusion of anything else - that I believe it may be scaring derailing neutral editing of the article.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I requested, seven times, not to be name-called, however, this has not helped resolve the situation.
How do you think we can help?
Tenebrae is a tenured editor and I do not doubt his sincerity. Since he and I were working proactively and cooperatively until I filed a RfC - at which point I was subjected to 10 instances of name calling and 3 threats - I assume he may have been displeased at this instance of non-deference to his seniority. I don't think any action other than a third party opinion is necessary.
Summary of dispute by Tenebrae
The disingenuousness of User:BlueSalix is beyond remarkable. As both I and an unrelated IP editor, 99.192.69.120, pointed out, what BlueSalix calls a "minor grammatical issue" in the disputed sentence is POV interpretation — and not even of a straight news story but of a letter-to-the-editor that makes political claims not verified by a reporter, as would occur in a straight news story. The sentence is WP:UNDUE, among other things, and shouldn't even be in the article, but in the interest of compromise I tried to write it neutrally. BlueSalix, however, is insisting on a version of which I and the IP editor gave three specific, bullet-point instances of BlueSalix's political POV.
BlueSalix consistently refused to even acknowledge let alone address those points, but kept saying like a broken record, "it's just grammatical, it's just grammatical." Yes, after hearing this repeatedly, it does feel as if you're dealing with someone either a) behaving like a child, or b) doing that thing we've all seen some bad-apple editors do of ignoring what you're saying and pretending the issue is about something else. He's also acting in what a disinterested outside observer might call a paranoid way, repeatedly and inaccurately accusing me "denouncing [him] as part of an anti-Ronan Farrow conspiracy." No one, not I nor anyone else in the RfC, did anything remotely like that.
Two registered editors, neither of whom I'd ever run across before, both agreed with me and the IP editor in the RfC. Indeed, one of these editors wrote of, BlueSalix's edit: "Clearly rooted in bias. Thank you for your service in cleaning up this page after BlueSalix's disruptive edits."
I don't know what else to say. It's clear to three or four editors that BlueSalix is adding derogatory political spin about a living person. And it's not the first time: He'd previously tried to add mudslinging based on a political blog's tabloid-style "anonymous sources say" post. I hope this provides a fuller context. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
wiki/Talk:Ronan Farrow#RfC_Ethiopia discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I just want to clarify this is an issue related to 10 specific instances of name calling threats that occurred in a RfC. The consensus of the actual RfC, however, placed me on the outside and - as I posted in the RfC - I fully accepted the outcome. Again, this dispute resolution is an issue separate from the content dispute which was resolved when 2 other editors weighed in on the content question. My concern is with the personal treatment of one editor by another, not editorial disagreements or different viewpoints we had on one article (as pointed as they may have been, I ended up in the minority and consensus ruled against me). Sorry for any confusion if my initial post was poorly worded. I believe a full review of the Talk page of this article will probably add further clarity to the nature of the issue. BlueSalix (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The issues are intertwined. Your behavior came out of your insistence about your content. If you are going to act in a disruptive, non-responsive way, you can only do so for so long before one or more editors calls you on it. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The issues are not intertwined. I have opened a dispute regarding ten instances of name calling by you and a generally aggressive method of interacting with other editors that has continued on my Talk page and those of several other users. If you believe I engaged in disruptive editing, you need to raise that in a separate noticeboard section so I can defend myself against that claim in a concise manner instead of as a drive-by accusation (for example, the entire layout of the Ronan Farrow article as it currently exists and consensus has accepted, is of my design; I don't want to get into posting diffs here to exhibit that as it would muddy the issue of editor harassment). BlueSalix (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I am your DRN Volunteer for this dispute. First, I think it is of vital importance to understand what I believe to be the golden rule, that is assume good faith WP:AGF. It appears that editors in the RFC on content in question have failed to do so (Including but not limited to Tenebrae). This could have been an oversight or mistake on their part. This isn't a place to forget that rule, accusations of conduct such as calling others "disruptive" "Childish" and "single purpose" have no place here. Continued accusations must stop if this page is to be used. Another detail, a rather big one, is that this is a place for content disputes, not conduct disputes. In fact, this is supposed to remove any conduct issues, bypass them in order to deal with content and thus resolve a situation. Once the content issue is resolved, hopefully it would be easier to deal with the conduct elsewhere if it doesn't disappear.
