Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 27
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Contents
- 1 Jonathan Frid
- 2 Prem Rawat
- 3 Koevoet
- 4 Kurmi
- 5 User:Khushbash11
- 6 Prequel
- 7 Firefox
- 8 List of Mr. Belvedere episodes
- 9 Diet in Sikhism
- 10 Paul Gogarty
- 11 Ted Cruz
- 12 General Joseph Colton
- 13 Wikipedia nostradamus
- 14 Daniel Tammet
- 15 List of vegans
- 16 Israel
- 17 1929 Palestine riots
- 18 Kashmiri Pandit
- 19 Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy
- 20 Occupy Wall Street
No talk page discussion. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Users involved:
They can't seem to agree whether he died on April 13 or April 14. I have also asked for full protection on WP:RFPP but haven't gotten a response yet. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 20, 2012 at 00:31 (UTC) because no talk page discussion Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Prem Rawat
Referred to formal mediation. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 14:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
There is a difference of opinion between editors on whether or not there is any confusion about the idea that Prem Rawat may have claimed he was God at some point, or that it has been interpreted that way, and that he has backed away from this idea in recent years. The two sections on the talk page that discuss it are here and here Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Lengthy talk-page discussions (two sections), as well as an RFC which has had no editor involvement, other than those editors engaged on the talk page already.
It seems clear we are not going to be able to move forward on this issue without some outside help, I suspect both sides of this discussion feel the other is exhibiting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and we will need some guidance from some more experienced editors in overcoming this issue, especially since there is not enough editors currently engaged in the talk page to arrive at any kind of consensus. Maelefique(talk) 06:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Prem Rawat discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
In the interest of brevity, and as per the request on this page, I don't see any need for me to repeat everything I've said on the talk page again here (Momento seems to feel otherwise, although I note he hasn't supplied any references for his claims). If someone here needs me to recap what I've already said I will be happy to do so, but I don't feel a flood of text here is helpful otherwise. I will state that I specifically disagree with these statements (previously refuted on talk page as well) of Momento's:
Many more examples on the talk page, brevity is hard! -- Maelefique(talk) 15:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I want to remind folks that I only make edits on the talk pages of the Prem Rawat series of articles because of my conflict of interest as a former follower of Rawat. I think that Rawat-adherents (current followers of Rawat) also have conflicts of interest here and all such editors should limit their edits to the talk pages. I have probably made 3 edits on the main article in all the years of the existence of this article. Since the above-mentioned issue has been discussed at great length on many occasions without any resolution (or hope of resolution over many years) I don't believe there is any point in pursuing this issue. (That's why I made my comment to Maelefique asking about his point in bringing up this issue.) That said, I will continue to argue on talk pages (argument in a good way!) against what I know is pure revisionism about the life of Prem Rawat. Saying that Prem Rawat never said "I am God," is literally correct, but it's ludicrous to present any argument that Rawat never said things about himself as Divine, greater than God, Jesus, Krishna, Lord of the Universe, etc. There are also plenty of reliable sources which back up my argument. So mine is a provable assertion. I also don't see the point in going through another attempt at mediation, arbitration, or dispute resolution because the article as it stands is adequate. Best wishes. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to invite the parties, if interested, to file a request for mediation to the Mediation Committee. We are interested in taking the case, and have a mediator who is willing to proceed. All other prerequisites for consideration are still pending, but the chance of acceptance is very high. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 20, 2012 at 23:29 (UTC) because referred to MedCom. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 23:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Koevoet
No talk page discussion. Will leave message on involved users' talk pages. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 14:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
It is well known that the previous South African government and its security mechanisms have been victim to defamation and a leftist world media view that totally distorts the facts and history surrounding its integrity and operations. In the article reference is made to a one "Lise Morje Howard's" book where she claims that Koevoet was indiscriminately brutal and responsible for 80% of "Namibian" deaths. This is not fact! I have forwarded a communiqué to the author to see if I can get clarification on her sources which I believe to be SWAPO members. The editor, however, is not forthcoming in listening to counter arguments and numerous sources to counter claim. This leaves the page with double meaning and confusion.Users involved
I have at least three sources to appose claims made by Howard which proves that she is spuwing propaganda devoid of fact. The argument left by Socrates2008 is that if it is a valid source then it is fact. That makes me believe that if I can get a source to state that Elvis Presley was son to multi-racial parents and that he enjoyed homosexuality with Asians, it will be accepted as fact. This statement is outrages, but so is the statements made by Howard.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Socrates2008 have not spared the effort to discuss this issue with me on the talk page. Neither has any other user. I reverted to leaving a message on his user page and was met with a policy on truth vs. sources.
Consider the facts and sources that outweigh ourages sources and convince Socrates to consider my argument. Boetfaas (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Koevoet discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) I see no talk page discussion which is a prerequisite for the dispute resolution noticeboard. For that reason: If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 20, 2012 at 23:13 (UTC) because no talk page discussion Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 23:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Kurmi
Feel free to re-file when the RFC is finished and if it's not resolved. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
(Ref: Talk:Kurmi section: kurmi varna status) Article does reflect complexities regarding kurmi varna status, also indicates difference/dispute/whatever but only missing thing is that all positions on said difference/dispute/whatever are not clearly mentioned or clarified. If we just simply do that, we are only balancing the article which is at present tilted overweight towards "they think they are". Its not my concern at all what varna kurmis traditionally belong to or not belong to. Actually, i am only politely trying to convey or request that lets merely mention or clarify all the positions(at least well-referenced ones),anywhere in the article, regarding difference/dispute/whatever which is already significantly expressed in the article and so summarized in lead, nothing more. And that too because, It is clearly unbalanced when all positions in difference/dispute/whatever are not clarified. I am in no way confronting any point of view or wish to disrupt present article in any way. My only concern here is in all discussion about varna "what they think..." is explicitly provided in the article but other positions are not mentioned clearly. When we mention about difference, we mean difference and that implies there are multiple positions. Why should we shy away from just mentioning all positions clearly. We are not supporting or confronting any side by doing that but just being neutral, balanced and encyclopedic. Users involved
By Thakurta: Position 1: 'Kurmis are traditionally classified as Shudra under Hindu Varna system.' Position 2: 'By the early twentieth century Kurmis defined for themselves Similar Kshatriya identities. Kurmis think that they belong to kshatriya varna.' i fail to find both this positions clarified in the article which is certainly 'unbalanced'
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
1. Provided references and requested not to delete well-referenced content 2. Discussed matter thoroughly on talk page by responding to all comments with proper reasoning, explained point of view with references and present indications already in the article. Also suggested solutions and alternative solutions that too, number of times, repeatedly.
