Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 105

Archive 100

←

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

→

Archive 110

talk:Where's the beef?#Inspiring a campaign 25 years later

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Victor Victoria on 23:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Where's the beef?#Inspiring a campaign 25 years later (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Victor Victoria (talk · contribs) Grayfell (talk · contribs) DD2K (talk · contribs) multiple anons Dispute overview I'm trying to add to the article other ad campaigns which were inspired by the ad campaign that is the subject of this article. Others are throwing arguments such as WP:DUE -- to which I say that's not grounds for completely removing the material, and since we're only talking 2 sentences, WP:DUE has been met Primary sources -- secondary sources have been provided for the other ad campaign, and per WP:SELFPUB it's OK to reference the people responsible for the ad campaign inspired by the ad campaign in question WP:TRIVIA -- since there is no dispute on the notability of the ad campaign that was inspired by this ad campaign, I contend that WP:TRIVIA is invalid. Have you tried to resolve this previously? N/A How do you think we can help? Provide guidance whether the arguments against including the material in question have been sufficiently addressed. Summary of dispute by Grayfell Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The dispute as I see it is this: Victor Victoria has attempted to ad a new section with a few sentences and a photo connecting the "Where's the Beef" Wendy's ad-campaign from the mid 80s with a series of World Net Daily ads about an Obama conspiracy theory from 2009. While both of these exist, so far Victor Victoria is the only editor who has made edits connecting these two campaigns. Unless I'm missing something, Victor Victoria has only presented one source that actually connects these two otherwise unrelated ads together.[1] My assessment of the source is that it's a passing primary mention that doesn't fully explain what the connection between the two is. For that reason, I believe including this at all is giving undue weight to a minor issue. My understanding of WP:DUE it that it is not just about how much weight something is given, but whether or not it should be included at all. My opinion is that the WND ad's connection to the Wendy's ad is trivia, and without better sources, including it at all would be giving this one, minor aspect of the birther movement more prominence than is justified. This issue has also been discussed at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Response by Victor Victoria: Having only one editor in favor of a position is meaningless, since we do not count votes Having only one source connecting the two campaigns is sufficient. Relying on WP:SELFPUB policy, it seems legitimate to use the promoters of the 2009 birther campaign to connect the two campaigns, because after all, who else would make that connection?. Since there is no question of notability of the birther campaign (secondary references exist), there is no reason not to make the connection between the two in the article. The similar discussion at the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is not directly applicable to the Where's the beef? article. The discussion at the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article concluded with me agreeing not to make the link to Where's the beef? campaign there because the WP:SELFPUB reference says that the Where's the beef? campaign was only one factor in the choice of words for the "Where's the birth certificate?" campaign. Since the article Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is about the conspiracy theories, and not specifically about the "Where's the birth certificate?" campaign, I conceded that it's not appropriate to make the link over there. This is not the case for the Where's the beef? article. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Reply My intention was to provide a brief summary of the conflict (as I see it) which is understandable to someone unfamiliar with the page. That includes describing involved parties. This has nothing to do with !votes. Likewise, it's helpful to provide context to this discussion by mentioning that it's not an isolated issue, and edits do not exist in a vacuum. Grayfell (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC) I'm not quite sure what you mean by "it's not an isolated issue, and edits do not exist in a vacuum", but it's best to keep the focus narrow to this dispute, and not bring up other disputes that have been resolved (even though the other dispute is related). Victor Victoria (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DD2K Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. talk:Where's the beef?#Inspiring a campaign 25 years later discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this time, but just issuing a reminder: It is the requesting party's obligation to make certain that all parties who have taken part in the talk page discussion are listed as parties, above, and are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and must include a link to this section. The easiest way to do that is add {{subst:drn-notice|Where's the beef?}} - ~~~~ on their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within a few days — usually 3-5 — after this case has been filed it will be closed as abandoned. Ordinarily, editors who have not participated in the discussion on the talk page need not be listed above nor notified. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Comment from uninvolved editor; This dispute has been open for 48 hours and there is no participation from the named editors. @Victor Victoria; As the filing editor you are normally expected to send out notifications to the participants. If no participants respond over the next 48 hours (4 days total) then this dispute may be justifiably closed by the page coordinator as stale. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Due to the holidays I would suggest we give this thread at least a few more days to see if it blossoms. Happy holidays, everyone!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC) I have used the template to notify the two registered users. The problem is that most of the edit warring has been with unregistered users. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks Victor. If the registered users join the DRN discussion and there is consensus that will go a long way towards containing the misbehavior of the IP's.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Unless I'm missing something, it appears that all information is available for the volunteers to help. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Hi User: Victor Victoria, It appears only one WP user, besides you, has given a dispute summary. Do you feel a moderated discussion, here at DRN, between you and User:Grayfell would be useful? Is that something the two of you are interested in? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC) What I think we need is a ruling on which side is right, and which side is wrong. Both User:Grayfell and myself have stated our positions on the dispute and how inclusion or exclusion of the material is supported by WP policies, so I don't see any point in further discussions. User:DD2K has provided his opinion in the talk page, and for whatever reason, has decided not to also add his opinion here. The anons have provided their opinions in the edit summaries of the article, but have not participated in the discussion. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Comment from uninvolved editor: This page appears to be a neglected start or stub class article. Neglected because of an opening 2009 template request which has not been addressed in over five years. At present, it looks like the article might be nominated for AfD, or absorbed into a parent article. It would help, in looking for a volunteer here, if the article were at least in something of a more reasonable condition. For example, TNYT reported in 2011 that the ad campaign was being revived in a new ad campaign. FelixRosch (TALK) 15:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Hi Victor, I'm sorry but you have a misunderstanding about the purpose and function of this Dispute Resolution noticeboard. We are here to moderate discussions and facilitate resolution between parties in a dispute. DRN volunteers are neutral facilitators and we do not issue 'rulings'. If both you and Grayfell come forward in the next 24 to 48 hours and say that you would like a moderated discussion here at DRN, I'll open the discussion and attempt to moderate a resolution between the two of you. If the desire for a moderated discussion is not mutually expressed clearly and quickly I'm going to close this case. It's already been 8 days since it was filed and the participation so far (which is voluntary) has not been sufficient to warrant keeping it open much longer.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC) PS you can find out more information about the various dispute resolution options on WP at WP:DR and WP:DRR.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:09, 31 December 2014 (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:Zeitgeist (film_series)#Adding_See_Also_section_links

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 68.7.95.95 on 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#Adding See Also section links (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 68.7.95.95 (talk · contribs) Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I want boldly add a few additional See Also topics that are at most very related and at least tangentially related to the topic to help improve the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried waiting a week for any further comments or objections on our talk page discussion. Receiving none, I tried submitting a compromise list of See Also topics, 3 instead of 5, and with annotations now. This too was reverted. Then I tried seeking a Third Opinion, but was denied because Earl King Jr. is ignoring the conversation. How do you think we can help? Ban Earl King Jr. for being endlessly combative, or have an opinion on this issue and post it in the talk page discussion. Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)#Adding_See_Also_section_links Summary of dispute by 68.7.95.95 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Earl King Jr. Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Zeitgeist (film_series)#Adding_See_Also_section_links 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.

Mexicans of_European_descent

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Alon12 on 22:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Mexicans of European descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Alon12 (talk · contribs) Aergas (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The user 'aergas', is providing a misinterpretation of a source through which to claim his original research. According to his source, it describes the 'mestizo' identity in mexico, in which various members of different races were assimilated. However, this source also cites the 1808 Mexican census under which the casta was implemented as part of Spanish Colonial rule. Under the Casta, 7/8ths europeans were considered 'criollos' or 'white mexicans'/'mexicans of european descent'. Aergas claims that 7/8ths europeans ceased to be considered criollos after Spanish rule ceased, when there is no evidence to suggest that as per his link, in which he has engaged in an edit war over. He has an agenda of claiming 'white mexicans' as 'full-europeans', despite the complex history of the region, it should be that 'white mexicans' or 'mexicans of european descent' are rather of 'predominant' european descent. Furthermore, as there is no modern census in mexico, there is no strict definition of 'white', unlike what 'Aergas' claims in his original research. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I created a section on the talk page, he hasn't responded How do you think we can help? Please provide a moderator to moderate this contentious wiki page, including the enforcement of the 3RR rule. It has been virtually unmoderated, and this user seems to have an agenda for rationalizing the 'purity' this demographic, while providing fallacious input. Allow a third party moderator to vet this issue and close it, instead of having him continue to vandalize the page with misinformation. Summary of dispute by Aergas Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Mexicans of_European_descent 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:Campaign against female genital mutilation in Kenya, 1929-32#Title

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PolenCelestial on 05:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Campaign against female genital mutilation in Kenya, 1929-32#Title (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved PolenCelestial (talk · contribs) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) Johnuniq (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 2 editors are trying to rewrite this article from a pro-FGM perspective and I've reverted their edit twice. As per WP:3RR I'm requesting resolution rather than reverting it again. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None. How do you think we can help? I don't believe that a user can initiate an edit and by virtue of being an admin automatically achieve consensus. From my understanding of the rules my disagreement with the admin who made the edit and the other user who supports it is enough for a consensus to be lacking and one is needed in order to resolve the dispute. Summary of dispute by SlimVirgin PolenCelestial moved the article on 29 December without discussion from its longstanding title, "Female circumcision controversy (Kenya, 1929–32)" to "Campaign against female genital mutilation in Kenya, 1929-32," and rewrote the first sentence to reflect his new title. His concern is that we shouldn't call it "circumcision," but FGM. While I agree with him on that point, this period is known within Kenyan historiography as the "female circumcision controversy," so it's appropriate in this case to call it that. The best thing is for him to move the page back to the old title, then post a requested-move discussion. PolenCelestial, the instructions for how to do that are at WP:RM#CM. As for the copy edit I made, it served to remove some material written years ago in a hurry (I think I wrote it and/or moved it from another article), and parts of it were slightly misleading. I'm not editing from a pro-FGM position. PolenCelestial, if you want to develop the stub, you'd be very welcome, but the way to start is to read the source material, preferably followed by some talk-page discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Johnuniq @PolenCelestial: Sorry, but you won't get assistance here, and the two other editors are certainly not trying to write from a pro-FGM perspective. Your first edit to the article was on 29 December 2014—much more engagement with the discussion on the article talk page is necessary before insisting on your desired outcome, particularly given that the article had been largely unchanged since it was created in September 2011. After engaging with the discussions for another week, you might consider WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN. Why not ask some questions before assuming bad motives from others? I'm commenting to let people know that I have DRN on my watchlist, but there is no need for further discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Talk:Campaign against female genital mutilation in Kenya, 1929-32#Title 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.