So, that said, is there any content issues that require resolution? If so, simply state what content is disputed, where and how has it been discussed, and what opinions on the content exist. Then we can begin discussing how to best reach a compromise or find an alternative answer. For conduct issues, the first step is to meat the minimum requirements for an RFC on User Conduct. Please read this page for more information WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. You can always ask for a third opinion on an issue as well, here WP:3OFordx12 (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
DRN coordinator's note: Welcome to DRN. I'm the current DRN coordinator. Let me second what Fordx12 has said. This listing would ordinarily be closed as a content dispute based upon what the listing editor says that it is about. DRN does not handle conduct disputes (use ANI or RFC/U for that). Tenebrae has made an appeal for this to be considered to be a conduct content dispute. If BlueSalix wishes to go forward with it as a content dispute, and only that, please so indicate below and feel free to supplement the Dispute overview with that in mind. Otherwise this will be closed as a conduct dispute. But understand that discussions of conduct will not be part of it or be permitted. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Oops, fixed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 03:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Fordx12 and TransporterMan - I greatly apologize, this was an error by me. I have never filed a dispute before and so clearly filed it in the wrong place. There is no content dispute as far as I am concerned, as I agree to consent to Tenebrae's edits; only a conduct dispute. I am happy to see this closed if that's appropriate. I would be lying if I said I could figure out how to file a conduct dispute so I will try to just steer clear of that article and Tenebrae and hope for the best. Thanks and sorry again for the misplaced dispute. BlueSalix (talk) 03:18, 12 October 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.
Eurofighter Typhoon
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Filed by Z07x10 on 20:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Eurofighter maximum speed was originally released as 'over Mach 2' (which was listed in various places as Mach 2+, Mach 2.0+, Mach 2 and Mach 2.0). However more current information became available.
All these sources are roughly consistent with a maximum speed of Mach 2.35 as agreed by consensus earlier on English wiki and still agreed, by entirely independent consensus (without my involvement) on German wiki https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon.
Another user's position is that some sources still say Mach 2.0 and various magazines from ages ago and 'Haynes manual' said Mach 2.0, so the figure should be Mach 2.0.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Lengthy conversation on Talk page. Pointed out facts and German wiki agreement. It was ignored. Dispute unreolved.
How do you think we can help?
I was kind of hoping that you would know the answer to this one.
Summary of dispute by McSly
We have a variety of primary sources providing the top speed at high altitude for the Typhoon, essentially air force and airplane manufacturer websites. Some sources show the information in both Mach and km/h, some have only the Mach number, just one (the Austrian Air force) has only the km/h.The values provided by those sources are inconsistent, sometimes within the same source.
For the Mach value, they range from Mach 1.8[46] to Mach 2.0[47][48][49] to Mach 2.0+[50] to Mach 2+. No source says Mach 2.35. For the km/h, we have essentially 2 values (with some rounding here and there): 2,125 km/h (1,320 mph) and 2,495km/h (1550mph). The first is consistent with Mach 2.0, the second with Mach 2.35. As an example of problem within a source, the BAE SYSTEMS source[51] that Z07x10 provided for his calculation actually contains both mph and Mach value (Mach 2.0 - 1521mph). Those 2 numbers do not add up. In that case Z07x10 takes the 1521mph value and says that we can calculate Mach 2.3 from it. But obviously doing the opposite would be just as equally valid, we take Mach 2.0 and then calculate 1320mph from it.