Read discussion on Talk:Kurmi especially, section: kurmi varna status and give your valuable independent view. Thank You. Jaychandra (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Kurmi discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) An RfC is active already. Further discussion across a variety of forums is not necessary. For that reason, If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 21, 2012 at 21:31 (UTC) because RfC active. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
|
User:Khushbash11
No dispute. Will leave a message on talk page. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 19:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Error: The overview field is required. Please fill in the overview field with an outline of the dispute, with diffs if appropriate. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Khushbash11 19:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC) User:Khushbash11 discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Prequel
Closed because technically there's an RFC open; this is partially resolved, and partially at an impasse, generally agreed to be resolved with sources and policy at Talk:Prequel. See there for later developments. JJB 02:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dispute overview
The article Prequel includes a list of works that fit that description. The dispute is about whether the films : Escape from the Planet of the Apes, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, Battle for the Planet of the Apes, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes are prequels of Planet of the Apes (1968 film). User Gothicfilm has repeatedly deleted these films from the page. So I started an RfC. Gothicfilm argued that these films were not "true prequels", using a definition of his own devising. The article had, since 2009, the definition as "A prequel is a work that supplements a previously completed one, and has an earlier time setting." The four films above fitted the definition. This did not convince Gothicfilm, who continued to cite his own special rules. I found citations for three of the films, two explicitly being described as prequels. This included notably the director of Rise of the Planet of the Apes stating that the film was a prequel. So explained this on the Talk page and restored the films with references, as seen here: [1]. Still, today I found that Gothicfilm has deleted all of them again. Note: I have copied the disputed section, including new references, on the Talk page here. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussed on Talk page, called RfC. When challenged, provided cited references to support my position.
Advise whether cited references and discussion support the disputed films' inclusion. Barsoomian (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Prequel discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
What was his (User:Gothicfilm's) definition of "prequel"?Curb Chain (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
"It is also important to note that a prequel must be part of the same series as the publication to which it is a prequel. If, as with the case of Batman Begins it starts the story (and the series) anew, it is not a prequel; but rather a reboot." - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
And there are literally 3.2 million results describing Rise as a reboot. Check out the article's Talk page, e.g. Betty Logan and others, and WT:FILM. Consensus is they're not prequels. Those film critics and the director who used the term prequel to describe these films were making imprecise, you could even say sloppy, use of the term. It happens. That doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. I don't want to repeat everything - please check the Talk page here, WT:FILM, and especially here. You will also see how Barsoomian is determined to plow on with this despite people's issues with what he's doing, and consensus is clearly against him. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
So User:Gothicfilm, here, you make the statement (the first post in the section): "In Escape, the characters talk about what happened in the previous two films - because they're from the future. In a true prequel, characters never talk about events that happened in the earlier film, which supposedly took place later.", that the series is in chronological order because the characters are "sequels". Do you see the variety in film and how your definition is too narrow to be utilized? A lot of films simply do not fit in "reboot", "sequel", "prequel" categories (squarely). This is why we need to rely on sources. If you can produce reliable sources, maybe you can rather include and discuss this film series with these mechanics.Curb Chain (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The other big problem here is Barsoomian keeps picking and choosing what he thinks is important. He repeatedly states that it doesn't matter that Rise doesn't fit in with the other films in the original Planet of the Apes series. This is obviously just his opinion and POV. To me and most everyone else, that's the main difference between a prequel and a reboot, and why it can't be both. A prequel should fit in with the original series. Barsoomian has no standing to say it doesn't, and it's a mystery why he's so obsessed with pushing this point. He should not be allowed to override consensus and commonly accepted use of the term prequel (among those of us who care) just because a minority of writers made imprecise, sloppy use of the word in their articles on Rise. At one point Barsoomian went what we might call forum shopping by posting on the talk page of Jerzy•t, who had put in the unreferenced, simplistic definition of prequel Barsoomian had repeatedly cited to justify his position. But guess what? Jerzy says I don't know where i got that definition, bcz the word is too new to be in the print dicts that i routinely consult. I assume i regarded it as obviously what had been meant every time i had heard it used (and i thot my wording as more straightforward -- less likely to confuse -- than the first sent of what i found there). In other words, WP:OR. Even after that, with the new, improved definition in the Prequel lead, Barsoomian continues to insist it doesn't matter if Rise doesn't fit in with the other films in the original Planet of the Apes series. To me, not only does it matter, it's one of the most important points. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, splitting the article into List of prequels, List of sequels, and List of reboots is entirely possible (with a good inclusion criteria definition which is usually the first sentence on the article).Curb Chain (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Well, since again everyone who commented is ignoring any citations, any dictionary definitions, in favour of making up their own definitions and rules, (Gothicfilm has again rolled out his own gold standard of "true prequel" as certified by him, as the only standard that matters) it seems it's pointless to cite sources. But one last time: below is the disputed section that Gothicfilm repeatedly deleted. Including citations to reliable sources that support the labelling of the films as "prequels".
References
And while we're at it: Definition of prequel. Oxford Dictionary (you need a login to see this online):
If a work is a "prequel" of another work, only the two named works are relevant to the discussion. Doesn't matter what happens in any other works. So for instance, "Escape from the Planet of the Apes" and "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" set out to explain how Apes came to be intelligent as seen in the "original" film, "Planet of the Apes". And 40 years later, they made "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" which did the same, but in a different way. Both films made many references to the "original" film. (And both films made continuity errors in some details, which doesn't affect the main intent -- every film does, there are websites devoted to that.) The latter film was explicitly called a prequel by its director. If either or both films are also "reboots" or "sequels", that is a different question. There is no rule, except in Gothicfilm's mind, that these terms are mutually exclusive. I've found numerous articles describing "Rise" as a "prequel/reboot", which again Gothicfilm decided didn't count against his own opinion.