Template:Infobox Olympics_Kosovo

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PjeterPeter on 20:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Template:Infobox Olympics Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User talk:PjeterPeter#Some basics Users involved PjeterPeter (talk · contribs) FkpCascais (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Kosovo was recognized as an independent country by the International Olympic Committee this past December. The issue of writing about its history and its athletes, have somehow 'hurt' many Serbs (as Kosovo was a former province of Serbia), and they have (without any doubt) vandalized every Kosovo Olympic-related page, by politicizing every page. In this case, the 'related appearance' in the infobox refers to athletes from that country participating under other countries' flags. Basically, since Kosovo was a part of Yugoslavia, athletes had to compete under the Yugoslav flag. Then, IOP (although not confirmed), SCG and Serbia in 2008. Since the Olympics is about the athletes, even though Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008, Serbs from Kosovo still participated under the Serbian flag, meaning that we've extended the years to 2012, DESPITE the fact Kosovo was not part of Serbia, because as I mentioned, the Olympics remain for the athletes. We've added Albania (and agreed, in the former dispute) because Majlinda Kelmendi, a Kosovo-born athlete participated for Albania in 2012, just like Serbs for Serbia in 2012 (as Kosovo was not recognized by the IOC). And the above-mentioned nationalistic editor (referring to him as nationalistic, as I viewed his talk page, is full of vandalism in Kosovo articles), has been trying to vandalize this article as well by removing Albania, which first of all, is against the Olympics rule, and against the Wikipedia rules on this occasion. Other appearance refers to athletes participating in other countries' flags. Like Kosovars for Yugoslavia, SCG, etc etc. The same for Russians in the Soviet Union and so on. If the Albanian flag is removed, than remove the Serbian flag from 2008 as well. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried convincing the above-mentioned nationalist editor, but he refuses to understand. Basically if the Albanian flag is removed, then the Serbian one should be removed automatically. If this is not about the athletes (which it is), then Kosovo did not compete under the flag of Serbia in 2008 or 2012. If it did, then the Albanian flag remains in the infobox. How do you think we can help? Keeping the Albanian flag, because if it violates the rules of Wikipedia, then the Serbian flag should also be removed. Why? 1. If Majlinda only decided to participate for Albania with her wish and that doesn't count, than the Serbian athletes from Kosovo competing for Serbia from 2008 also doesn't count, because Kosovo declared independence before the 2008 Summer Olympics. Summary of dispute by FkpCascais Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Template:Infobox Olympics_Kosovo 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:Caliphate

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by FreeatlastChitchat on 07:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Caliphate (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs) Omar-toons (talk · contribs) Mbcap (talk · contribs) GregKaye (talk · contribs) Peaceworld111 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Omar-toons added the following to the article. "The Ahmadiyya is viewed as heretical by the majority of Muslims (three sources) due to the founder's claim to be the awaited messiah and a prophet. All Muslims hold the view that Muhammad was the final prophet, after Jesus, and no further prophet can come after him. Since the Ahmadiyya is rejected by mainstream Islam, its Caliphate is also rejected by mainstream Muslims." I am changing this to ""Many muslims consider the Ahmadiyyah to be non-muslim. Since they reject Ahmadiyyah, they also reject the Ahmadiyyah Khilafat." The reasons for this change are 1)You used the term "majority" of muslims. No survey you have provided shows that "the majority" of muslims were surveyed. Therefore I used the term Many which can be used for any large number. 2)Your source does not state the reason for them being considered non-muslim. 3)"ALL muslims" is POV. For according to WP policy of self definition, Ahmadis are also muslims, therefore "ALL muslims" does not hold. Also no survey has been taken from "all muslims" 4)"mainstream Islam". This is ambiguous and enforces POV reasoning. Which Islam is mainstream? If you label Shia Islam as mainstream then ALL sunni related articles get rewritten with negative impact, same happens if you call Sunni Islam as "mainstream". Therefore instead of calling mainstream Islam I used the word opponents, this covers muslims and all others. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to hack it out on the talk page. Not much else. How do you think we can help? Perhaps a third party a.k.a an admin can create content which is acceptable to both of us and does not create any POV or neutrality issues. Summary of dispute by Omar-toons Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. For information, my first edit on this article dates back to October 25th 2014, and as you can see on the version preceding my first edit and on the diff between October 20th 2014 version and the current one, I didn't add the paragraph but I only replaced this: The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is viewed as heretical by the majority of Muslim groups due to the founder's claim to be the awaited messiah and a prophet. All Muslims hold the view that Muhammad was the final prophet and that with the exception of Jesus, no further prophet can come after him. As such the Ahmadiyya are not recognized as Muslim and their Caliphate is also not recognized by mainstream Islam. first by this one (without using the exact wording contained in the sources): The Ahmadiyya is viewed as heretical by the majority of Muslims[3 sources] due to the founder's claim to be the awaited messiah and a prophet. All Muslims hold the view that Muhammad was the final prophet and that with the exception of Jesus, no further prophet can come after him. Since the Ahmadis are not recognized as Muslim, their Caliphate is also not recognized by mainstream Islam. then by this one (using the exact wording): The Ahmadiyya is viewed as heretical and rejected by mainstream or orthodox Islam[3 sources] due to the founder's claim to be the awaited messiah and a prophet, while orthodox Islam hold the view that Muhammad was the final prophet, after Jesus, and no further prophet can come after him. Thus, its Caliphate is also rejected by mainstream Islam. Note that a similar statement was added to the article at the same time than the section related to Ahmadiyya (on Feb. 23rd 2011): From the outset the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has been viewed as heretical by other Muslim groups due to the founder's claim to prophethood. Muslims hold the view that Muhammad was the final prophet and no apostle can come after him. This has been reiterated in the Qur'an that he is the seal of the prophets. (...) Although the Ahmadiyya Khalifat is not recognized by mainstream Islam, (...) So, I think that this dispute is rather between FreeatlastChitchat and all contributors (maybe including me, but not only me) to this article prior to his first intervention that occurred on December 28th 2014. This "dispute" is clearly a POV-pushing case provoqued by a WP:SPA. For the sources, see here. Regards --Omar-toons (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) I discovered that the discussion was at DRN at the same time than you. --Omar-toons (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Mbcap, could you please read my summary above: it is not "my wish" to put the aforementioned text into the article, it was there long time before both of I and FreeatlastChitchat intervened in this article and "my wish" is that it has to be kept until a large consensus can be found regarding it (there were hundreds of contributors since 2011, we can not consider that a decision made by 2 vs. 1 people can be seen as "consensual". --Omar-toons (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Mbcap Mbcap; @FreeatlastChitchat and other concerned editors; This I would say is not a dispute between these 2 editors. The dispute is detailed on the concerned talk page between 4 editors including me. There is Omar-toons who wishes to put the aforementioned text into the article. FreeatlastChichat and Peaceworld are disputing his work. In fact if I was pushed towards DRN, I would say it is a dispute between Omar-toons and Peacworld as the latter has contributed a lot more to the discussion on the talk page. I have been trying to arbitrate the dispute on the talk page. I do not think it was appropriate to escalate this to the DRN. I think the above mentioned 3 editors have been working a final solution and they are not yet at an impasse.FreeatlastChitchat I would suggest if deemed appropriate by other editors, to put a disputed content template on the relevant section on the article page, to draw the attention of other editors who can provide input on the issue as it is still an ongoing dispute. Please could I ask that we discuss this on the talk page and hopefully we can reach an amicable resolution. Mbcap (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Mbcap;I see Omar-toons. It still makes no difference as there are 4 or 5 editors discussing the issue on the talk page. I do not see why it was appropriate to escalate that discussion to DRN at this moment in time. Mbcap (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GregKaye 1. I see no problem in the elaboration of descriptions of causes and issues raised as religious or other groups take to other religious or other groups as long as this is reported in a non-POV way. 2. I do not see the relevance of the change in text by Omar-toons from "The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is viewed as heretical by the majority of Muslim groups" to "The Ahmadiyya is viewed as heretical by the majority of Muslims" which seems to me to be extraordinarily provocative and that seems to me to avoid the view of conflict and a general state of conflicts between religious groups. 3. I suspect uncited POV in the pre-existing statement, "All Muslims hold the view that Muhammad was the final prophet and that with the exception of Jesus, no further prophet can come after him." This seems to me to push a POV in regard to the definition of Muslim presuming I have my interpretations correct. The WP article on Muslim states: "Most Muslims accept as a Muslim anyone who has publicly pronounced the Shahadah (declaration of faith) which states: There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God. 4. I also view the use of the word "mainstream" in this context to have been entirely inappropriate. I think that the issues that should be best encyclopaedically presented are the theological arguments relating to differences, the actual difference in views and the cited responses of relevant groups and spokespeople to those differences. The quoting of "mainstream" here seems to me to be a bit of a "my Dad is bigger than your Dad" type approach. 5. I would also note that the text presents, "Ahmadiyya is viewed as heretical by the majority of Muslims due to the founder's claim to be the awaited messiah and a prophet." It should be cited if this is presented as the only or genuine reason for a rejection of Ahmadiyya. 6. Even so, I also see a potential for more qualifying information to be neutrally presented than is indicated by FreeatlastChitchat's version: "Many muslims consider the Ahmadiyyah to be non-muslim. Since they reject Ahmadiyyah, they also reject the Ahmadiyyah Khilafat". However I find this content to be more neutral than previous versions. GregKaye 11:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC) TY --Peaceworld111. I had just seen that seemingly tortuously long thread in addition to taking a look at the talk page record of Omar-toons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Omar, The impression that I am getting is of a POV pushing, disruptive, single purpose account editor with a regular history of edit warring. Editors, despite their personal points of view, have to edit with neutrality. I do not see that this is displayed in the above content. Please take these issues seriously or administrators will continue to take a hard line. GregKaye 13:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC) In edit history of the Caliphate article I also noted that this diff (as Omar-toons' 07:06, 3 January 2015 edit) changed text to "The Ahmadiyya is viewed as heretical and rejected by mainstream or orthodox Islam" and added text as "due to the founder's claim to be the awaited messiah and a prophet, while orthodox Islam hold the view that Muhammad was the final prophet, after Jesus, and no further prophet can come after him. Thus, its Caliphate is also rejected by mainstream Islam." Omar-toons' Talk:Caliphate addition at 02:09, 4 January 2015 then presented citations for a view of "mainstream Islam" and of the "majority of Muslims" for cited reasons: As a result of their peaceful beliefs (...) and their tolerance of others, they have been utterly rejected and persecuted by mainstream Islam Ahmadis believe that prophecy did not end with Muhammad (...) and therefore are rejected by orthodox or mainstream Islam The Ahmadiyya sect was rejected by mainstream Islam because they placed the finality of prophethood in doubt. Rejected by the majority of Muslims as heretical since it believes in ongoing prophethoof after the death of Muhammad The Ahmadiyya movement is important as showing an unusual Islamic response to the impact of the West, but at the same time one that has been vehemently rejected by the majority of Muslims However, as indicated throughout this book, the Ahmadiyya Jama'at is not accepted by mainstream Islam as being a 'Muslim' group, instead Ahmadi are regarded as kafir [unbelievers] and murtad [apostate] (...) the Ahmadi have been classed as heterodox and non-Muslim. Persecuted, despised and rejected by other Muslims, the Ahmadi, despite their laudatory efforts to be accepted by non-muslims, remain marginalised and ignored Notably I think, article content has retained a presentation of the single presented reason for rejection and no suggestion was made by Omar-toons to redress his/her one sided presentation. Unfortunately I do not see evidence in Omar-toons' response of evidence to neutrally build encyclopaedic content. GregKaye 14:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC) If it is POV, then the opposite view has to be presented to make it NPOV, but certainly not the whole paragraph removed. :::Btw, I suggest you to read WP:SPA before accung me to be an SPA --Omar-toons (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Peaceworld111 Hi Greg, I haven't been responding here, just incase some elements have been missed, please read Talk:Caliphate#Constant_Revert_Resolution.--Peaceworld 11:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Talk:Caliphate discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Collapse completed discussion re parties. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Comment from uninvolved editor; @FreeatlastChitchat and @Omar-toons; This appears to be a dispute between 2 editors, are you sure there are only two editors involved and are you sure that all editors have been notified for this dispute. FelixRosch (TALK) 16:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC) FreeatlastChitchat:We two are the main parties. There are three other editors who have voiced their opinions. I am linking this discussion to the talk page so they will comment here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeatlastChitchat (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC) DRN coordinator's note: I've properly listed the parties and refactored this listing into proper form. Please discontinue making further comments or discussion until a volunteer has accepted and opened this case. @Peaceworld111: You may make a more complete opening statement in the interim if you care to do so, but please keep it brief. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:46, 5 January 2015 (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:Boko Haram#Background_-_APC

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Lipsquid on 00:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Boko Haram#Background - APC (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Lipsquid (talk · contribs) Signedzzz (talk · contribs) Legacypac (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Unresolved dispute regarding biased materials and edit warring on the Boko Haram page in regards to relationship with African People's Congress. Additional edit warring in the ideology section regarding relationship to Salafi and Wahhabi movements has been ongoing since last summer with the latest revert by signedzzz https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boko_Haram&diff=641258577&oldid=641257634 changing the ideology to Sunni Islam again even though he agreed months ago that Boko Haram's relationship to these movements is well documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boko_Haram#.22Wahhabi.22_in_first_paragraph_of_article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on talk page and 3rd party review. How do you think we can help? Review the source and make a final determination whether the synopsis written by the editor reflects statements made in the source material. Summary of dispute by Signedzzz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User:Lipsquid wants to remove the following from the background section: The Arewa People's Congress, the militia wing of the Arewa Consultative Forum, the main political interest group representing the interests of northern Nigeria, is a well-funded group with military and intelligence expertise, and is considered capable of engaging in military action, including covert bombing. Co-founder of the APC, Sagir Mohammed, has stated: "We believe we have the capacity, the willpower to go to any part of Nigeria to protect our Northern brothers in distress ... If it becomes necessary, if we have to use violence, we have to use it to save our people. If it means jihad, we will launch our jihad." As far as I can tell, User:Lipsquid's sole justification for deleting this is that he thinks it implies that the APC/ACF support Boko Haram. As I have said, he is entitled to his opinion (it's absolutely possible that they have supported them, to some unknown degree - Boko Haram are actually believed to have infiltrated even the army and government), but it does not follow that the material should be deleted. The material is merely a description of the group, exactly as described in and entirely supported by the reference. The background section should surely describe the background of Islamic militancy in Northern Nigeria, which clearly the APC/ACF form a major part of. They have been implicated in the sectarian riots that have occurred since Nigeria's independence. Deleting this would serve no purpose, it would pointlessly obscure important background information (in the background section of the article). Since writing the above, someone has added something completely unconnected about the infobox, which I was not even aware was a source of contention. (I tidy this up periodically after drive-by editors add unreferenced info) Summary of dispute by Legacypac Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I assessed the dispute as an uninvolved editor after observing edit warring (I watch the article). I found that Signedzzz's position was not defensible as it strongly and incorrectly suggests that ANC supports Boko Haram. Signedzzz has continued to edit war [2] (just reported before I found this report. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Talk:Boko Haram#Background_-_APC 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.