I see no indication that any of those sources is any better or worse than the others (we have 4 air forces and 3 manufacturers websites). I also see no indication than any of those values are newer or older than the others. In case of conflicting primary sources, it is not our job to separate the wheat from the chaff, we must rely on secondary sources to provide the information.
In this case we have Jane's All the World's Aircraft. That source is highly regarded publication widely used on WP and actually already used in the article [52]. That source states that the speed is Mach 2.0 at high altitude so we can just use it. Z07x10 on the other hand feels that we should use the primary sources to back calculate the Mach value even when we already have secondary sources providing that information. --McSly (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Eurofighter Typhoon discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I'm Howicus, a volunteer here, and I'll be taking this case now that all parties have made opening statements. I'm going to read over the talk page and the article, but one question comes to mind, first. How complicated is the calculation to convert km/h to mach? Divide speed by speed of sound, right? Howicus(Did I mess up?) 01:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, looking at the sources linked by McSly, it seems to me that 2.0 is the best supported figure, with the Italian airforce, the German air force, Eurofighter's website, baesystems and Jane's all listing mach 2.0 as the maximum speed. None of the other numbers have anywhere near as many source. Compared with rough calculations, I'd be inclined to go with 2.0. Z07x10, do you have more sources that say mach 2.35? Note that these are just my initial thoughts, very much subject to change. Howicus(Did I mess up?) 01:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The calculation is: 2495 / (sqrt(1.405*287.05*216.65)*3.6), where 216.65 K is the SI-Standard Temperature in the Stratosphere as used in aviation, 287.05 is R and 1.405 is kappa. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I contacted Eurofighter Communications regarding the question, this is the answer I recieved:
Dear Mr. Herzog,
Thank you for your interest in the Eurofighter Typhoon. Regarding your question:
There should be no contradiction – we quote Mach 2.0+ which is correct – the Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics) – which is why we quote Mach 2.0+. In terms of others stating Mach 2.0 – this is a ‘rounded’ figure and our official statement on maximum speed is Mach 2.0+.
Kind Regards
EUROFIGHTER COMMUNICATIONS
Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH
The statement that Mach 2.0 is a rounded number is a clear indication for me that it is not the best number to use. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree Julian. It is also an old number that propagated since the legacy release of information and most of the sources stating it are now out-of-date. An encyclopedia should be open to change when new information becomes available. Furthermore sources from manufacturers who are in receipt of the actual figures are clearly better than sources from magazines/publications who are not and have conducted no independent testing. Aircraft speed is also relative to altitude and the fact the Austrian Airforce (and Airpower Austria) specify altitude makes them a better source. If one were to resort to independent analysis, which I know is discouraged, it should be noted that the Eurofighter has ramped intakes to improve efficiency at high Mach (unlike F-16/Rafale) and has the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any operational fighter (1.15 loaded), so a speed significantly over Mach 2 is likely. Furthermore it is commonplace for manufacturers to simply state 'over Mach 2' or 'Mach 2 class' officially even when the maximum speed is significantly above that http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html. It should also be noted that originally wiki never said 'Mach 2' anyway. It said 'Mach 2+ (2,495kph at 10,975m)' and this can be verified I'm sure.Z07x10 (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick note. As regards the speed of sound and altitude issue, information about this is available on wiki in an independent article here:
From the graph above, at 11km, speed of sound is ~295m/s, which is 1062kph ([295/1000] * 3600 = 1062). 2495/1062 = Mach 2.35.Z07x10 (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
So the Eurofighter primary source says Mach 2.0+, so why can't Z07x10 just accept that number rather than insisting on Mach 2.35? Mztourist (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The Eurofighter primary source says Mach 2.0+, but Eurofighter as a company confirms the correctness of the Mach 2.35 value, which is otherwise only confirmed by one source. I think that sums up the facts. Clearly, the maximum speed varies from configuration to configuration, so I think we could even include 2.0+ as a main value and 2.35 as an additional value to give an example for what "+" can mean. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Z07x10, is your number based off of only one source, or do multiple sources list the same speed (after calculations)? Howicus(Did I mess up?) 06:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The BAE SYSTEMS source also states 1521mph. Whilst it also states Mach 2, this is based on the speed class of the aircraft, just as my Lockheed F-22 source above states 'Mach 2 class'. 1521mph is clearly more specific than Mach 2 and is not a calculating error based on the speed of sound at sea level, which is 765mph at ISA.