So, if despite all this, if Rise at least is not a "prequel", this is a declaration that editors' opinions override verifiable reliable sources. If it's upheld here to just ignore statements by, e.g. the film's director, numerous film reviewers because the editors here think they know better, though they have failed to cite any sources themselves, I will recuse myself from editing this article any more, since I can't accept that. Barsoomian (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Prequel discussion cont'd - Arbitrary break
I came to this with a completely open mind and at one point thought you had the better of the argument, Barsoomian, so I can be persuaded. If you want to take this process seriously, I think you should be able to explain to someone like me why you are correct. My problem with your view is that the dictionary definition is consistent with both positions. If we take as our frame of reference the characters in the story, the dictionary supports GothicFilm's view as well as yours, so that tells me the dictionary is not trying to make the kind of distinction under discussion. You seem very convinced that this is incorrect, but I don't see why I should adopt your thinking. You want me to rely on your sources, but reliable sources have all kinds of half-hearted assertions and less than rigorous writing (see BettyLogan's 'masterpiece' example). So maybe you have an answer to this criticism of your position. There is another step to my thinking on this, but it depends on my view about the dictionary definition, so I will hold that back to give you a chance to respond. --Ring Cinema (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Extended discussion
Films
*Classified both as prequel and within another category.
JJB 13:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Before we get too much further down the Clinton-esque What "is" is path can Gothicfilm and Barsoomian define susinctly what the sticking point is? From what I can tell it's the addition of the Planet of the Apes expanded films example. If this is correct, might I suggest leaving the content out as the article's list section is already very long? Hasteur (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Discussion with Betty and Gothic is ongoing on Talk:Prequel. Barsoomian is taking a break but has affirmed the proposal above at my talk. The discussion has enough seeds now to blossom into harmonious editing but we'll see. JJB 14:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 23, 2012 at 15:31 (UTC) because technically there's an RFC open; this is partially resolved, and partially at an impasse, generally agreed to be resolved with sources and policy at Talk:Prequel. JJB 15:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Firefox
RfC active. Allowed editor to re-report to my talk page if the dispute is still unresolved after the RfC expires. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Firefox article needs help determining what screenshot for Firefox 12 should be used in the infobox.
Users involved
Robin Mathew Rajan believes that his screenshot Firefox12.PNG should be used instead of Firefox12.png (don't be confused, they are different files despite having the same name and extension). I come to DRN asking for advice on which image should be used. Thanks!
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 00:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Firefox discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) I think you should try a request for comments ← you can click that to find out how to set one up. It's quite simple. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 25, 2012 at 00:35 (UTC) because RfC a better option
|
List of Mr. Belvedere episodes
Premature, please thoroughly discuss at article talk page first, see closing note, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Before me, that was done in December 2011 before it was reverted back. Now I tried to remove excessive unnecessary amount of stuff and unsourced entries, but Vnisanian2001, the major contributor to this page, disagreed. I don't think article talk page helps, as he could say that I was wrong to remove stuff that is "needless" and "unnecessary". And I don't think third opinion helps. However, I decide to post this because I want to bring this into attention. I could not revert it back to table format, as it would lead to WP:3RR. Users involved
Vnisanian2001 is the major contributor to this article; that's all.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Inform the user about how to do lists properly. George Ho (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC) List of Mr. Belvedere episodes discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
From my talk page: --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Still unproductive to me... I wouldn't consider that source reliable per WP:RS. Let's wait for someone to decide this. --George Ho (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC) George, if it's of any interest, the production codes can also be found from the U.S. Copyright Office/Library of Congress. Just search Mr. Belvedere in "Keywords", set the range from 1985-1990, "Motion Pictures", and in ascending format. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnisanian2001 (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Closing note: Per the instructions of this noticeboard (and of most other forms of dispute resolution), this is only for disputes which have been thoroughly discussed at the article talk page. I can find no such discussion and it is inappropriate to engage in the initial discussion of what should or should not be done at an article here, as it removes the discussion from the place that other editors would expect to find it. Please discuss this issue at the article talk page and, if you come to an impasse, then consider dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Diet in Sikhism
Close. I've been following the dispute since its arrival at DRN and there doesn't seem to be anything remaining. If there are problems remaining, they can contact me on my talk page. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The dispute is the current administrator of DIET IN SIKHISM, has deemed that ONLY an orthodox view of Sikhism should be presented, and NO un-orthodox views should have ANY merit. The core of the argument is about whether Sikhism the religion, the culture, the tradition has accepted or rejecting meat eating as part of its beliefs. Now the current ADMIN of DIET IN SIKHISM, has presented views, that show scholars with the understanding that Sikhism has had a benevolent view on diet, and has provided three passages from the sikh holy book to support. However in the opening passage of the article DIET IN SIKHISM, it states, how a number of sikh sects DO NOT adhere to this view that sikhism has a ambivalent view towards meat, suggesting only a vegetarian diet is allowed by the Gurus. I take the stance, that those sikh sects, of which their are many, and of which hold a vegetarian stance, should have their argument presented aswell as the view that sikhism does allow meat eating. For the interest of balance and fair play, both sides, orthodox and unorthodox POV should be included, in the same manner UNORTHODOX Shia islamic sect views are given just as much exposure as the orthodox Sunni sect are. Wikipedia does not PROTECT one side over another, it presents all information for a balanced article. Now the scholars used here in this article to present a meat eating argument, have also said that while in THEIR belief sikhism has no view on diet, their Are passages against meat in sikh scripture, AND ITS THIS POINT, THAT NEEDS ADDRESSING! The current ADMIN on sikh history has deemed any Sikhism which doesn't agree with his own ORTHODOX stance as void. The following passages are an example of the double standards issued on DIET IN SIKHISM, passages alluding to a ambivalent diet are kept, while the assertion from the same scholar that their are passages against meat eating, are rejected. From the same scholar, same book, same ISBN NUMBER, one rejected and one accepted, the accepted statement fits in with the ADMINS own orthodox stance which he has openly declared on his Wikipedia page. 1.QUOTE FROM ARTICLE - Gobind Singh Mansukhani states how vegetarianism and meat-eating has been left to the individual Sikh. 2.QUOTE FROM DELETED PASSAGE -scholars hold a view that Sikhism has an ambivalent view on diet, yet some accept that there are, “passages against meat eating”. REF for both 1 and 2. Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Introduction to Sikhism, Delhi: Hemkunt Press, ISBN 81-7010-181-6, “There are passages against meat, in the Adi Granth”. Both references from the SAME scholar, yet one is accepted which is favor of an ambivalent view towards diet, while another assessment from the same scholar admitting their are passages against meat eating, is not accepted. Why the Double standards? The ADMIN accepted one and rejected the other to protect his own biased orthodox POV. The history blog of the article has centered around one issue being, one sided. Now also i used REF BHAI GURDAS in possible evidence that supports the alternative scholarly theory that a vegetarian diet is ultimately the only way of life for a Sikh, yet while the ADMIN QUOTES Bhai Gurdas himself, he deemed my quotes from Bhai Gurdas as not valid, when he was DIRECTLY DEALING WITH ISSUE OF DIET. The whole article should show both argument and not one side. OVERALL. 1. SIKHHISTORY EDITOR, using selective references, synthesis. The article in its original form, already DECLARES, that their are sikh groups and passages from the holy book against meat, which is declared by the same authors who the EDITOR cited and then rejected my use of the SAME AUTHOR when he suggested against the SIKHHISTORY EDITORS, personal POV. we have acknowledgment that no meat is served in temple, we have many references in the original article that openly state, uncertainty about issue of diet, even sholars that where used in the original form of the article state how their is evidence against a meat eating diet, yet the EDITOR on sikhhistory deems it a closed matter, and does not give both sides the neutral POV to erase the issue of a one sided biased article. If you want i can separate the article in two sections ORTHODOX AND UNORTHODOX. I and all the other sects mentioned in the original article that state sects and passages against meat, to expand on that issue and give both sides their due, for a balanced article not anchored to any ONE specific religious body. THANKS! Users involved
Told me to take to a dispute resolution board.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Talked to editor, shown examples of doubt, and one sided article.