73 (number)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PizzaMan on 11:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute 73 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved PizzaMan (talk · contribs) Dispute overview One bullet point is on how the number 73 is given special attention in the popular sitcom Big Bang Theory, where one character explains in length why it's a special number and even wears a 73 t-shirt in several episodes. Googling "73 number" has the first three hits after the wp page related to this sitcom, so the sitcom may well be the most notable use of the number. One editor, Arthur Rubin keeps adding tags like importance? or citation needed, demanding citations other than the show. He will keep reverting any edits that remove such tags. However, this goes against all other opinions on the talk page, currently three people, who think a popular sitcom dedicating attention to a number is in itself notable enough. He reverts any edits to remove such tags. I'm requesting some guidance to avoid an edit war. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Arguing on the talk page, requesting in edit summary to discuss there, but Arthur Rubin chose to keep reverting rather than engage in dialogue on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Please give me advice on how to handle the situation. Should we open an RfC? Or is it sufficient that all other involved editors have consensus? Other solutions? Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 73 (number) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The RfC was started just as i came here for help. I'd still like some advice on how to deal with an editor who keeps reverting without engaging in dialogue on the talk page. PizzaMan (♨♨) 05:59, 10 January 2015 (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:Noah

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Myrvin on 09:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Noah (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Myrvin (talk · contribs) PiCo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview One editor wants to mention the Hindu Flood myth hero Manu in the article Noah. The other wants no mention of the Hindu myth. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Long discussions. PiCo deletes all mention. Myrvin reverts and adds sources. PiCo does not like the sources. How do you think we can help? Give an opinion as to whether or not Manu should be mentioned in the Noah article, just as Noah is mentioned in the Manu article. Summary of dispute by PiCo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I pretty much agree with the outline by Myrvin. My opposition isn't about sources as such, though, but about the relevance of the Hindu flood myth to the article on Noah. The Noah article should be about Noah, and Manu (the Hindu flood-hero) isn't Noah. I'd be happy if Myrvin could find some reliable sources that drew a connection between them (meaning sources that said the figure of Noah is based on Manu, or vice versa) but he hasn't.PiCo (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC) I don't see why people similar to Noah shouldn't appear in Noah. Readers will be interested to read that, in other parts of the world, other "Noahs" appeared in myth. PiCo knows I have never tried to suggest that Manu is based on Noah - although some people might have done - if so, they should be reported. Myrvin (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Talk:Noah discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. DNR volunteer note: Hi, I'm a DRN volunteer, and I am openning discussion. There appear to be only two parties to this dispute, and the filer appropriately notified the second party. Both have stated their positions above, and previously discussed this matter on the article's talk page. I note that although, one participant's talk page indicates retirement from editing Wikipedia, that they (sing.) remain an active participant. I have asked some initial questions below to try and focus the discussion. Please reply under each topic. --Bejnar (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Question 1 My first question to the parties is whether the placement of "Comparative mythologies" as a subsection of "Origins", rather than as a section of its own contributes to this dispute? If so, would separating those two help or hinder (1) the presentation of material in the article and (2) resolution of this dispute? --Bejnar (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by PiCo Thank you for volunteering Bejnar. Yes, it could be useful to separate comparative mythology from origins - I don't think anyone is claiming that the Manu myth contributed to the origin of the Noah story. I'd still have problems, but I'll discuss that below (next question).PiCo (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Myrvin Thank you too. If you read the Talk page now, you will see I have made just that suggestion. It wasn't until late on in the dispute that I realized that PiCo thought that I thought that Manu was the origin of Noah. Myrvin (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Question 2 Is the detail in the of "Comparative mythologies" subsection at an appropriate level? Is it two much or too little or about right? Does the length of the subsection give it undue weight? --Bejnar (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by PiCo Assuming comparative mythology were a section in its own right, this would still seem like way over-weight. There are hundreds of flood myths around the world, why single this one out? Plus, it misses the point of the article: Noah is partly about the flood, but the story is also about several other things: Noah has three sons, which might not seem important but actually is, in terms of the theological symbolism of chapters 1-11 of Genesis (two sets of ten patriarchs, each ending with an ancestor who has three sons, the descendants whom one to be followed exclusively thereafter, leading eventually to King David, who is thus presented as the direct descendant and heir of Adam and therefore with a right to rule all humanity - don't blame me, I didn't write the bible). Also, misses the very important institution of sacrifice and covenant, which is central to the overall Jewish myth of their relationship to God (I'm using myth in the academic sense, as an explanatory story in a supernatural framework). Also misses the important story of Noah's curse on Canaan, which provides the explanation for God's later promise of the land of Canaan (Palestine) to the descendants of Abraham - the Canaanites were wicked people (the Noah story says) and the Israelites were quite right to exterminate them. In other words, too much emphasis on the Flood, not enough on Noah.PiCo (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Myrvin I think Comparative mythologies here are not only interesting to the reader, but also essential to any rounded discussion of Noah. To miss out Deucalion and Manu would be weird. The discussion of these other Noahs will be expected by readers who know about them, and eye-opening to those who do not. Just imagine if Noah missed out D & M, and the articles on Manu and Deucalion missed out Noah - It would be very strange. I think the importance of these two other Noah-types is that their stories are so similar to Noah. They are not just the protagonists of flood myths, their stories are so similar that people new to their legends have thought that they must somehow be linked. Other flood myths do not have the same number of parallels to Noah, that's why M & D are important here. Obviously there are differences as there are between Noah and Utnapishtim, yet the similarities are striking. The difference between us is not in due weight, but the fact that PiCo wants no mention at all of other Noah-types and I do. Myrvin (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Question 3 Is the Greek myth appropriate here? Why or why not? In terms of its retention in the article, how does its relationship to the Noah story differ from the Hindu one? --Bejnar (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by PiCo I'd say the Greek myth isn't relevant - what connection does it have to Noah, apart from both Deucalion and Noah being flood-heroes? As I said above, this belongs in the Flood Myth article, not here. PiCo (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Myrvin I think I have answered this above. Furthermore, writers on Noah do mention Deucalion. See the article reference [3]. It says Philo identified D with N, and so did others. PiCo may think that such mentions by older thinkers are not relevant, but I do. Even modern writers on Deucalion mention Noah.[4] Myrvin (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Preliminary holding #1 Because a large number of the non-exegesis sources on Noah mention the Greek myth, it seems appropriate to include a paragraph on it in this Noah article, even though the relation may be tenuous (boat/bird/olive branch/vineyard). Please comment on this holding, and whether it is acceptable to you, and if not specifically in terms of Wikipedia guidelines and policies why not. --Bejnar (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Myrvin I agree. Myrvin (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Preliminary holding #2 Similarly, given the citations to reliable sources provided by Myrvin in the existing text and on the talk page it seems appropriate to include a paragraph on the Manu myth as well. Please comment on this holding, and whether it is acceptable to you, and if not specifically in terms of Wikipedia guidelines and policies why not. --Bejnar (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Myrvin I agree. Myrvin (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Preliminary holding #3 Discussion of the Greek and Hindu myth should not be under "Origins", but in a separate section. Please comment on this holding, and whether it is acceptable to you, and if not specifically in terms of Wikipedia guidelines and policies why not. --Bejnar (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Myrvin I agree. Myrvin (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Preliminary holding #4 The existing paragraph on the Greek myth seems to be sufficient and not excessive. Please comment on this holding, and whether it is acceptable to you, and if not specifically in terms of Wikipedia guidelines and policies why not. --Bejnar (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Myrvin I agree. Myrvin (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Preliminary holding #5 The existing paragraph on the Hindu myth could be substantially improved after mentioning the myth, by, say, starting with Shulman and then summarizing the pros and cons, leaving the named authorities in the citations. Please comment on this holding, and whether it is acceptable to you, and if not specifically in terms of Wikipedia guidelines and policies why not. --Bejnar (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Myrvin I'm not quite sure what this would look like, but I'll give it a go. I assume they will be in a section called Comparative mythology as per my suggestion. Myrvin (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Question #4 What should be done with the text currently under the subsubsection "Comparative mythology: Mesopotamian"? --Bejnar (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Myrvin I think this should mostly stay under origins. Maybe later Mesopotamian text should go in Comparative mythology. Myrvin (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC) General comment by PiCo: All in all I'm afraid I can't agree with the above proposals. But there might be a way forward, if Myrvin would care to put in the time (maybe quite a lot of time) and do a general revision of the entire article. I find the structure of the article as it stands quite strange - it treats Noah as a person, instead of as a literary character. The first section is called Biblical Account, and is a summary of the passage in Genesis where Noah is found. That's ok, but Genesis isn't the only book that mentions Noah. (Book of the Hebrew Bible, I mean - leave the New testament out of it). The problem with this is that it gives the impression that Genesis is where Noah exists, when in fact the other mention is older and is the source of his name (the writer of the other book barely mentions Noah, but the context is extremely significant - I'l leave it to you to find out which book it is :). The next section is called Other Accounts, as if they have equal authority with Genesis, but they don't - they're based on Genesis and are theologically motivated re-writes, as, for thatr matter, is the Koran's version. It should be retitled and re-written. "Pseudepigraphia" is a completely wrong title, by the way - they're late Jewish midrash. Next comes "Origins", which deals with comparative mythology. It should deal with, well, origins. Genesis was written in the 5th century BC by sectarian Jewish priests (not my theory, it's the general position of scholarship today), an there's a good chance that chapters 1-11 were tacked on even later, in the 3rd or 2nd century (would explain the reference to "tents of Japheth", Japheth being the Greek Titan Iapetos, the supposed ancestor of the Greeks and Persians - a mythological link there for you). Discussion of Greeks and Hindus is way off-topic - this is a Jewish theological pseudo-history, not really myth at all, though it uses Babylonian myth as its raw material. (It does that because the Babylonians were thought to be the guardians of the world's most ancient traditions - in a sense they were). Then three sections that should be included in the general overview (Noah's drunkeness, curse of Ham (same thing really), narrative analysis), followed by Table of Nations which shouldn't be there at all (doesn't really have anything to do with Noah). Then Religious Views, which should be Later Reception History. If Myrvin would like to do this, I'll help out with good sources. But I honestly can't see any room for all this material on Greeks and Hindus - it's relevant to other articles, but not this one. PiCo (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Myrvin Most of the above by PiCo is about improving the article, not the point in question. This is turning into a GA review - not the dispute at all. We are all in agreement about the Origins/Comp Mythology problem. But we still differ on whether Manu and Deucalion should be mentioned, and (I suppose) whether there should be any Comp Mythology at all. I feel there is a strong non-NPOV underlying PiCo's comments, which would exclude other thinker's views. There will be one section on Comp Myth with a paragraph or two on each character - no big deal I would have thought. Thank you for your time Bejnar. Myrvin (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Response by PiCo I can understand you not wanting to get into a GA with this - neither do I. If you want to restrict it to Greek and Hindu paralells, I suggest create a new section (not subsection) on comparative mythology and see what you can do with it. But "origins" should be about origins, not parallels. PiCo (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC) I think we are in agreement then. A new section on comparative mythology (as I and Bejnar suggest), with Deucalion and Manu. The Mesopotamian text to stay in the section Origins. Myrvin (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC) I've had a first attempt at this. Myrvin (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2015 (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.