I don't think that this should merely be about counting sources. I've explained in my original post that the figure of '2/2+' has come from legacy information that has been subject to the mechanics of data propagation over time, so naturally many sources have copied that information, hence why there are more of them but they are not necessarily independent in the true meaning. When you examine McSly's sources it isn't hard to see flaws. For example the German Airforce state 'Mach 2.00', how likely is it that a plane tops out at 2.00 to 2dp exactly?
Operating limits and speed classes should not be confused for genuine top speeds. E.g. wikipedia states the F-14D's top speed is 'Mach 2.34' and it is under optimal conditions but the official operating flight manuals show nothing above 2.0 (see page 4-6 configuration 1A - no stores):
Another source McSly uses ' Eurofighter.com' have already clarified their position on the matter in Julian H's post above and importantly don't refute the claim of the Austrian Airforce.
So far nobody has presented a reason as to why the Austrian Airforce source is unreliable or flawed. The fact that other sources say something different is not a good reason for ignoring it. E.g. you can't ignore the results of a scientific test just because other results say something different (especially if there's reason to believe the other tests are wrong), you have to find a flaw, like Geneva physicists had to when a neutrino appeared to break the speed of light. The Austrian Airforce is a respectable source and specifically states '2495kph at 10,975m'. That only calculates as Mach 2 if the temperature is about 26degC (at over 36,000ft). 26degC is not a standardised atmospheric temperature in any region at any altitude. If someone physically took the plane out and tested it, would that still be dismissed as just one source?
As regards using secondary sources (like magazines and publications) for a matter like this, I honestly just sigh. Where have secondary sources like magazines got their information from? A true secondary source has to have seen the actual primary sources, which are the classified manuals. None of these so-called 'secondary sources' actually have, meaning that they are in fact tertiary sources, which conveniently/inconveniently aren't accessible online and therefore can't be verified/appraised by the majority of users. This could be relevant as the sources in question may specify certain conditions which are non-optimal. As you'll see in the F-14D flight manual top speed and what people quote is very dependent on fuel loading and store configuration, hence reasons why absolute limits are hard to come by. See other flight manuals for yourself. E.g.:
Furthermore, as regards calculations, McSly has now used a Mach number to back calculate a kph/mph speed at altitude on the article page, which isn't supported anywhere. Essentially exactly what I did, except the other way round using the legacy information. He is also calculating the kph/mph speed based on the altitude specified in the Austrian Airforce source that he's chosen to ignore wrt the speed. This kind of pseudo mathematics has no place. My calculation comes from a single but coherent source with a TAS (True Air Speed) backed up by the BAE SYSTEMS source - 2495kph = 1552mph, BAE say 1521mph. Spanish wikipedia also quote this speed (1522mph) and a BAE source, Italian wikipedia also quote >2450kph and German wikipedia quote Mach 2.35 using the Austrian Airforce source.Z07x10 (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
An interpretation should be able to explain all the figures provided by reliable sources and not simply ignore those that don't fit with a pre-conceived idea.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
McSly is also quoting the following source on the article page:
This document is clearly not current and almost pre-dates the in-service date by 10 years. It should be removed. I can't, for the life of me, think why he would consider it more relevant than a figure published by an active airforce user.Z07x10 (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
To summarise 3 official sources now state '2.0+' (EADS, Airpower Austria and Eurofighter.com) and 2 sources state mph/kph speeds inline with Mach 2.3+ (BAE SYSTEMS and Austrian Airforce). Eurofighter.com have also officially stated that '2.0+' is the official figure AND that the Austrian Airforce's figure is for a specific configuration and fuel load.Z07x10 (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Just a note for the drn-volunteer I have protected the Eurofighter Typhoon article pending a consensus as users have continued to edit war while talk page and drn disucussion are ongoing, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
We have a reliable set of sources which confirm "2.0+" to be acceptable, has anybody considered adding in a note alongside the references to state that "Mach 2.35" or "higher speeds" are capable depending on height, air pressure and payload considerations as we have a suitable reference for this and confirmation via Eurofighter that 2.35 is possible depending on configuration etc.