Bring balance to the subject, allow both POV of to be addressed, with scholarly debate and relevant verses. Address the one sided argument give balance to the subject that is not factual or a closed case. ONEDHARMA (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC) te u===Diet in Sikhism discussion=== Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Thanks for the reply, but i made the suggestion to the editor of the board but he would not listen or even discuss the issue, i have stated that the editor has maintained his own personal views into the article. The editor stated i should go and seek this dispute resolution, because as far as he is concerned he doesnt want anything that he doesnt agree with on articles linked to sikhism, which i deem very one sided and a bit intolerant. Thanks, i would like this issue sorted, i have offered to create an orthodox and unorthodox section on diet in sikhism, i have presented the same scholars that where in the original article, that the editor cited himself, yet when i cited the same scholars to show that they themselves agree that their are passages against meat and many sects against it, the current editor of diet in sikhism again took it off. How can a person cite a scholar and then reject my use of the same scholar when it doesnt fit in with his own POV, which he stated as only being orthodox. I know wiki also has information on Shia unorthodox sect of islam, does that mean we only adhere to one persons view on sikhism, when that person has cited sholars that openly admit that their are passages against meat, if that is the case then why cant relevant verses be shown? Thanks again, i only reponded on here, because to be honest im getting lost with all the forms on wikipedia.lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONEDHARMA (talk • contribs) 23:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi SH. Your references are WHOLLY ambiguous. NOT ONE reference you give states a factual position its always a notion of assumption, opinion and possibles and MANY cases of synthesis which YOU have carried out. Almost all your citations contradict each other ref 24, 36, 38, 40 just a few. You have used one Bhai gurdas verse, yet refused my use of three, same source, why?. You have selected three verses from SGGS i have taken 20, how can i be selective? You have made SEVERAL factual statements based on citations that do not support your own FACTUAL synthesis which you have written in. Not one citation i gave for Sikh reforms breached any rule, You didnt show ONE example of breaches of NPOV, OR, RELIABLY. Even the citation that you use, make it CLEAR, their are dialogues against meat. In the opening introduction you state how sects are against meat, and a temple will NEVER serve meat, yet you refuse to allow me to expand on those issues.The edict of the of singh sabha in 80's is ONE position within Sikhism, whether its official or not is not an issue for wikipedia decide to on or use via you, as a yardstick whether to address the unorthodox sect, nor can you alone decide the integrity or value of it. Both sides need to be addressed. You said Sikh Reform Movements of the 18th and 19th Century" is pretty biased. That statement was fully backed by FOUR CITATIONS, with ISBN. You rejected because it goes against your orthodox stance. 1.Sikh Nationalism and Identity in a Global Age, By Giorgio Shani, 2008, pg 32,ISBN 978041542190 2.Faith & philosophy of Sikhism, Sardar Harjeet Singh, ISBN 9788178357218 3.World and Its Peoples: Eastern and Southern Asia, Page 359, 2007,ISBN 978076147313 4.Cultural History of Modern India, By Dilip M. Menon, ISBN 8187358254
1.Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Introduction to Sikhism, Delhi: Hemkunt Press, ISBN 81-7010-181-6, 2.Introduction to Sikhism, ISBN 8170101816, Hemkunt Press 2007, 3.The Vegetarian Solution, by Stewart Rose, Healthy Living Publications, |pages=159|isbn=9781570672057 4.S. Grewal, Sikh History from Persian Sources: Translations of Major Texts, ISBN 978-8185229171, 5.Bhais gur das which you deleted, because you assumed we didnt understand him, as per your wikipage. 6.Over 6 cited ISBN referenced sources used in the Sikh reform sect. You didnt state one breach!
>He advocated a lifestyle consisting of honest, hard work and humility, focus and remembrance of God and compassion for all of humanity and God's creation all around, with these three key principles taking far greater precedence over one's dietary habits. Note the statement the editor makes about the Guru is not backed up by any factual citation >H. S. Singha comments in his book how the Sikh Gurus ate meat. Again the statement is presented as a matter of fact, when the citation makes it clear its not matter of fact. Actual REF "The practice of the Gurus is uncertain. Guru Nanak seems to have eaten ... Guru Amardas ate only rice and lentils but this abstention cannot be regarded as evidence of vegetarianism, only of simple living". You have made SEVERAL factual statements based on citations that do not support your own FACTUAL synthesis which you have written in, which i cant present all here.
1.REF 24 I. J. Singh. Sikhs and Sikhism. Delhi: Manohar. ISBN 9788173040580. REF 24 contradicts REF 36 ^ William Francklin in his writing about Mr George Thomas 1805: Stating Sikhs don't touch beef. Contradicts my ^Ref Introduction to Sikhism, ISBN 8170101816, Hemkunt Press 2007. 2.Devinder Singh Chahal, Scientific Interpretation of Gurbani, Again the author makes no FACTUAL statement. 3.Gurbakhsh Singh, The Sikh Faith, Vancouver: Canadian Sikh Study and Teaching Society, ISBN 978-8172051884, Again ref contradicts REF 38 4.J.S. Grewal, Sikh History from Persian Sources: Translations of Major Texts, ISBN 978-8185229171, Contradicts REF 24, REF 40, where you state Nanak ate meat again authors make no factual statement Also many more statement of fact in the article appear to be statement of opinion and assumption.