john maynard keynes

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 174.3.213.121 on 22:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute John Maynard Keynes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Doprendek (talk · contribs) Dispute overview this user has continually tried to revert my removal of keynes' categorization as a probability theorist. i do not agree with his claim that keynes is a probability theorist, and have asked him to provide a basis for his re-addition. he gave an extremely poor answer that involved something like: "Keynes published a treatise of probability" and then made the unsourced claim that this work was reviewed by Bertrand Russell. undoubtedly while bertrand russell may be revered in some philosophical circles, he is, at best, a mediocre mathematician and logician. it is like saying an entomologist reviewed a paper on complex analysis involving the banach-tarski paradox favourably. i am growing tired of people with backgrounds in economics and "mathematical finance" making edits that are without basis. may people spend their lives trying to understand probability theory. the substantial breadth of the field is taxing on even the most capable analysts. it is an insult when individuals such as doprendek take a few courses on "economics" (which is not a science) and try to retrospectively change history. keynes is not a mathematician, scientist or probability theorist. legitimate probability theorists such as jakob bernoulli, laplace, kolmogorov, caratheodory show just how demanding the field is. to put keynes in this category is an absolute insult to the area. i demand something be done about this immediately, as i've warned the editor many times. Have you tried to resolve this previously? i have told the editor to either justify his re-addition by providing citations from keynes' work which show adherence to ANY axiomatic system that involves probability theory. he likely is aware that he wouldn't be able to find such claims, as i suspect the entire "treatise" is word salad. How do you think we can help? here are my credentials: arxiv.org/abs/1407.8392 http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~gagans. while i admit i am always learning, i have to be forthright and say i consider myself an expert in the area of probability theory; that being the case, i also feel there is so much i do not know in the field and that i am always learning. i feel it is an insult to those who are legitimate probability theorists to have keynes in this category. he must be removed, any real probability theorist would agree Summary of dispute by Doprendek Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I *have* responded to this person, on the article's Talk page. My substantive points were ignored (with the possible exception of the complainant, by way of argument, dismissing the co-author of the Principia Mathematica as a non-mathematician) and I was instead met with personal attacks ("i'm actually quite accomplished and smarter than you... it is not easy being a probability theorist, you degenerate... get it through your damn head..."), in between straw-man attacks on "economists" and much ALL CAPS RANTING: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Maynard_Keynes At that point, I see no reason why I should or must respond further. Here is more of the kind of thing I am supposed to respond to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Maynard_Keynes&action=history "one more time and i'm calling a mod you degenerate. stop defending loser economists who didn't take proper math classes. they deserve what's coming." Maybe Wikipedia moderators consider having a long-time editor called a "degenerate" and then be given a threat of some form of retaliation beyond the bounds of Wikipedia ("they [economists--and the complainant lumps me in with "economists"] deserve what's coming") is some kind of minor thing, or a joke, or (worse yet) a normal occurrence. If so, I am appalled that Wikipedia thinks it proper that one person must respond calmly and logically to someone else who blithely writes threats and abuse in response to what should be an (I would think) largely non-controversial categorization issue. By treating the target and instigator of abusive behavior as somehow equal, Wikipedia is encouraging the abusive behavior. By treating this as a "content dispute" rather than the naked, obvious bullying it is (at best bullying--I read it as a threat) is shameful. A final note: After I asked for help (never given there) on the Talk page about filing a complaint, the complainant here answered instead, implying that he is in discussions with unnamed others at Wikipedia who will be targeting *me* ("there's a reason no one is saying anything. and they are watching, believe me..."). To this I can only freely admit that I am not a Wikipedia insider. Added later: I see the complainant calls my reference to Russell's review of "A Treatise on Probability" unsourced. I guess, even though I apparently must summarize Keynes's dense book for him to his satisfaction, he on the other hand cannot be expected to conduct a simple search on Wikipedia, or simply follow the "Treatise on Probability" link in the Keynes article itself. Instead he can just throw out any accusation, and I must take time and effort to respond. (Can no one else see that there are serious problems with this "dispute resolution process"?) Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. john maynard keynes 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:Ashanti Empire

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Robert Baccah on 22:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Ashanti Empire (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Robert Baccah (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The information provided is not supported by any Historical evidence be it oral or written. I asked for sources (citation) to support the claim and someone simply removed my request giving no explanation to my reasonable request for evidence to collaborate the claims made Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have put {{dubious}} {{citation}} and asked for citation even though someone removed same request made earlier by me How do you think we can help? I am asking the Moderators not to allow my request for evidence to be removed until proper evidence is provided to back up the claim Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Ashanti Empire 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:Peter Swirski#Inflated_claims_of_UMSL_connections_and_possible_COI

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Quartermaster on 14:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Peter Swirski#Inflated claims of UMSL connections and possible COI (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Quartermaster (talk · contribs) Staszek Lem (talk · contribs) Seriabrunei (talk · contribs) Aitwl (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The subject of the article in question (Peter Swirski) lists in the "Life and career" section that he is a ". . . former Teaching Professor of American literature and culture at the Department of English, University of Missouri—St.Louis." I was contacted by the UMSL English Department who stated that there is no record that the individual ever held the title "Teaching Professor," that there is no "American literature and culture" class or department at the University, and that all extant public records (one of which is easily inspectable online - The Missouri Blue Book) show that no such individual ever worked for any branch of the University or the Department nor taught any classes. The references used to support this contention consist of a link to web.archive.org (the original page having been removed) with the same claim echoed on a thumbnail biography at a BBC web site. There is also an online faculty directory entry that points to an office and phone number where the individual is not based (it is an erroneous entry). Though the subject appears to warrant a biography entry on wikipedia, this specific claim appears to be editorially inaccurate. Editor Staszek Lem continues to claim that this is insufficient to contest and remove the claim. In the interim, after an initial removal, the claim has been left as is while being discussed on the Talk page of the Peter Swirski article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? This is the first step beyond attempting civil discussion of this specific edit on the talk page. How do you think we can help? I am hoping that a disinterested third party can weigh in on the discussion allowing us to focus on the specific editorial issue. Summary of dispute by Staszek Lem I agree with the summary by Quartermaster. My point is that wikipedia cannot operate by word-of-mouth. I can believe that somebody contacted Quartermaster. But there is no way to find truth: in may be a hoaxer or a misinformed/sloppy/confused UMSL staff member or there is a grudge between UMSL and Swirski so that UMSL wants to erase Swirski from their records or whats not. A more detailed, itemized statement of my position is in Talk:Peter Swirski. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC) P.S. I added Aitwl to this dispute, since xe edited the article extensively and claims xe can contact Swirski. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Seriabrunei Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Aitwl Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Peter Swirski#Inflated_claims_of_UMSL_connections_and_possible_COI 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'm a regular volunteer here. I believe that there is a clear policy-based resolution to this case. Under WP:BLPPRIMARY, the archived pages are a primary source which should not, in light of the contradictory evidence, be used to support this claim about Swirski without a confirmatory secondary source. The BBC biography will not serve as such a secondary source because it is not likely to be part of the type of editorial material subject to the BBC's fact-checking and is not, therefore, a reliable source and especially not the kind of high quality secondary source needed for BLP information: BLPREMOVE says, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced." That this material is contentious cannot be gainsaid in light of this dispute and a cached and questionable primary source of dubious origins is clearly a poor source. For this material to be included, a fully-reliable secondary source needs to be found which discusses Swirski credentials as a subject of the text and which mentions this USML affiliation. At that point in time a new discussion can then be had about adding material in the text about the USML records which do not reflect Swirski's presence as an employee, but that issue should wait until the material can be in the article in the first place, which I do not feel that it can be under the present circumstances. As an aside, let me also note that while it may or may not be edifying to contact Swirsky, no information obtained in that fashion can be directly used as a source to do or not do anything in the text of the encyclopedia; it may lead to a reliable source to do one thing or another, but is incapable of being used by itself since it is not published and is not, therefore, reliable. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 14 January 2015 (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.

European-American Unity and Rights Organization

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Frysay on 07:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute European-American Unity and Rights Organization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Frysay (talk · contribs) EvergreenFir (talk · contribs) NeilN (talk · contribs) DougWeller (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Let's call it a "POV war". (without admission.) This is an article about a controversial organization that recently became publicized due to the Stephen Scalise EURO issue. I just found this article a few days ago, and discovered that (in my opinion) it contained a lot of long-preserved POV. Attempting to remove it, I further discovered that there was the usual band of POV-protectors. DougWeller has violated the 3-revert rule; when he (apparently) felt uncomfortable continuing to revert, EvergreenFir 'rescued' him and did yet another revert. Incidently, in the comment on the Edit History section, EvergreenFir lied and claimed that I was failing to use the Talk page to attempt to discuss edits. The reality, as I know you will discover, is that 90%+ of the lines written on the Talk page were _MINE_. It was the others. (DougWeller, EvergreenFir, and NeilN) who were failing to discuss the edits and proposed edits. I would have been happy to discuss even more on the Talk page, but rarely did anyone respond to what I said, and yet fewer responded substantively to my comments. The reality is, WP:European-American Unity and Rights Organization is utterly steeped in POV, and those who have been inhabiting it are quite happy with that. I believe they seriously misapplied various 'rules', such WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. When I challenged them on their citations of these rules, they failed and refused to explain what they meant about them. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I was discussing heavily on Talk page. (I mean, _I_ wrote heavily on the Talk page: Others wrote quite little, if at all. Generally, they repeatedly reverted without explaining.) At least one editor, EvergreenFir, _LIED_ and claimed in the comment on a revert (today) that I had failed to employ the Talk page. Even a brief inspection will show that I have been, by far, the heaviest user of the Talk page. How do you think we can help? Read the material; decide that those other editors were variously misbehaving. Apply the appropriate sanctions. Summary of dispute by EvergreenFir Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by NeilN Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by DougWeller Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This isn't suitable for DRN - I note that I actually reverted only twice (one where I also changed 'is white nationalist' to "described as", while Frysay reverted 4 times in the last 24 hours, his warning coming after his last revert. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC) European-American Unity and Rights Organization 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:Neo-feudalism#Anarcho-capitalism