MilborneOne, that note is a very good idea. So as a proposal, we could state:
"Mach 2+ (Mach 2.35 - 2,495kph at 10,975m - is possible depending on configuration) [Austrian Airforce source][EADS source][Eurofighter.com source]"Z07x10 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Nick, you are right on its quality as a source. Haynes do not produce official Typhoon Maintenance Manuals, that book is a novelty item and nothing more, as stated on your link, "An insight into owning, flying and maintaining the world's most advanced multi-role fast jet." Definitely not a reliable source. I'm sure if I wrote "the world's most advanced multi-role fighter" on the article page and listed Haynes as a source, it would be followed by a gigantic sht storm.Z07x10 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a few things to unpack here but I'll focus on 2:
Precision of measure: Z07x10 insists that the value '2495kph at 10,975m' is very precise and specific and that's why we should use it. By doing so, he's making the basic mistake of confusing precision with accurancy. Being precise is no indication of being correct. If I say that the distance between Paris and New York is specifically 2,495km, I would be precise, but wrong. If I say it's about 6,000km, that's a lot less precise but more accurate. I'd like also to point out that when he's talking about the Mach value, suddenly being precise doesn't seem to matter anymore. Mach 2.0 is just formatting or "Mach 2 class" and anything with the plus sign is consistant with Mach 2.35. Well, that's not correct, for example, Mach 2.0+ means less than Mach 2.1, because there is a zero there. If it was more than Mach 2.1, it would read Mach 2.1+
Quality of source: Z07x10 also insists that the Austrian air force site is a good source for the value, but I don't see any indication that that's the case. We have 4 official air force websites here Italy, Germany, Austria and UK. All with different values for the top speed. They all look like 4 generic PR site for the respective air forces with basic information about units, equipment and so on. The Austrian page for the Typhoon is actually pretty bare (it doesn't even list the weight for example). In any event, nothing warranting any special treatment.
So like I said before, we have a bunch of primary sources with different, incompatible values and no way to really evaluate which source is better (4 official air forces sites for example). Now in order to move this thing along. For the Mach value, any mention of Mach 2.35 is out of the question. I would much prefer to have Mach 2.0 since that's what our best source (JANE's) says but since we have a good primary source saying 2.0+ (Eurofighter), I'm Ok with Mach 2.0+. For the km/h conversion, since we have contradictory values and no good secondary source, I'm all for removing that value altogether.--McSly (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
3 Comments from my side:
Mach 2.0+ doesn't mean that the value is below 2.1 - ist just means that it is above Mach 2.0. Even the manufacturer of the aircraft confirmed that (see above). Why would the "+" be limited?
Precision is of course not the same as accurancy, I don't think anyone confuses the two. But assuming, again, that the manufacturer of the aircraft is correct, all values except for the ones stating "Mach 2.0" are accurate, and with this knowledge, shouldn't our focus be on using - among the accurate sources - the most precise one?
Generally: Why do you ignore the official response by Eurofighter GmbH?