1.Ethnic Tensions in Indian Society: Explanation, Prediction, Monitoring, By P. N. Rastogi, pg 145, ISBN:0333924410176 2.Minorities in India, protection and welfare by Rajendra Pandey, APH Pub. Corp., 1997, ISBN 8170248736. 3.Lok Sabha Secretariat, Govt. of India, — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONEDHARMA (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Conduct warning: I, like Whenaxis, am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. This dispute is either going to proceed with complete civility or I'm going to close it and it's not going to proceed at all, in accordance with the guidelines of this noticeboard. Stop talking about one another, POV, AGF, and the like and only talk about edits. We discuss edits here, not editors. Onedharma, stop using all capital letters for emphasis, use boldfacing only sparingly, sign your posts, try to be succinct (though I must admit that I, too, struggle with brevity), and don't engage in rants. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary Section BreakAs ONEDHARMA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now indef blocked, is there any other editor that would like to advocate for the changes? Hearing no editors to take up the advocacy, this thread will be closed in 24 hours from 17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC) with no change to the current consensus for the article. Hasteur (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Paul Gogarty
Premature. No prior talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard (and most other forms of dispute resolution). The way to not edit war is to engage in discussion on the article talk page before editing the article, see consensus and bold, revert, discuss. If others will not discuss, then use a request for comments to draw other editors' attention to the matter. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Need to resolve content of this piece through means other than Edit War. The dispute centres around whether references to one incident of media coverage (negative) the former member received should be included at all or, if it is included, whether other pieces of equal media attention should also be included in the interests of balance and fairness. Users involved
Although user Darepng has a personal interest in the entry, this should not rule out attempts by the user to ensure that the entry is fair, balanced and/or relevant. This may be a subjective process, certainly, but equally any entry made about an existing or former politician will invariably leave anyone making entries open to accusations of political bias. So one needs to tread carefully and be open to discussion. So far communications have centred around whether a user is a SPA, but there has been no engagement on the key issues of whether one paragraph is relevant and, if it is included, whether others of equal relevance should also be included.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Comments have been made in revisions and there have been some interactions on talk pages, but these have not been constructive and the issue ideally needs adjudication from third parties who are not from Ireland and could not be accused of having a political bias one way or the other.
Listed below are the contents from the most recent entry (which was frozen as listed by administrator for a week as part of a request for mediation and to warn against an edit war): Contents [hide] 1 Early and private life 2 Political career 2.1 Local politics 2.2 Dáil Éireann 2.3 Media Coverage and Controversies 2.4 Call for cut in TDs pay 2.4.1 2009 Swearing incident 2.4.2 Ivor Callely phone expenses investigation 2.4.3 "Babygate" Controversy 2.4.4 Attempts by Taoiseach to appoint new Ministers in January 2011 2.5 Loss of seat 3 After politics 4 References 5 External links This version is the one as amended by user Darepng. In this and an earlier revision, there is a section in the entry entitled "Babygate" Controversy. However earlier revisions did not include 2.4, 2.41. 2.42. 2.44 as listed above. In a nutshell, user Darepng contends that this item is just one of many aspects of the former member's career that attracted media attention. While the 2009 Swearing incident received massive media coverage internationally, other stories over the former Deputy's term of office attracted similar coverage to the "Babygate" one in either print or broadcast media. User Darepng, who amended to the current version at time of resolution request, believes that the "Babygate" Controversy entry should not be left in on its own alongside the 2009 Swearing incident as together these stories suggest that the entire career was one of media controversy rather than including achievements or media coverage about positive as well as negative incidences. There is no dispute over the massively covered Swearing incident paragraph. If neutral observers feel that the "Babygate" entry warrants being included as one of the media highlights of a political career, then they are also asked to adjudicate on whether other stories in relation to Paul Gogarty that received similar media coverage should also be included. Help is being sought not in terms of the background and motivations of the users concerned, but explicitely dealing with the merits of the entries themselves. Darepng (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Paul Gogarty discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Ted Cruz
Premature. No prior talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard, but also see remarks by Equazcion, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Within most pages for political representatives, there are external links to sites like ontheissues.org and votesmart.org, and others. I tried to add a link to a site called The Political Guide, which has a page for Ted Cruz that contains more info than the wiki page. I have added a few other links to this site for other representatives, as have other people. A user has removed these links and claimed that the links are spam. I do not believe this is the case as the site is similar in structure to those already present and has more information. The page that I added is here. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Texas/Ted_Cruz/ A user named Dave Dial removed my links and accused me of spamming. This user is very active on the Obama pages and I believe that he made these accusations because he did not like an edit I made to one of those pages. I simply do not see how this site violates the external links policy when ontheissues and others do not. I am fairly new to editing wiki stuff, so if I did something wrong, please tell me. I am on my iPad and can't scroll down further, but the other user Dave Dial. I think that a user named Falcon8765 also removed a link. I have asked them on Dave's talk page to explain this, but haven't got an answer. The ut tick (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Ted Cruz discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I notice you've been adding those links to a lot of pages. Generally this tends to look like an attempt at promotion. Even if it's not, you should see WP:EL for Wikipedia's policies on external links. Most websites, even if they're relevant, are actually not listed at Wikipedia articles. Equazcion (talk) 04:59, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC) Well, I first did notice this problem from an Obama page, the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, with the attempt to add this there. It was removed first by Falcon8765 here, and I removed it after this editor reinserted the link without any edit summary or Talk page discussion. But before I removed the link, I went to the website to see what it was and if there were any problems with the addition to the Birther page. The "writeup" was obviously done by a birther with no editorial oversight, making claims cited as factual that were in fact false(such as it is required by the Constitution for any President to be born of two US born citizens on US soil). So I delved further into the site and tried to find it's credentials. It has none and seems to be run by someone who is interested in politics, but with no journalistic or other credentials. So I then looked at the contributions from the editor(The ut tick). All of the edits made by the user were to add a link to the website in question(thepoliticalguideDOTcom). A website that seems to be partially a copy and paste job from other websites(copyright issues) mixed in with the opinions of some unknown person. One copyright issue has been addressed here, and the edit has been oversighted. So, I think what we have here are violations of Spam, conflict of interest and add to the fact that there are copyright problems and all the articles are living persons. Dave Dial (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
|
General Joseph Colton
Early close. Conduct dispute, but PurpleSteak indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet of multiple sockmeister JHerbertMunster. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Today, PurpleSteak attempted to move the article General Joseph Colton to both "General Joseph B Colton" [2] (without the period), and to "General Joseph B. Colton" [3] (with the period). It was reverted both times by Favonian, who had reverted many edits by other users trying to perform the same cut and paste move. PurpleSteak has now proposed a move of the article to "General Joseph B. Colton", and has changed this information on other articles and files related to this article [4] [5]. He has also left several messages on my talk page, even though I have tried to come to a consensus with him on the article's talk page. In the meantime, he has continued to re-add several POV edits to the article, even after they have been disputed. [6] I also believe that sock puppetry may be involved, since these edits were attempted by other users before PurpleSteak (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JHerbertMunster). Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
As stated above, PurpleSteak has left several messages on my talk page (Edits to Joe Colton and Joseph B. Colton), even though I have tried to come to a consensus with him on the article's talk page (Talk:General Joseph Colton#Requested move and edits).