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Nuclearsnke on 12:42, 16 January 2015 (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? No, but I have tried to and may still submit a request according to the form. Location of dispute Talk:Neo-feudalism#Anarcho-capitalism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Nuclearsnke (talk · contribs) 82.39.87.101 (talk · contribs) KaiserEricSJ (talk · contribs) 174.109.139.137 (talk · contribs) 168.29.16.40 (talk · contribs) 71.178.41.198 (talk · contribs) 108.34.247.77 (talk · contribs) Lysander91 (talk · contribs) 2605:a000:160a:c016:b4ca:f72b:8aec:2b85 (talk · contribs) 67.80.19.100 (talk · contribs) 80.0.78.24 (talk · contribs) 178.4.107.93 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Neo-feudalism article was linked to the anarcho-capitalism subreddit on the 11 January 2015‎. Some members of the subreddit found the unsourced claim that anarcho-capitalism is a neo-reactionary idea (implied in the sentence "It is related to neo-reactionary ideas like anarcho-capitalism.") and decided to remove it. Other editors reverted the deletion claiming that it was vandalism but the controversial sentence was removed again. This has continued back and forth since then and the editors refuse to discuss the issue on the talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I started a discussion on the talk page that no one wanted to participate in and submitted a request for a third opinion that was declined because there was no discussion on the talk page except for my comment. How do you think we can help? The other editors may be more willing to discuss this with you which might lead to a compromise. You may otherwise be able to advice on where to take this next. Summary of dispute by 82.39.87.101 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by KaiserEricSJ Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 174.109.139.137 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 168.29.16.40 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 71.178.41.198 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 108.34.247.77 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Lysander91 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 2605:a000:160a:c016:b4ca:f72b:8aec:2b85 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 67.80.19.100 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 80.0.78.24 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 178.4.107.93 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Neo-feudalism#Anarcho-capitalism 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:WikiProject Astronomy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Arianewiki1 on 13:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs) Tetra quark (talk · contribs) Primefac (talk · contribs) JorisvS (talk · contribs) Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs) StringTheory11 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Under the Section "Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?", Tetra quark has implemented AWB to modify words like 'universe', 'earth', 'sun', 'moon', 'solar system' across all astronomy (and some other related) pages (now +500 articles), without allowing any adequate time to gain consensus and in violation of AWB. I.e. Less than 16 hours. Tetra quark has claimed "No, AWB is good at that. I basically have to find the term "the universe", check the context and replace with "the Universe". Or I can also simply find "universe" and check the context to see if it should be capitalized." However, from the large edits changed, he has no time to have done this, meaning this statement is seemingly deliberately false. Primefac "Thus, AWB would be a very bad way to handle this issue, even advised as it has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis", yet Tetra quark, had implemented the changes three hours before this. From the discussions, Tetra quark has clearly avoided advice given to him regarding getting consensus. Have you tried to resolve this previously? This problem cannot be easily solved as a dispute, because the changes have significant implications for editing by Users. How do you think we can help? Remove privileges to use AWB for such severe edits in the future. Summary of dispute by Tetra quark Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Primefac Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. From discussions with Tetra quark, I know they have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. While being BOLD is encouraged, Tetra seems to take this to a new level. They do attempt to gain a consensus in most cases, but this latest edit attempt pushes the bold boundary. From the AWB request logs ([5]) it appears they did not have a valid reason for gaining access to AWB other than "it makes editing easier," and badgered the admins until the edit count was reached and access gained. I concur with Arianewiki1's proposal to remove Tetra from the AWB user list until such time that Tetra can demonstrate restraint and better judgement. Summary of dispute by JorisvS Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Maybe Tetra quark should have allowed more discussion time, but I understand why he went ahead: everyone who came there basically said the same thing about it. Moreover, what everyone basically said is capitalization along the lines of capitalization of similar words like "Sun" or "Moon". I take this to be a very unambiguous sign that there is a clear consensus to capitalize "Earth", "Moon", "Solar System", and "Sun". Tetra quark's edits regarding this are appropriate. I suspect that it would have been sufficient to ask him to wait longer to give more people time to chime in, instead of the rather harsh response from Arianewiki1. --JorisvS (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Peter Gulutzan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I believe that this should have been proposed as an update for MOS:CELESTIALBODIES rather than a project talk page. Currently that guideline is not clear except for earth/sun/moon/solar system, and neither is the International Astronomical Union (IAU) document "Naming Astronomical Objects". But the NASA style guide says "Do not capitalize solar system and universe" and I believe that, if no other authoritative source is found, NASA should rule. Tetra quark changed sun to Sun inside a direct quote, which another editor has reverted, but that's what made me worried that Tetra quark is not being super careful with this AWB super power. So I have an opinion that the edits regarding solar system and universe are incorrect and improperly authorized, but don't have an opinion about the appropriate remedy. Update: I made a mistake earlier about "solar system" and have edited my remarks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by StringTheory11 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. For the sake of brevity, Tetra quark will be referred to as "TQ", Arianewiki1 as "AW", and Primefac as "PF" I've added myself as a party here, as I was the one who originally proposed when the word "universe" should be capitalized, and what seems to be what TQ is acting on. However, despite the fact that I generally agree with the changes TQ has been making, I agree that half a day is nowhere near long enough for consensus on an issue to be reached, and that he seems to be avoiding accountability on the issue. Unfortunately, I thus agree with AW and PF that TQ has not used AWB how it was intended to be used, and thus would support a stern warning to TQ to wait at least a week after a discussion has been started before using AWB to make mass changes such as this. I don't think a full revoking is necessary at this point, as I believe that if he is warned by an uninvolved admin, he will take it to heart, as he clearly has WP's best interests in mind when editing. I would also be interested in seeing TQ's response here, now that multiple editors have expressed reservations about his AWB editing. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by John Carter There is a question regarding the capitalization of some words when they are used as proper names. "Earth" as the name of the planet, for instance, is reasonably qualified when used in that sense. "The earth" however is not so clearly a phrase using the word as a proper name, and thus on that basis generally isn't capitalized. I am myself unaware of any cases where the word "universe" is treated as a proper name, and on that basis I would have very serious questions about us possibly engaging in WP:OR and treating it as one. "Solar system" might also, reasonably, be capitalized when it is specifically referring to the solar system in which the planet Earth lies, because "Sol" is one of the names of the sun and on that basis the word "Solar" is basically and adjectival variation on the proper name Sol. I have never however seen much evidence to indicate that the words sun and moon are generally used as proper names, and on that basis can see no good reason for capitalizing them as if they were such. I don't see any real basis for thinking that individuals on this page have the ability to remove AWB access, so think that this request might well be misfiled. Such concerns would probably better be raised at maybe WP:ANI where there are individuals who might have the capacity to do so. John Carter (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Reyk First of all, on the subject of the actual dispute, TetraQuark is more right than wrong. "Universe", being the proper name of the cosmos we inhabit, should generally be capitalised. Similarly our Earth, Moon, Sun, and Galaxy should be capitalised, these being proper names as well. Our articles Sun and Moon have used the capitalised names for some time. TQ is correct on this, and the consensus emerging on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy is leaning in favour of that. I do agree that TQ has jumped the gun and should not have closed an ongoing discussion in TQ's own favour, and should definitely not be removing other peoples' posts. However, I think Arianewiki's behaviour has not been all that great. AW is belligerent, makes undeserved personal commentary, and rejects any kind of conciliatory gesture. There is no need for the discussion to be escalated to this noticeboard, and we would not be here if not for AW's hostile, litigious attitude. Reyk YO! 19:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Graeme Bartlett I am the admin that granted the AWB access to Tetra Quark. I have been checking how AWB was used and had to issue one warning on another non-connected inappropriate use.[6] TQ responded to stop the wrong tagging. However in the case under discussion here I have not seen problematic use of AWB. What I do see is Arianewiki1 being the one who has a dissenting point of view and then escalating the argument, and Tetra Quark being impatient and closing the discussion early. The discussion is now reopened, as it should be as discussion was still active. (even if it was turning into criticisms by Arianewiki1 and responses by Tetra Quark). To resolve this dispute Arianewiki1 should step back, let others discuss the topic at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Astronomy, and then get a formal close by an uninvolved editor. I do not think a formal RFC is required, as the consensus seems to be clear that the capital letters should be used where appropriate. AWB edits are supposed to be manually checked, so it should not automatically go haywire and change all "universe"s to "Universe". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC) I can remove AWB if necessary. But the way this board is used does not lend itself to an administrative outcome, and the actual dispute in this case is not really whether AWB access by TQ is appropriate, but whether the actual changes are appropriate. The project talk page is the place for that, not here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SuperHamster I have not been involved with the WP:Astronomy discussion, but I have been following. Keeping it brief, the situation involved TQ asking about capitalization conventions of astronomy-related terms. A few editors commented, but the discussion was short and lasted for less than a day before TQ decided consensus and began to use AWB to semi-automatically change the capitalization of terms over hundreds of articles. I am not sure about whether or not TQ's determined grammar convention is right; regardless of that, I would say a firm consensus wasn't established, and a better venue for such a discussion would have been at WP:MOS. Referring back to the original point of removing TQ's AWB permission: What I would like to make note of is that, over the last week, TQ has shown to, at least a couple times, to jump the gun and do many incorrect AWB edits across articles. These issues have been brought up on TQ's talk page previously, with warnings about being cautious when using the tool: Removing dead link references. Mis-tagging articles as stubs When TQ requested AWB, he barely reached the minimum of 500 article edits and wasn't exactly sure what he wanted to do with the tool. I think this is simply a case of premature AWB use. As a result, I'd support removing the AWB permission - however, I agree with John Carter that ANI would be the better venue to discuss tool removal. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Talk:WikiProject Astronomy discussion User Tetra quark has now placed an archievetop on section "Capitalize the "U" in "universe" or not?", to seemingly openly avoid scrutiny of his AWB changes in which there has been no agreed consensus. Furthermore, the User is falsely claiming "This is turning into personal attacks." to somehow justify the deletion. He has accused me "It is just you against lots of people." and "Please respect the closed discussion tags. Also, you're making personal attacks. It is only you against lots of people who are ok with the changes." It makes it near impossible for anyone to reasonably resolve this issue. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Comment from John In light of the above, and following TQ's continuing to mass-edit using AWB without waiting for these discussions to resolve, I have removed TQ's AWB access meantime. I would not recommend restoring it unless these is convincing evidence that it will be a net benefit. At the moment I do not think that it is. --John (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Johnnydowns#January_2015

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Johnnydowns on 18:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Johnnydowns#January 2015 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Johnnydowns (talk · contribs) Cirt (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Cirt is accusing me of meat puppetry and reverting my edits because he suspects meat puppetry. He has opened a dispute, but no decision has been made regarding it and he has no evidence. Also, as I read the meat puppetry guidelines, they don't seem to apply to individual edits on single articles in the manner he suggests. After removing my edits for meat puppetry, he fell back on using other general guidelines to remove them (which I do not think fit) and started to threaten me with banning for vandalism. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've reached out to Cirt on his talk page and explained my position on editing and my good faith attempts to edit. He ignored my questions on editing and responded with an irrelevant comment about another user's retirement from Wikipedia. How do you think we can help? I think an outside opinion on my edits and on Cirt's accusations from an unbiased third party will help resolve the dispute. Summary of dispute by Cirt Redundant to Meatpuppetry issue at ANI as duplicate entry Already being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry_case_going_after_Featured_Article_writer_Neelix. This page here is redundant as a duplicate entry, please instead discuss at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry_case_going_after_Featured_Article_writer_Neelix. Unfortunately ongoing WP:Meatpuppetry has resulted in driving Featured Article writer, editor Neelix, off this website Wikipedia. Wikipedia suffers a great loss of a Featured Article writer, that this WP:Meatpuppetry was allowed to stand and drive Neelix off this website. — Cirt (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Cirt -- I don't care to be involved at this particular article I don't care to be involved further at this particular article Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant. I just saw that Neelix had been driven off Wikipedia by WP:Meatpuppetry and thought that should not be allowed to stand. As for the edits themselves, it does seem to be in direct violation of WP:LEAD, namely reducing the lede to a mere few lines from the prior version almost amounts to section-blanking. I won't be involved at that article page further. — Cirt (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Johnnydowns is likely a Meatpuppetry account involved in harassment of Neelix Johnnydowns (talk · contribs) did not edit Wikipedia for three (3) years DIFF DIFF Among first edits back in three (3) years is to create one-line-long-userpage DIFF. First edit back in three (3) years is about "vegetable lasagna" at article Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant DIFF. Compare that edit to blocked account Vegetablelasagna1. Johnnydowns (talk · contribs) has also commented at two (2) AFDs related to Neelix DIFF, DIFF. — Cirt (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC) User talk:Johnnydowns#January_2015 discussion Update: Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant page = full-protected by admin Panyd. This at the very least temporarily resolves the issue, until we can further investigate the ongoing WP:Meatpuppetry that drove Neelix of this website. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Update: Admin HJ Mitchell blocked account Johnnydowns (talk · contribs) indef. — Cirt (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Update Please see unblock by Jehochman with comment and advisement. Additionally, please note I've stated my intention to follow the recommendation from Jehochman, and step away from all this myself, as well. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Dan56#The_Weeknd

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by DA1 on 09:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Dan56#The Weeknd (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DA1 (talk · contribs) Dan56 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Request mediation on a dispute regarding album certification on the articles The Weeknd and Trilogy (The Weeknd album). 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trilogy_(The_Weeknd_album)&action=history 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Weeknd&action=history Basically, the Weeknd's album is certified Platinum by the RIAA. The point of contention by the disputing user is my edit noting that the RIAA counts each individual disc on multi-disc albums, over 100 minutes long, as an individual unit towards the certification. Meaning a single-disc album requires 1 million sales (to get Platinum), a 3-disc album requires 333,333 sales because each disc is being counted as a unit qualifying for certification (1 million total from the 3 discs). My edit was reverted, and asked for a source. I promptly added a source to the RIAA website itself. My edit was reverted again, and a claim of O.R. was made. I proceeded to leave a comment on the user's Talk Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dan56#The_Weeknd). I received no appropriate responses on my Talk Page in return. Instead, my 2nd edit with the additional source + clarification was removed again, and another claim of O.R. was left on my Talk Page without addressing my offer for dispute resolution through an officiating third party. The RIAA source I first cited is follows: (http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinum.php?content_selector=criteria) - Multi-Disc Set: -- Quantity for certification: One million units. Package must include two or more CDs. -- Requirements: Each unit within set counts as one unit toward certification. My second citation added was the following article: http://noisey.vice.com/en_uk/blog/here-are-some-more-newrules-the-riaa-is-probably-going-to-come-up-with This is not an O.R., although there are few articles online (outside of message board) referring to the case with The Weeknd. There are plenty of articles and discussions online when it comes to the multi-disc certification topic in general, and how several well-known artists' multi-disc albums have been certified this way. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I left a comment on the user's Talk Page for mediation, but received no appropriate responses on my Talk Page in return. Instead, my 2nd edit with the additional source + clarification was reverted again, and another claim of O.R. was left on my Talk Page without addressing my offer for dispute resolution through an officiating third party. How do you think we can help? Any educated and neutral party who can vouch for one side or the other's assertion, regarding the topic of album certification, and/or whether my citations are qualified or count as O.R. Summary of dispute by Dan56 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I responded to their first message to my talk page in the same manner they had responded to me--with an edit summary reverting their edit. I didn't reply immediately to their second message to my talk page because I was too busy drafting and opening up this section of the article's talk page, which they should have done in the first place (WP:DR). There was clearly a lack of patience, and this dispute is being overstated. An RfC has been opened by me at the talk page of the article in question while this discussion was opened. Dan56 (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC) User talk:Dan56#The_Weeknd discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. In response to the above summary - no, I don't think I displayed impatience per se, or that my attempt at opening this dispute is an overstatement. Rather, I read clearly on the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests/DRN) while thinking about how to resolve the issue through meditation that "It is both a place where small content disputes can be resolved, and a gateway to other processes in the dispute resolution hierarchy. It is intended as a first stop for all disputes on Wikipedia, so if you are not sure what to do with your dispute, please post it here." Opening this dispute on short notice did not seem inappropriate at all given the criteria. DA1 (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2015 (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.