Julian, If we want this discussion to get anywhere, we need to actually read what the others say. From my comment above, I specifically wrote "since we have a good primary source saying 2.0+ (Eurofighter), I'm Ok with Mach 2.0+" What part of that was not clear? Please reply to this comment to acknowledge that it is indeed what I said. Thank you. --McSly (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course I read what you wrote, and what I wrote reflects that. I referred to your statements describing numbers as inaccurate and the mentioning of Mach 2.35 as "out of the question" despite the official confirmation of that value.
I don't understand why it's not possible (and the best solution) to mention "Mach 2.0+" as the general value and, for example in brackets, add Mach 2.35 as an example for a specific configuration to give the reader an idea of what the "+" can mean. I just think that this would give the reader the most and most precise information, and I think that this should be our aim.
If we can't find consensus towards that, then I guess "Mach 2.0+" will have to do. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I also do not think that 'less than Mach 2.1' is the correct interpretation. We have two sources (BAE and Austrian Airforce) that state kph/mph figures not consistent with this theory and one of them (BAE) quote '1521mph' together with 'Mach 2.0' showing that '<2.1' is not the correct interpretation of '2.0+' or 'Mach 2 class'. Eurofighter.com have also confirmed this to be the case. Furthermore the initial release of information for the SR-71 stated Mach 3.2+ but there are now several sources stating >3.3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird#cite_note-92) and this book written by ex-pilots suggests >3.5 http://www.amazon.com/SR-71-Blackbird-Stories-Tales-Legends/dp/0760311420. Mach 3.2 turned out to be the recommended operational cruising speed.
It has already been explained by Julian, myself and Eurofighter.com why some sources list '2.0' and that top speed will depend on fuel, store configuration and operating guidelines relevant to maintenance planning (MTBOs etc.).
The precision vs accuracy argument is null and void in this instance, since the precise figure in question has come from an Airforce operating the aircraft and Eurofighter.com have indicated that this speed is for a specific set of conditions (fuel, stores etc.).
I do not subscribe to the notion that Jane's is the ultimate and best source of evidence for everything pertaining to aircraft. If Jane's had access to the official specifications for the Eurofighter, the specs would also be on the internet, and it's not as if Jane's have independently speed-tested a Eurofighter. Therefore the logical conclusion is that their information has also been derived from official PR releases saying '2.0+' that they have then 'rounded' as stated by Eurofighter.com.
I think a big problem with a lot of these sources is that speed can vary a lot with altitude (which I think is why so many of the sources say 2.0+). If we could find two or more good sources that indicate the same speed at the same altitude, that would be a number I'd be willing to accept. Howicus(Did I mess up?) 15:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
It's always nice to be able to find extra sources but for something like this it's very difficult. We have another source saying '1521mph' but without an altitude. However, fundamentally it's aerodynamically more difficult for a plane to achieve 1521mph below the troposhere (11km) than at or above it. The air is denser (more drag) and the ambient temperature is higher so the jet engines don't work as efficiently in terms of both the compressor efficiency and the amount of heat that can be added during combustion, because TET (Turbine Entry temperature) is a limiting factor and incoming air is hotter. Hence why top speed at sea level is usually only around Mach 1.2 for modern fighter jets.
We also have a response from Eurofighter.com indicating that the Austrian Airforce figures are possible depending on fuel, stores etc. "the Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics)"
It's also worth pointing out that only one source is used on other pages for such matters. The other problem is that if we did find another source saying the exact same thing, it would likely only be copied from the aforementioned source, as is the case with many other sources. Unless we can find flaw with a source we shouldn't discount it IMHO.
In light of the above, what about an edit saying:
"Mach 2+ (Mach 2.35 - 2,495kph at 10,975m - is possible depending on configuration) [Austrian Airforce source][EADS source][Eurofighter.com Note**]"
-**Note reads " 'The Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics)' - Eurofighter.com".