I feel that someone other than myself needs to explain the concepts of original research, reliable sources, and coming to a consensus. PurpleSteak thinks that any information he can find online about the subject automatically supports his position. I believe that he is trying to prove a point, and he is going about it the wrong way, but my attempts to reason with him have fallen on deaf ears. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC) General Joseph Colton discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerk's note: This noticeboard is for content disputes, not conduct disputes, and is not for disputes which are currently being worked out in other forums. Though it's worked out on the article talk page, a move request (like a RFC) is such a dispute and disputes about it are not appropriate here. If you believe a user's repeated move requests or general lack of cooperation are inappropriate, then that's a complaint about disruptive editing which should be taken up at one of the conduct dispute resolution forums: WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, or WP:ARBCOM, but not here. On the other hand, if you have particular edits or content which you believe are inappropriate — you both seem to have complaints about the other's sourcing — please point them out in particular here rather than making general references to them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 26, 2012 at 16:00 (UTC) because no specific complaint, other than conduct complaints, has been brought forward. - TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia nostradamus
No dispute, no discussion on article talk page as required by this noticeboard. Consider making a request at Editor Assistance. If you would like to try evaluating the appropriateness of your proposed link yourself the policy is here, but I'd suggest making a request at Editor Assistance, instead. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I would like to include an external link which is pertinent for discussion on nostradamus: www.sophyasphinx.com/flame. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
i haven't tried.
I want you to have a look at the website and see for yourself, how necessary it is for inclusion. Radiofood (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia nostradamus discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Daniel Tammet
Pending at BLPN. Per instructions of this noticeboard, this is not a forum for disputes which are pending in other forums. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Insertion by XNQlo of original research, poorly referenced claims, while removing correctly referenced information from this living person biographical article. Page has been dispute locked after I (twice) raised issue on living persons bio noticeboard. Article has long history of edit warring involving this IP address. - XNQlo continually inserts a sentence (or part of) from subject's first book, lifted out of context, and which has not been referenced in any reliably published secondary source that I can find. This seems an obvious example of original research. - XNQlo inserts the claim that subject's interview in Icelandic lasted a "few minutes" relying on the English subtitles from the documentary film ("We are now going to try to speak to Daniel Tammet in Icelandic for the next few minutes" etc.) The Icelandic interviewer actually says "næstu mínútur" (literally 'next minutes'). No reliable published secondary source cites interview duration. This seems another obvious example of original research. - XNQlo removed the referenced statement from subject's first book that he speaks 10 languages, claiming that 'only' French, German, and Icelandic have been 'verified'. This is a third obvious example of original research. The statement, drawn from the subject's own book, is well sourced, particularly as the article only states that subject 'says' he speaks these languages. - XNQlo removed the referenced statement that subject was among the invited speakers at 2011 TED. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I raised issue on noticeboard and discussed on talk page but XNQlo has long history of edit warring behavior on this article.
Are the above edits original research as defined by Wiki living persons bio article guidelines? If so, it would be helpful to have a third person editor state this on the talk page. Oughtprice99 (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Daniel Tammet discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Reply in a few days. Thank you for your patience in advance.XNQlo (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
|
List of vegans
An RFC has been started on this issue since this request was filed and that RFC is now the more appropriate place to discuss this matter. If it does not resolve it and the dispute continues, then it can be refiled here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The dispute revolves around this edit. A consensus was formed over a year ago to add the color codes to the list at Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Change_of_formatting_to_match_List_of_vegetarians. An editor has now unilaterally decided to overturn this consensus by removing the coding despite objections. Users involved
A clear consensus was established for this color coding. User:SlimVirgin has ignored the consensus and pushed through her own unilateral edits. This is not consistent with WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, and being an admin she should be aware this is not how we develop articles
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
This was discussed at Talk:List_of_vegans#Legends.2Ftemplates where I made it clear I was open to dropping the color codings, but would prefer to discuss the option withingthe broader scope of developing the article. User:Muleattack also indicated he was open to dropping them and replacing with some other organizational structure, but similarly was against the route User:SlimVirgin took by just removing the color codes. User:CCS81 took a similar stance to myself and Muleattack.