Mexicans of_European_descent

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Alon12 on 15:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Mexicans of European descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Primary discussion: User talk:Alon12#About our discussion Users involved Alon12 (talk · contribs) Aergas (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The user 'aergas', is providing a misinterpretation of a source through which to claim his original research. According to his source, it describes the 'mestizo' identity in mexico, in which various members of different races were assimilated. However, this source also cites the 1808 Mexican census under which the casta was implemented as part of Spanish Colonial rule. Under the Casta, 7/8ths europeans were considered 'criollos' or 'white mexicans'/'mexicans of european descent'. Aergas claims that 7/8ths europeans ceased to be considered criollos after Spanish rule ceased, when there is no evidence to suggest that as per his link, in which he has engaged in an edit war over. He has an agenda of claiming 'white mexicans' as 'full-europeans', despite the complex history of the region, it should be that 'white mexicans' or 'mexicans of european descent' are rather of 'predominant' european descent. Furthermore, as there is no modern census in mexico, there is no strict definition of 'white', unlike what 'Aergas' claims in his original research. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I created a section on the talk page, and we have since, in addition, engaged in a heavy conversation on my personal talk page too. He does not understand how to read even basic abbreviations from a genetic study, which I had to demonstrate to him in a metaphorical hand-holding process as he seems to have difficulties in effectively understanding both academic material and communicating in english. Two different administrators have explicitly since then recommended opening a new ticket here. How do you think we can help? Please provide a moderator to moderate this contentious wiki page, including the enforcement of the 3RR rule. It has been virtually unmoderated, and this user seems to have an agenda for rationalizing the 'purity' this demographic, while providing fallacious input. Allow a third party moderator to vet this issue and close it, instead of having him continue to vandalize the page with misinformation. Summary of dispute by Aergas Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. In my time discussing with the editor Alon12, I've noticed some negative tendencies, among these, that of being impetuous, because have he read with attention the discussion that I was having with EdJohnston (talk · contribs)[7] he would have noticed that the first thing I suggested was to modify the entrance in a way comparable to White American or White Brazilian [8], because that way we would forget about "racial purity issues" (as Alon12 have called them) either way. Alon12 seems to be heavily concerned with White Mexicans and actually White Latin Americans not being "pure" enough for him, here he refers to them as "Diluted Spaniards" [9], and has gone as far as to claim that for him Spaniards themselves are "impure" [10]. I don't understand what's the reason for him to get so upity. When evidency exists about White Americans themselves being admixed with Amerindians and Sub-Saharan Africans [11] [12] [13]. He is looking down on Spaniards for being admixed with other European ethnicies and some bereber (who technically are caucasoid). What do people here think? Aergas (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Mexicans of_European_descent discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Introduction by volunteer moderator I am agreeing to act as the volunteer moderator. Please remember that I don't claim to know anything about the content dispute, and that my job is to get the parties to communicate effectively, and possibly to come to agreement. Here are a few ground rules. I will pose questions and will expect concise civil answers. Complaints about conduct are not permitted. The use of the word "vandalism" or "vandalize" in this section is not permitted, and may be reported to WP:AN. Be concise and civil. The first question is: What change, if any, do each of you want to be made to the article? Also, do either of you want to make a concise civil opening statement? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC) First comments by User:Alon12 You see, the original structure of the article, stated predominant, which was quite fair. This was implemented in the original wiki page, a year ago, before these new edits were made. Such as stating 'predominant' descent instead of full. With regards to the other issue, on the first note, I've shown genetic studies directly comparing Spaniards with 'White Americans', demonstrating that in aggregate, 'white americans' were more homogeneous than spaniards, so in that context, also more than spaniard descendants by default. It would be the pot calling the kettle black with regards to saying xyz-group is more admixed. On a second note, It doesn't make sense to make mention of the admixture of 'white americans' in the first place with regards to its relevance to the article in general (it is not mentioned on the white brazilian article for instance, so why would it be mentioned on the white mexican article?), and in addition, the original article of a year ago made no mention of it either. There is technically no one who is racially non-admixed in modern times, even amongst europeans. However, relatively, spaniards have more admixture than white americans, as seen in studies in which they are directly compared. Alon12 (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC) First comments by User:Aergas Hi Robert, in this dispute I was bidding for the status quo, but lately, I've been open to suggestions to improve the article, now I'm ok with modifying the opening sentence and other parts of the article, similar to what was done in the article of White American or White Brazilian (changing the name to "White Mexican" must be done too). Alon12 was suggesting this kind of modification above, so I don't see why would he oppose, but in the discussion I've had by him he have shown to be fundamentaly contrarian to me on everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aergas (talk • contribs) 06:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Older discussions - Newer discussions are continuing The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Second summary by moderator I think that I am identifying three issues. One is the name of the article. First, most similar articles use the adjective "White" rather than the prepositional phrase "of European origin". This article uses White Mexicans as an alternate name and the name of the photo gallery. Is there agreement that a Requested Move should be initiated to change the primary title? (I don't want to just move it, because other editors are entitled to comment.) Second, is there an issue about admixture, the extent to which so-called whites may have varying amounts of non-European descent? Does this have to do with the fact that Spaniards may have North African ancestors? What if any differences of opinion do the two parties have as to what should be said? Third, what are the two proposed versions of the first sentence of the article? If they are close enough, I am willing to try to propose a version that includes the major points sought by both parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Second response by User:Alon12 I would say if the White Brazilian page can exist with said title, than there is nothing wrong with 'White Mexican'. The issues, however, are more complex than that. The original article on 'white mexicans', or 'mexicans of european descent' before the edits, only mentioned that the qualification was to be of predominant european descent. The added source to claim 'full-european' descent, does not make sense, as it only references the context of the 1808 Spanish Colonial census in which criollo or 'white' was specifically defined as being a person of at least 7/8ths european ancestry. This was the standard classification grouping under the Spanish colonial casta system. The source only mentions that the disparity in the population of self-identified criollos/whites in the 1808 census vs. the 1921 census in the context of the mestizo identity, in which, for instance, natives also assimilated. It does not make the claim that people of 7/8ths european ancestry who previously were classified as white under the census ceased to be so after independence. Rather, the source does not make any such distinctions, hence the requirement should be of 'predominant' rather than full-european descent for the article. The source does not mention any requirement for being 'full-european', but assumes that those non-full europeans from the 1808 census were already considered white without distinction and this original view was never revised to exclude those of 7/8ths European descent, as they were already assumed to be white in the context, being of 'predominant' european descent. With regards to comparisons to 'white americans', the subject of spaniards and southern europeans sustaining heavy genetic admixture from west asia and africa has already been documented in many studies. However, the point of contention, is that, when directly compared, white americans, vs. spaniards, it was found that white americans were more homogeneous and less admixed than even spaniards, therefore it does not make sense to mention a population less admixed as admixed in the same context. Although, to be fair, there is also a relevancy argument here in addition. The White Brazilian page mentions nothing about comparisons to 'White Americans' in any case, so why should the White Mexican page? How is it even relevant? Alon12 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Second response by User:Aergas I support the name change to White Mexican, is something i've wanted to do for months. my proposal for the opening sentence is "White Mexican is a Mexican citizen from European descent or origin" this way we would get rid of the "racial purity" argument either way. The main reason Alon12 wants to change the opening sentence to "predominant" is because "that's how it was long ago" and that's not a real argument. Then is the fact that White Americans or White Brazilians aren't full European either, but predominantly European in most cases, but I don't see the entry sentence saying "White Americans are American citizens of predominantly European descent" or "White Brazilians are Brazilian citizens of predominantly European descent". Issue appart and the worst of all are Alon12's claims about Spaniards being "less pure than White Americans", because more heterogeneous doesn't equal less white, is well known that Spain is a very diverse country, even within the different ethnicies that are European, with some non-European admixture from Berbers, who are caucasoid. But here we have Alon12 claiming that White Americans are "whiter" (thing that study never says) using a study whose sample were White Americans from Utah (a unique case in the United States, because Utah is populated with mormons, who only marry with people who share their religion), when studies exists [14] [15] [16] talking about the Amerindian and African Black admixture of white Americans, who aren't caucasoid, and are races the Spaniards aren't admixed with at all. All on all, is a ridiculous claim to say that Ethnic Europeans living in Europe such as Spaniards are less pure than White Americans in general. And on top of all, to say "you can't include a sentence about European Mexicans because I think that Spaniards aren't white like White Americans" is not a good argument for anything, is not even true. As for the relevancy, it was one of these things that were already there when I started comming here (the context of the paragraph is the racial perception, and the differences that exist on such in USA and Mexico, I think is there because USA has a big Mexican diaspora) and I don't see any real reason to exclude it. Aergas (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Third comment by moderator Comment on content, not contributors. Do not criticize the opinions of other contributors except to suggest changes to the wording of the article It appears that there is disagreement as to what should be said about "admixture", that is, as to what portion a person's ancestry should be European to be categorized as a "white Mexican" or "Mexican of European origin". Any statements about admixture, or required percentage of European ancestry, should be reliably sourced. What does each participant think should be said? If there is disagreement as to what should be said, will the participants agree that the definition of who is a Mexican of European origin can be said to be a matter of disagreement, and can two or more opinions be included with reliable sources? I see that there was a definition under the old Spanish casta system. Was it that seven-eighths white was white, and three-fourths belonged to one of the various mestizo castes? Can that be said, with reliable sources, as history? What if anything should be said about modern thinking? Should the article note that there is disagreement about the required percentage of European ancestry? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Are there any other areas of disagreement that require moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Third response by User:Alon12 If the 'white brazilian' page does not mention any comparisons to 'white americans', why should the 'white mexican' page? Of what relevance is it at all? With regards to comments on north africans, north africans themselves are not a homogeneous group, and are heavily mixed with sub-saharan african ancestry. This goes back in a long historical process. Hence, how iberians and those with greatest interactions with north africans in europe, in general, and who maintain genetic affinities with north africans, also maintain the highest levels of sub-saharan african ancestry in europe, in addition. In aggregate, as a result, spaniards are shown to have higher levels of sub-saharan african ancestry than white americans, not only in the case of utah. Furthermore, west asian and north african ancestry itself is present in far greater levels than amerindian and african ancestry is in the US, hence how spaniards end up less homogenous. Considering that the majority of white americans are of nw european ancestry this should not come as a surprise, vs. southern europeans, who are more admixed in the first place. For instance, spaniards score 2.4% sub-saharan african admixture in aggregate. [17] In comparison, to other us states, us states like north carolina, only score 0.8%. [18] The highest states would be those populated with more historical spanish-american immigrants for instance, such as in the case of louisiana, However, louisana at max, still only scores 1.8%. So, still less than that of Spain. In fact, there is a terminology in louisiana known as creole, which is a derivative of spanish criollo. Spanish-Americans used the term to refer to themselves as whites on the basis of that term, while the majority of americans considered it to be mixed race. As the standard of criollo, in the spanish colonial context, had accepted some degree of admixture, as seen in the casta. [19] For details on the casta, there are many sources on the standards regarding it, and it was in fact demonstrated as part of the law of new spain and latin american, in general, firstly and secondly as the culture of new spain and later mexico into the 19th century as part of the heritage of the region. [20] The standards for what was required to be a criollo in new spain/mexico did not change from the 1808 census to the 1921 census, and in fact, no sources suggest that it ever did, rather they only refer to the discrepancy in criollo populations by counting in all the counted ethnic members including those of 7/8ths european ancestry, so there is no difference. The populations counted on the census in mexico were never assumed to be of full european ancestry, and in fact it was never officially required for them to be of full-european ancestry as per law. In fact it was never even contented as an issue. There are no sources, academic, or official or otherwise contending this issue of the standard requirement to be criollo, if someone wants to make a claim that it was contended than proof must be provided, but such proof does not exist, because it not a contentious issue, it is rather a historical fact. Alon12 (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Third response by User:Aergas Before continuing with my response, I would like to point that in the studies that Alon12 brought the mean Sub-Saharan African ancestry of Spain is 1.1 using structure analysis [21] (structure analysis is more exahustive and extense) and the mean Sub-Saharan