That looks like a fair compromise to me. Anyone else? Howicus(Did I mess up?) 16:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Not really I'm afraid. The Austrian air force source is dubious at best. It is also flatly contradicted by better or equivalent sources and those cannot be dismissed. Furthermore, with all the sources and all the values that we have for the max speed, none of them, none, says Mach 2.35 so adding a value with no source, especially in a dispute context is a non starter. Lastly, there is a good discussion going on the Reliable sources Noticeboard on essentially the same question we have here. In the light of this discussion, I propose to set the Mach value to Mach 2.0+ or >Mach 2.0 (either is fine with me) and since we have contradictory values for the mph speed and no good source providing it, let's remove it altogether.--McSly (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I honestly don't see where this contradiction is and we aren't just stating the word of the Austrian Airforce on their own, we're stating the response of Eurofighter.com on the matter of the Austrian Airforce's quote and presenting the data exactly for what it is (with qualifiers) and nothing else. The statement that none of them say 'Mach 2.35' is irrelevant because that's what 2,495kph calculates as under ISA conditions at the altitude specified by the Austrian Airforce - it would only calculate as Mach 2 at 26degC (299K) so it isn't simply a mistake using the speed of sound at ground level (15degC, 288K --> 1224kph). The mph/kph speed should definitely not be removed because we have very clear sources stating that as 2,495kph and 1521mph (Austrian Airforce and BAE SYSTEMS). As an official airforce user and a manufacturer in agreement that out-ranks all other sources on the matter. EADS and Eurofighter.com also quote 'Mach 2+', which is not inconsistent with this. In fact, plainly speaking, once you remove BAE, EADS, Eurofighter.com and the Austrian Airforce (who have stated a specific speed at a specific altitude indicative of a test or spec reference), there are no other 'good' sources. What remains are only copy and pastes and nothing more. We should definitely not remove mph/kph figures because the ones we have in this case are very accurately specified. I keep hearing that the Austrian Airforce is a dubious source but the protagonist is yet to mention why. Exactly why should we simply cast aside this very specific metric from an Airforce user? Other sources copying, pasting and 'rounding' (to quote Eurofighter.com) a legacy press release doesn't qualify as a good reason. Z07x10 (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Z07x10, where is the source from Eurofighter that says, "The Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics)' - Eurofighter.com"? Howicus(Did I mess up?) 14:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it just an email? If so, I don't think it's a reliable source. Howicus(Did I mess up?) 14:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You'll have to ask Julian H as he has the proof but the fact that they changed their figure to '2+' shortly after responding indicates that they looked into it.Z07x10 (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I can forward it to any address or ask them to send it somewhere if that helps. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the only thing the sources can agree on is that the max speed is more that 2.0, and I haven't seen anything that suggests that the Austrian source is better than the others. Is there any reason to assume that it's better than all the other sources that contradict it? Howicus(Did I mess up?) 14:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Which source contradicts the Austrian source? — Julian H.✈ (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion the fact the Austrian source quotes an altitude makes it better than the other sources. 'Mach 2+' could mean a lot of things. E.g. Mach 2+ over a wide altitude range, Mach 2+ at high altitude, or Mach 2+ at sea level? Quoting a speed at an altitude at least ties it down to a speed capability at that altitude with a given load and within a limited likely temperature variation (Mach 2.30 to Mach 2.41 for -10degC to +10degC from ISA, respectively, for 2495kph at 10,975m). It's not really about whether the Austrian source is 'better' though, it's about whether it can be ignored without explanation. An explanation has been provided for all the sources stating '2' or '2+'. No one has explained why the Austrian source should be dismissed. If someone could say, "the Austrian Airforce source is wrong because X, Y and Z," I would be more than happy to listen to such an explanation.Z07x10 (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
^Pardo, Gastón (13 August 2005). "Los responsables están avalados por el gobierno". Voltaire Network. Retrieved 12 January 2013. A lo largo de 1997, una secta denominada Instituto Cristiano de México lanzó ataques en los medios informativos en contra de líderes religiosos, a quienes intentó desacreditar con el empleo sistemático de difamaciones y calumnias.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.