On the talk page, myself, Muleattack and CCS81 all expressed a willingness to replace the current system, but we are all expressly against just dropping the current system without replacing it with something. Indeed, myself and Muleattack had already started discussing a new organization with sample layouts at Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Can_we_make_this_sortable.3F. I would prefer it if SlimVirgin could be persuaded or overruled and have the roiginal format restored, so we can progress with discussions on how to best structure the article. It is pretty clear this is the preferred approach of the editors, and an admin shouldn't just be allowed to force through unilateral changes . Betty Logan (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC) List of vegans discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Israel
Thank you user:Snamepi for identifying the map of Israel on Israel is not correct. Please indicate this on the article's talk page because this forum is for disputes between editors.Curb Chain (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
TYhe map attached to the article isn't correct and is misleading. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Opening
Upload a photo of a correct map Snamepi (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Israel discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
1929 Palestine riots
Resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
There is a problem at 1929 Palestine riots - bringing it here (after first going to Wikipedia:ANI#Tagging_problems_during_heated_editing_at_1929_Palestine_riots) as it involves a number of experienced editors, the consensus building atmosphere has broken down on the talk page, and it doesn't fit in to other obvious notice board categories. In the last two years, only 70 edits in total were made to the page until the last week when 11 users have made 115 edits so far. There is a very heavy talk discussion, and many open disputes. However two experienced editors involved in the discussion have removed two instances of tags from the article which were intended to give readers an indication of the ongoing dispute:
The addition of these tags was done with the guidance in WP:TAGGING in mind, but the two editors mentioned appear to disagree that these tags were constructive. Grateful for views as to whether these tags are appropriate or not in this situation. Users involved
Yes Resolving the dispute
Yes, detailed talk discussion back and forth with a number of very experienced editors
Grateful for views as to whether these tags are appropriate or not in this situation. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 1929 Palestine riots discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I am a regular mediator / clerk here at DRN. I've not searched the article history closely enough to be absolutely sure that I'm right about this, but it appears to me on quick examination that this dispute results from maintenance tags being added to the article and then being fairly promptly reverted. If this is correct, then except in a very few cases which are controlled by policy (for example, removal of CSD nomination tags by the creator of an article), tags are just like everything else at Wikipedia. If someone wants to place them, and someone else objects, then consensus must be achieved to place them. If consensus cannot be achieved, then a no-consensus condition results and, per this section of the consensus policy, that thing cannot be done. In this case, I see no consensus for the addition of the tags and, as a result, they should not be placed on the article. If the editor wishing the tags to be placed upon the article wishes to press the issue, then they should file a request for comments to see if support can be obtained from other editors for the placing of the tags. Until there is consensus, then the tags should not be placed on the article. This noticeboard is not a proper venue to try to obtain that support, but the listing editor has requested advice on whether the use of the tags is "appropriate", to which I would say that the only way they would be inappropriate is if the problems raised by the tags not only do not exist but do not exist to such a certainty that it would be disputatious editing to suggest otherwise, which would not appear to be the case here since action at ANI was rejected. However, even we presume (or assume in good faith) that they are appropriate, that does not mean that they must be there or that there is a right to insist that they be there since there is no policy or guideline mandating that they be there if they are appropriate: it is a matter to be decided by discussion and consensus. I would end by adding this opinion: maintenance tags such as these neither add nor detract much value to the encyclopedia and engaging in a dispute over them is generally a waste of everyone's time. Your time would be much better spent dealing with whatever issues the tags are intended to highlight than dealing with the tags themselves. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 30, 2012 at 14:44 (UTC) because matter is resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Kashmiri Pandit
Block evasion by sockpuppet of banned user. — TransporterMan (TALK) 01:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Removal of well-sourced content regarding Oregon Legislative Assembly's resolution condemning ethnic cleansing of non-muslim minority (Hindus known as Kashmiri Pandits) bu Islamic militants in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The content was present in the article since very old time. But User:Fowler&fowler removed it here [9]. I restored it, but my edit was then reverted by User:Sitush. We discussed the matter here on talk page-[10], but couldn't reach any consensus. I request admin intervention. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussed dispute on the talk page here[11], but couldn't reach any consensus.
Check the matter and help us in resolving our dispute. SubQuad (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Kashmiri Pandit discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Jammu and Kashmir is a Muslim-dominated Indian state geographically divided into Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh regions. Kashmir region at present is 99% Muslim. However before 1989, a considerable population of Kashmiri Hindus (known as Kashmiri Pandits) existed in Kashmir. Due to continuous target killing of Kashmiri Pandits by Islamic militants, they had to leave the region and had to become refugee in their own country. For more info, read [12], [13]. The number of Kashmiri Pandits who took refuge outside Kashmir varies from 1,90,000 to 5,00,000. The killings of remaining Kashmiri Pandits continued and hundreds of them were massacred in mass murders like 1998 Prankote massacre, 1998 Wandhama massacre, 2000 Amarnath pilgrimage massacre, 2006 Doda massacre etc. Disputed content: In 2009, Oregon Legislative Assembly passed a resolution to recognise 14 September 2007, as Martyrs Day to acknowledge ethnic cleansing and campaigns of terror inflicted on non-Muslim minorities of Jammu and Kashmir by terrorists seeking to establish an Islamic state. (Senate Joint Resolution 23, 75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY—2009 Regular Session) The dispute is about this content, which was removed earlier by User:Fowler&fowler, then by User:Sitush. To me, the matter is well-sourced and definitely relevant for the article's section Exodus from Kashmir (1985–1995)[14] SubQuad (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy
Closed as conduct dispute, improper filing method. — TransporterMan (TALK) 01:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
I would like to request the IP ban of 70.24.25.103 - who is associated with the film Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy. Warnings have been issued on the user's talk page, and IP traces to the location of the user "RobHeydon", who is directly involved with the film. Negative reviews of the film have been edited and replaced with positives. IMDB rating was falsified from 5.0 to 9.0. Rotten Tomatoes negative reviews were removed. And any critical review that the user doesn't agree with is changed. This is conflict of interest. With that said, after sufficient warnings, I would like to have the IP banned and "RobHeydon" should not be able to make adjustments to his own film's Wikipedia page, to avoid neutral point of view.