African ancestry in Souh Carolina is 1.8, not 0.8 [22], so well, not even in the sources that Alon12 presented his claim can be sustained, since Spaniards aren't more "impure". Now my response: the main problem is that there is no modern census about race in Mexico, and the census in the colonial era, and the independent era weren't what one could call precise and aren't up to date. And today we can't know exactly how many Mexicans with certain amount of admixture exist, because there has never been a study done only in "Mexicans that consider themselves white" or a census, we know that the percentage varies by region. All the figures, the ones from the CIA world factbook, Encyclopaedia Britannica etc. are based on speculation. I see that in the article and in this discussion, Alon12 cares much about the 7/8 of Spanish ancestry and wants to mention it at any chance, he is too, concerned about the racial purity of Spaniards, but in the figure [23] from this study [24] we see that Hispanics and White Americans tend to overlap, and that there are Non-Hispanic White Americans that are only 70%-60% white, yet I don't see him in the White American article wanting to write down that people that are 60% white are White Americans too but the opposite, we see him claiming repeatedly that White Americans are more European than ethnic Europeans livng in Europe such as Spaniards, there are zones of Mexico (basically half of the country) that have mean European ancestries higher than that, reaching 78% of European ancestry in average [25], and if we were to use a treshold based on precentage of ancestry (let's take as example the percentage seen on some White Americans: 70%-60% white). the percentage of white Mexicans would be much higher than 10%, the number would likely surpass half of the population. That's why it's important to mention that White Mexicans aren't "less white" or "just diluted Spaniards" when compared to white people in other countries in the Americas, because for example, both of our references here: White Brazilians and White Americans have some non European ancestry too. That there is a number based just on incorrect speculations in the main infobox claiming that European Mexicans are only 10% of the population (how can it be possible that only 10% of Mexicans are white but 52% of Mexican Americans are white, when both have similar percentages of European ancestry in the genetic studies done on them?) makes more important to include this kind of claim. If something is made about these inconsistences then it wouldn't be so necessary. Aergas (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Fourth summary of situation by moderator First, the purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. We need to focus on what should be in the article, not on race in Mexico in general or any other questions not related to the article. Second, what exactly do each of the parties to this dispute want either removed from the article, added to the article, or changed in the article? Third, although I am only an outside moderator, I have a few suggestions. First, phrases such as "purity" or "less pure" or "less white" or "diluted Spaniards" should be kept out of the article unless they are in quotes. Second, consistency with other articles such as White Americans and White Brazilians is probably not important. Those countries have different heritages and different approaches to race. Third, I see that there are internal inconsistencies as to admixture and percentage of so-called white population. The two approaches that occur to me are to identify those inconsistencies in the article without trying to resolve them, or to leave out data that is not reliably sourced. To try to reconcile inconsistencies, except by quoting sources that explain them, would be original research. Fourth, one of the parties has identified inconsistencies in the naming of comparable articles as to persons of European descent in other American countries. I would suggest that proposed moves are in order for any of them to use the common term "white", since the words "white" in English and "blanco" in Spanish do often refer to European origin. However, that is really outside the scope of this mediation. Again, what do each of the parties what removed from the article, added to the article, or changed in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Fourth comment by User:Alon12 The original wording on this article was quite apt. It mentioned predominant rather than 'full-european' descent. Given the flexibility in the Spanish casta or classification of whiteness in latin america, which allowed those of 7/8ths european ancestry, it would make sense to revert it this original wording of predominant, as the sourcing which was later introduced to suggest 'full-european' does not remotely suggest that being of full-european descent as a requirement at all. Rather, it groups in full and non-full europeans who were classified equally as criollo under the 1808 census, and mentions the disparity between this estimated population and the 1921 population. So, there are fundamentally no distinctions in the context of 'white mexican' and criollo between being of 7/8ths european ancestry, as it always was assumed that to qualify under the system was to be sufficient to be classified as white. This was never debated, and no source available even suggests that such a debate even exists. The fact that even modern academic literature regarding race in latin america, continues to make mention of criollo, suggests that no such distinctions ever existed in reality. It is on the onus of the person suggesting that one must be of full-european descent to prove it per a source, yet no such source exists. Anything else is clearly original research and unsubstantiated, thus should be removed. On the subject of genetics, firstly, this page makes no mention of 'south carolina'. It talks about north carolina, having an estimation of 0.8, so, less sub-saharan african admixture than that of Spain in any scenario. And for Louisiana, which featured a historical creole population (in which said similar spanish criollos identified as white despite being often considered mixed by americans) this number was set at 1.8. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0030950 With regards to accuracy of genetic techniques. The latest research published by Harvard, MIT, and Affymetrix (the predominant manufacturer of DNA arrays used in genetic testing), explicitly states that the STRUCTURE method is less accurate for estimating genetic admixture and calls it unrealistic. On the contrary, it calls rolloff a much superior methodology for estimating genetic admixture. [26] with regards to the inaccuracy of STRUCTURE for estimating genetic admixture in light of newer improved methodologies: excerpts: with regards to STRUCTURE: "While these are powerful tools for detecting population substructure, they do not provide any formal tests for admixture (the patterns in data detected using these methods can be generated by multiple population histories). For instance, NOVEMBRE et al. (2008) showed that Isolation-by-Distance can generate PCA gradients that are similar to those that arise from long-distance historical migrations, making PCA results difficult to interpret from a historical perspective. STRUCTURE/ADMIXTURE results are also difficult to interpret historically, because these methods work either without explicitly fitting a historical model, or by fitting a model that assumes that all the populations have radiated from a single ancestral group, which is unrealistic" with regards to rolloff: "Simulations that we report in what follows show that rolloff can produce unbiased and quite accurate estimates for dates up to 500 generations in the past" Hence, alternative techniques such as the rolloff method, which was used in the paper showing spaniards at an estimated 2.4% african ancestry was estimated, which is higher than both white american groups. With regards to other commentary, any population has statistical outliers, hence, only aggregate admixture data should be mentioned and compared in the context of other aggregate admixture estimations before making sweeping statements such as saying x group is more genetically admixed than y group. As a result of this, you see spaniards being less genetically homogeneous, overall and in aggregate, vs. white americans when the 2 populations are directly compared. Alon12 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Fourth comment by User:Aergas Looks like Alon12 continues being heavily concerned with the Spanish-American admixture affair and that's taking this discussion to a different direction, and is of no use, because I've presented studies that have found considerable African and Amerindian admixture in White Americans (thing that Spaniards don't have at all). Answering the moderator's question, I want the title change of the article, I want the introduction to be read simply as "White Mexican is a Mexican citizen of European origin..." this would remove implications of purity either way. I find Alon12 desire to keep saying "predominant" and "7/8 of heritage" not necessary and one sided because there is genetic proof that there are White Americans who are 70%-60% white only, that's more than 1/4 non European admixture in a White American person [27] [28]. There is the problem aswell that we don't know (in case that what Alon12 says is true) how many criollos were 7/8 Spanish. If he wants to mention that criollos could be 7/8 Spanish only, the fair thing to do would be to mention that in other countries people who is 1/4 non-white are considered white, the sources to do so are right here. Aergas (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator The purpose of this dispute resolution moderated discussion is to improve the article (not for general discussion of race in the Western Hemisphere or any marginally related topic). Each party is asked to provide a draft of the proposed lead paragraph of the article. A diff of a previous version is acceptable. If changes to any other parts of the article are requested, provide draft versions also. I need to compare the proposed drafts (rather than philosophical statements) to determine what specific areas are in dispute and what specific areas are in agreement. At this point, I have not seen any specific drafts or specific proposed changes. If either poster thinks that a more restrictive definition of "European origin" or "white" than predominantly European origin is needed, please explain why, in modern times, a restrictive definition is needed. It is agreed that there was a historic definition of seven-eighths, which should be preserved as history. If either poster thinks that a discussion of other countries in the Western Hemisphere is needed, please explain why. The United States and Brazil have different histories* and different cultures, which may or may not be relevant to Mexico. (*For instance, the main non-European populations in the United States have been and are African-Americans descended from African slaves and immigrants from outside Europe, rather than native Americans, while in Mexico, the non-European populations are largely indigenous. As a result, comparisons may or may not be applicable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Fifth reply by User:Alon12 My proposal would be to keep the wording of 'predominantly' european descent, as it is reflected in the history of the nation [29]. With regards to the inconsistencies between other pages, this in general, is a subject that goes beyond the scope of this topic, for instance, why different latin american groups have a page suggesting a suffix 'of european descent' in their wiki articles, while other groups have a page suggesting 'white' as a prefix in their wiki articles. So, these inconsistencies in general are present. With regards to the context of Mexico/New Spain, the casta in New Spain in particular is one of the most well-researched and well-cited subjects on the casta in general. Paintings and Portraits were continually produced well into the 19th century even, reflecting a part of the culture. With regards to admixture, as stated, in aggregate, when directly compared, spaniards are shown to be genetically less homogenous than white americans [30]. So it does not make sense to call a less admixed population more admixed. In order to generalize a claim that a population is more admixed or less so, it must be proven in aggregate, i.e. combining all elements in ancestry and measuring it against another population that it is as such, as any population has outliers which can be misleading. The other study cited by the other party on MESA[31] shows self-identified european-americans to maintain over 90% european admixture on average [32]. In contrast, spaniards, maintain 2.4% sub-saharan admixture alone[[33]], higher than white americans, and that level of non-european ancestry is dwarfed when accounting for north african and west asian admixture .[34], hence when compared, spaniards are shown to be less homogeneous, genetically. The original Iberians are revealed to not show any relations to modern iberians as a result of admixture found in modern iberian populations and are found to be closest to northern european populations such as swedes, genetically [35]. It is well known that southern europeans received heavy admixed from north africa and west asia, and this is reflected in their genome. Furthermore, other pages on various 'white latin american' groups do not even mention 'white americans' as a comparison, so again, how is mention of 'white americans' even relevant to an article on 'white mexicans' in the first place? here is my proposed page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans_of_European_descent&oldid=641884707 Alon12 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Fifth reply by User:Aergas This is my proposal [36], the only thing missing is the article having the name "White Mexicans" The "predominantly" or "full" words are removed from the entry paragraph, similar to how is done in articles about white people in other countries. In the body of the article, the differences between the cassifications done back when Mexico had a racial census and the classifications that are done in the United States are found, all the material is sourced. Differences in racial perception in society are addressed aswell. Why is important to mention the United States' racial perceptions and numbers in the article about European Mexicans? because there is a big Mexican diaspora in the United States, this is aswell, done as way to explain why is that 52% of Mexican-Americans (the number even appears in the infobox at the start of the article) are white when only 10% of Mexicans in Mexico are white, when both populations have similar European ancestry in the genetic studies done to them, the answer then is just different perspectives and criterias, or that ones are asked what race they are and others don't. Aergas (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Sixth restatement by moderator It appears, based on discussions at my talk page, User talk: Robert McClenon, that there is now agreement that the word "predominantly" can be left in the first sentence of the article. (It was originally "predominant", but "predominantly" is grammatically correct.) Continued discussion at my talk page is encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC) The issue at this point has to do with the remainder of the lede paragraph, and with the other sections of the article. I see that User:Aergas has provided a diff identifying a previous version that he would like to restore. I encourage User:Alon12 to provide either a diff to a previous version to restore, or a draft text. I don't think that progress is likely unless both editors provide draft text. We need those drafts so that the moderator can compare proposed wording and see if some sort of compromise is possible. If there are issues about other paragraphs, please also provide either drafts or diffs. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Sixth statement by User:Alon12 The point about 7/8ths ancestry in comparison to blurred lines is relevant as it refers to the historical context. So, the blurring of lines in ethnicity, actually dates back to the colonial era, where non-full whites were listed as whites. Another user pointed out WP:Synth was used in the introductory section , and removed parts of it to make it more line in with editorial standards. So, effectively, if the points about 'predominant' and/or 7/8ths ancestry should not be included in the heading paragraph, then the other points about specifics and admixture and classification should effectively be relegated to the same section as well, in order to maintain article consistency. I would say that this version brings the mexican article in line more with editorial standards and cleans up the 'not in citation given' links. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans_of_European_descent&oldid=642161133 Alon12 (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Sixth statement by User:Aergas I think there have been improvements in this discussion, like the title of the article, and the opening sentence, I decided to wait for the moderator to reply before continuing with the discussion, because Alon12 claimed that there was repeated information in the lead sentence and in the body of the article regarding "blurred lines" in classifications, while the theme of blurring lines is addressed further in the article, is not from the same perspective, and is not using the same sources, the concept in the opening paragraph is entirely genetic, and in the body of the article is addressed in a social context. I think that the only problem left perhaps is that Alon12 still wants to remove a chunk of a paragraph of the article, but he must understand is that the ideal version of a wikipedia article is one that shows the views of the all the editors, he can't cut material that is properly surced, wikipedia is about adding, not removing. So the best version of the article is this one [37], because it represents all the different views. Aergas (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Seventh summary by moderator Thank you for both providing proposed draft versions. I have saved the two versions to User:Robert McClenon/Versions of White Mexicans, where the differences can be seen. Unless there is an objection, I plan to archive the earlier discussions to another user page to keep the size of this noticeboard manageable. I see that there are only two differences in the lede section. The first is that User:Aergas has added a sentence about blurring of the distinction between white or criollo and mestizo. The second is that User:Aergas has added a paragraph about the differences in estimates between 9%-16% and 50%-78%. In each case, my question for User:Alon12 is whether these additions are acceptable, and, if not, how can they be rectified. My question for User:Aergas is to explain why these additions are important. Also, are there any issues with the current text of the article beyond the lede section? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Seventh statement by User:Alon12 With regards to the edits by Aergas in the introductory statement, another user also called out the WP:Synth that had been present in the statement. Hence, as no citations can be given, it should be removed. With regards to specific admixture, if that admixture is to be included in the heading, then also, should the comments of 7/8ths european ancestry, as that is also relevant to admixture and the context of social discussion. So, in that scenario, both commentaries should be moved to the bottom sections where more specific detail can be provided in general. Other issues include the relevance in the mentioning of admixture of 'white americans', considering as how 'white americans' are not relevant to a subject regarding 'white mexicans', no other latin american article such as 'white brazilians' includes comparisons, for example. And, in any regard, as it was shown when Spaniards are compared directly to white americans, Spaniards maintain more extra-european admixture in aggregate, so it is not even accurate to mention. It's a 'pot calling the kettle black' analogy. Alon12 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Seventh statement by User:Aergas The statement that the user Alon12 wants removed under the argument of Synt can't be removed because is not Synth, there are sources that explicitly state that a "good number of white people was classified as mestizo because influence from the mestizo culture" http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/105/10503808.pdf in the page 13 or 196. The policy of wikipedia regarding Synth says that Synth constitutes "mixing multiple sources to imply something that no source says" this clearly isn't the case, and wasn't even the reason Alon12 opened the case, so I think is better to keep this aside for the sake of ending this soon. Is important to include this because is sourced, and is diectly related to White Mexicans, it's removal is not up to question. On what concerns to the comparison with White Americans, I've said it before, it's relevant to the article because there is a big Mexican diaspora in the United States, and a explanation to why 52% of Mexican Americans are white while only 10% of Mexicans are white must be given. I've been welcoming information that Alon12 has brought and I've tried to fit it in the article, but he still wants to remove good information that was there before and among that information, there is information that I wrote and that's not how Wikipedia is meant to be, in a Wikipedia article all the views must be represented, Alon12 don't understands that. Aergas (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Eighth statement by moderator Comment on content, not contributors. Don't say that another editor doesn't understand something. He may disagree. There are two statements that Aergas wants in the lede paragraph and that Alon12 does not want in the lede section. Is Aergas willing to agree to moving them into the body of the article? If so, we have agreement on the lede section, and can move on to the body. If there is disagreement, are both editors willing to use the Requests for Comments process to request community consensus on the inclusion of the questioned language? If we don't either get agreement to exclude the two questioned portions from the lede, and we don't get agreement to an RFC, I will have to close the dispute resolution as having failed. Are there any issues that need to be identified concerning the body of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Eighth reply by User:Alon12 With regards to comments on 'americans', such comments would be more relevant for the article on 'mexican americans'. This article is specifically written in the context of mexican nationals. In any case, as demonstrated, Spaniards maintain higher levels of admixture than white americans in aggregate, so it is still a pot calling the kettle black analogy. The other issues talked about include: this line in the introductory paragraph: "Another group in Mexico, the "mestizos", also include people with varying amounts of European ancestry, with some having a European admixture higher than 90%."[16] ', it describes mestizo, by region, not ethnicity, it already includes anyone regardless of ethnicity, so you cannot use it to describe it as a another group, being mestizos. Literally, from the study: "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection." and in addition this source: While in the United States the criteria has become less strict: there is self-identified white people that has an amount of non-European admixture that would be equivalent to around 1/4.' From this source [38], when it specifically shows 90% european admixture in the actual source, [39]. So, still higher than the admixture of Spaniards, as not even europeans are 100% european. Also, this line in the introductory statement: " Because of this, the line between whites and mestizos has become rather blurred, and the Mexican government decided to abandon racial classifications.[15][not in citation given]" This is a WP:Syth, and an opinion. My point regarding the admixture posted in the heading, is that if that is to be posted, then so should a sentence regarding the historical standards to be considered white, such as this being added, 'The historical requirement to fulfill this criteria was to be of predominant (officially 7/8ths) european ancestry'. It does not make sense for some commentary on admixture to be placed in the heading but not others. That is not a consistent structure. An RFC would be fine, if that is the next step forward, it seems what has happened here so far is mostly bouncing around, with the opposing party not willing to make any concessions, despite not being able to substantiate WP:Syth. The only such concession made here was when it was mandated by you that the 'predominant' or 7/8ths ancestry, rather than full european ancestry be mentioned in the article, in which case, his hand was forced. So, provided, you do not make anymore such mandates, I don't see this going anywhere. So, bring on the next step, RFC, we are ready for it at this point. Alon12 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Eighth reply by User:Aergas I want to address some points brought by Alon12: I have had no problem with incorporating the information that Alon12 have brought to the article, including the information about the 7/8s ancestry, it is even included in the version that I consider the ideal and that I submitted to the moderator, you haven't done anything besides a joint agreement with me for the lead sentence, and now you were wanting to remove even more things, things that are properly sourced, that never bothered you until now, and that you didn't opened this case for. And your reasons to remove them are unfeasible, here is why: Summed up shortly, Alon12 says that White Americans (is necessary to mention them becuase the majority of Mexican Americans are white and there is a big Mexcan diaspora in the United States) are more European than Spaniards, therefore they shouldn't be mentioned in the article" I have no idea where on Wikipedia Alon12 read that this kind of argument works and is valid to remove sourced information, but I'd like to see it, and this is, not considering that sources do exist, that point non-European admixture in White Americans aswell: [40] this source claims that 52% of White Americans have more than 5% non-European ancestry and in the sources that Alon12 presented, the non-European admixture of Spaniards was 1%-2.4% (when I linked said study on his talk page he said "How do we know that the other 52% weren't all 94% White?" [41] thing that is obviously a non-serious response), and on this study, as Alon12 said above [42],White Americans have a European admixture of around 90% (he said also above that Spaniards are even less European, while his own studies found the non-European admixture of Spaniards to be 1%-2.4%), so there is no solid veredict to wheter White Americans are more European than Spaniards, this makes the argument useless. And besides that, not all the Europeans that arrived to Mexico were Spaniards, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Poles and White Americans themselves have migrated to Mexico aswell, because all this reasons, Alon12 argument don't works, and I would have liked that he stoped using it, but we see, he didn't. The objetion that Alon12 has to a part (that is sourced with a genetic study) of the introduction paragraph is that a the genetic study cited says that " it describes mestizo, by region, not ethnicity, it already includes anyone regardless of ethnicity, so you cannot use it to describe it as a another group, being mestizos. Literally, from the study: "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection." The problem with Alon12 objetion here is that Mexicans never are asked what they consider themselves to be, not in genetic studies or in census, that's the reason why Mexico is said to be 80-90% mestizo, because everybody just gets written off as that, mestizos, no matter how they look like or what their ancestry is. And that's not the only case, there are cases on which the so called mestizos are very close genetically speaking to Europeans and have no similarity to Amerindians at all, despite being labeled as mestizos [43], [44] (looking at the attitude that Alon12 and another editor have shown towards the article recently I think I will add this to the article in the future to work as reinforcement). Thus Alon12 argument on this don't works, because all the genetic studies on Mexicans are like that. The third argument of Alon12 is good in my opinion, but I think is easy to find a source to back up the statement marked as "not in citation given" and is not a major issue, i think it might be in another part of the article already. And being objetive here, the version favored by Alon12 looks more cutted and inconsistent than mine. If all this is not enough to make Alon12 stop wanting to remove sourced material and be happy instead because the information he brought was included I believe that RFC is required here. Aergas (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Ninth statement by moderator A two-part RFC is in progress concerning the two issues about the lede section of the article. Are there any issues about the body of the article for which the parties think that moderation may be useful? If so, moderated discussion will move on to the body. If not, this issue will be closed as being resolved by RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Ninth statement by User:Alon12 Yes, there are many parts. For instance, if the opposing party decides to make WP:Synth, or WP:OR, on opinions, which do not actually reflect the source, then moderation should be enforced to verify that the very link, which is suggested, provides proof of the claims he presents. This is something lacking in the article. For instance, here is something, literally, 10 seconds of fact-checking could easily fix through actual moderation: He posted this sentence: "While in the United States the criteria has become less strict: there is self-identified white people that has an amount of non-European admixture that would be equivalent to around 1/4.' From this source [45]. Yet, the actual source states that the admixture is actually around ~90% [46]. This is the problem, heavy WP:Synth, and WP:OR, which even basic fact checking through a tiny bit of moderation could fix in this article. With regards to the other such sources, again, no specific admixture in aggregate is found, furthermore, it is known that different genetic studies make use of different techniques which can reflect measured results. Another example of applying WP:Synth, and WP:OR, is by citing those other 2 articles he just did [47], [48], which literally have nothing to do with admixture. He is assuming in his original research that this presents some kind of linear correlation, but it does not, because many non-linear impacts such as for instance, 'founder effects', have been known to influence genetic data. So, again, there is a very big problem of WP:Synth, and a lack of verification of what the source actually states compared to the original research presented by the opposing party. With regards to Spaniards, that article on sub-saharan african admixture [49], reflects sub-saharan african admixture alone at 2.4%, so as Spaniards did not directly mix with sub-saharan africans, but mixed through North Africans, it is not a surprise that they would have much higher levels of North African and West Asian ancestry in addition. This is seen explicitly, when white americans and iberians are directly compared, [50]. Spaniards maintain more admixture. Alon12 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Ninth statement by User:Aergas 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:Marie Antoinette

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by SamWilson989 on 00:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Marie Antoinette (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SamWilson989 (talk · contribs) Aubmn (talk · contribs) NebY (talk · contribs) Krobison13 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is an edit war between two users, Aubmn and Krobison with myself and another user, NebY, attempting to bring some form of mediation but failing. Aubmn has added biased content that was at first unsourced and found to violate copyright. Later, the user added content that was found to not be neutral by NebY. After NebY and Krobison attempted to edit the article and follow wikipedia guidelines, Aubmn reverted edits. He has broken the 3-revert-rule. I have given a full description of events on the talk page linked. I am bringing the issue of an edit war and asking for both mediation between all users involved in the editing, and also for whether the content itself should be included, or how it should be changed before being added in. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I at first tried discussing it on the article's talk page. I then had further discussions on the talk pages of all users involved. Despite thinking it was resolved, further edit warring occurred on 21 January. I requested for comments on the talk page but was asked to try this instead. How do you think we can help? By asking the users Krobison and Aubmn to stop editing the article for a set amount of time, preferably days. To allow the two to understand discussing changes before implementing them. And to remind Aubmn of wikipedia policy on reverting other user's edits. Summary of dispute by Aubmn Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by NebY Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Krobison13 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Marie Antoinette 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.