|
Occupy Wall Street
Moving to mediation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 12:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
A question has arisen in regards to how to use references to support a claim. Here is the disputed prose:
The reference is [15] and the text being used to cite the claims is:
The source used is an editorial opinion piece from the Personal Investment section of Forbes. It is disputed that this can be used as fact and is believed it should be attributed as opinion and not used to claim a straight fact. The references for this opinion being used are linked and show different articles from other publications and I think the belief is they are all based on a CBO report (the primary source) to claim the statement. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Lengthy discussion on talk page until an editor expressed frustration and need for Dispute resolution notice board.[16]
Please advise the best way to handle the claim to be supported by the source per Wikipedia standards. Goal is for criteria that would pass GA review or at improving the article for a better assement. Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Occupy Wall Street discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Opening responsesI can't fully respond to this tonight, but just a few points: the source used is one of several highly reliable sources which can be used to support the claims (or claims with very similar content, each source has different ways of parsing the data such as different start dates). We have this, for example, from the LA Times: "The year just past was one in which the stagnation of income and wealth for the great majority of Americans continued — indeed, bit so deep that it helped fuel the Occupy movement taking as its constituency the "99%," ... From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, the median American household saw its income double. Since then: a screeching halt, or barely a 5 percent rise in incomes for the less-affluent 90 percent of Americans. But between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent saw their incomes soar by 281 percent...A straightforward description of the trend was issued in October by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, which determined that for the highest-income 1% of the population, average after-tax household income almost quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, while income for the 60% of Americans in the middle of the scale grew by just over one-third. (Both figures are adjusted for inflation; in 2007, that middle group comprised households with earnings between about $15,000 and $70,000.) As a consequence of this trend, the CBO says, the share of after-tax household income collected by the top 20% of income earners grew to 53% in 2007 from 43% in 1979. Everyone else fell...One message of the Occupy movement is that the trend to deliver wealth to those at the top of the economic pyramid undervalues the contributions made by everyone else. This is not merely an important cause of our economic malaise, but a moral and political failing too."[17] by Michael Hiltzik. Similar to the last quote but more encyclopedic and using a reference suggested from the above editor. Income inequality need not be referenced for defintion as long as it is undisputable phrasing. --Amadscientist (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC) The sentence need not use the word "defined," and I offered to remove it. And no one disputes that the sentence is factual (yes, you heard that right, everyone knows/admits it's fully true). These are undisputed facts. Nothing, however, satisfies the critics at the OWS talk page. In an attempt to keep the info out of the article they have edit warred and even made up various additions to policy, such as that we as editors should research the history of authors and decide for ourselves whether they are qualified, regardless of where they are published. Be——Critical 07:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a question here that I've been wanting more opinions about: it would improve the article to be able to go to the CBO report directly for a few statistics. Numerous secondary sources reference the CBO report and relate its data to the complaints of OWS. Do people think it's acceptable to go directly to the report? Be——Critical 19:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Further discussion
This unsigned comment is from User:Amadscientist I already responded to this on the talk page, I'll paste my answer here. The sentence under discussion is,
Analysis to see if there is any POV, as opposed to presentation of fact done in a way much like the sources: with a wealthy upper class accruing large profits This is fact: backed up by the best of RS, the CBO report and secondary sources. economic stagnation This is also backed up by highly reliable sources, incomes have declined for most of the population on average, with slight gains for the middle class and less income for the poor. That's where this comes in: or impoverishment Impoverishment is also backed up by fact, as per the Guardian source, about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line. So either economic stagnation or impoverishment. This is simple fact. Thus, you may be saying that reciting all these indisputable facts together in the same sentence is POV. But since they are facts, since the sources themselves put them all together, and since that is what OWS is upset about, I see nothing POV about it. In actuality, the sources would paint a starker picture than the sentence discussed above: I left out that the country's economy has been growing, but that income only went to the top. That also needs to be put in. I don't see the POV in the statement. What I do see is some stark and obvious statistics which when you simply state them together in a neutral way sound POV because they lead the reader to an obvious conclusion. But giving the reader the facts is not what Wikipedia means by POV. Terms: The terms upper class and economic stagnation are not themselves disputed, they are technical terms and make for better linking. Be——Critical 20:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Uhm...what does that have to do with researching a subject and being able to justify the use of an author? But it DOES say "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Anyone owant to take a shot at expalining that to the editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This is the very thing I have been saying. It's all above in the discussion. I have no idea what the editor is claiming. They have been refusing to budge until we got to DR. The staistical information is as with any statistical information. It's a case by case thing and that is part of the discussion. How and when to use the statistics. But the claim in the original prose was weak and did need stronger sourcing.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The text is fairly clear and is well sourced. Economic stagnation is another term for flat incomes so that's not a problem and is the term that best describes the statistics. Plus we have the source above provided by bcritical. I'm not sure of impoverishment though. It doesn't have the same meaning as stagnation and is not necessarily supported by the income statistics. --regentspark (comment) 00:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
In looking at this I see two issue and only one real dispute. The issue with using statistical information is a seperate one and if I have not made myself clear in all the prose and the link I left to the policy etc., then I will state outright, that it is a case by case matter and dependent on context and what statistics and how and where they are used. It is a complicated issue and not cut and dry for a single consensus to any and all use. As for the prose and reference dispute, the admin above did indeed suggest better sourcing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC) New version
Give me a while I want to integrate the full section and sources here. Looking good (: Be——Critical 13:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
What do you think of this version? During the 1990s, economists began to release studies which showed the increasing income inequality in the United States. Although these were cited by liberals and Democrats, this information did not fully penetrate the public sphere till it was used as one of the ideas behind the OWS movement. OWS protests were particularly concerned with wealth and income inequality, in addition to greed and the corrupting power of banks and multinational corporations.[6] Inequality in wealth and income has increased over the last three decades with economic stagnation and unequal distribution of the wealth undermining the goals of most Americans."[7][8][9] A 2010 poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans across the political spectrum, including the wealthiest, want more equitable distribution of wealth.[10] According to news editor Simon Rogers writing for The Guardian Data Blog, Americans, including 90% of Republicans, believe that the top 20% of Americans should own as much as 40% of the wealth of the nation, and that the poorest 120 million Americans should own about 10% of the wealth of the nation. However, in reality the top 20% of people in the Unites States own 85% of the wealth, the 120 million poorest own .3% (about 1/333rd or one third of one percent), and the richest 1% own about 33%.[9][11] According to 2007 statistics, financial inequality (total net worth minus the value of one's home[12]) is greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[8] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[8][13][14] Tax rates paid by the wealthy are less than those paid by Americans making $100,000 to $200,000 per year: incomes of $100,000 to $200,000 are taxed at an effective rate of 25%, but the wealthy, whose income comes mostly from investments, pay less than 20%.[9] Since 1979, federal taxation has become less progressive, shifting away from progressive income taxes and toward payroll taxes.[7][6] In the United States, about 15% of households are "food insecure," meaning that they have difficulty buying enough food. About 50 million Americans have no health insurance and at least 42 million —about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line.[9] Executive pay in the largest US companies has quadrupled since the 1970s, but the average non-supervisory employee is paid 10% less.[9][15][16][17][18] Be——Critical 03:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
References
Why use it as fact? Just explain that its an opinion of the author. Like, "according to John Doe" or "writes John Doe" or "in staff writer John Doe's opinion". As long as its phrased so that the opinion is clearly that of the author, not Wikipedia than its fine, though a balance should be maintained. — GabeMc (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
A different approachWe need a different approach. I won't call for closing of the DR when there is still a dispute, regardless that the compromise of my original dispute seems to be working. I won't use "My version" versus "Their version". That is not a discussion as much as it is requesting a vote between versions that differ greatly. I am however, going to be straight forward here as I am in this dispute. The subject of income inequalityWe know that income inequality is an issue for OWS. It does not require citation as it is considered undisputed fact. How this fact is applied is a matter of consensus. But...there are other issues. What about greed, corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government? Why do we have an entire section with a header entitled "Income inequality"? and not a section with headers entitled with the other issues? IS income inequality so important to the subject that it is due weight to include a seperate section entitled "Income Inequality" and no other sections relating in the same manner each issue with due weight? If we use only a single header, shouldn't that header be more neutral to the subjects of issues and simply use the header "Issues". But then there is the fact that it is a protest and they have goals. It is reasonable to suggest that issues are a part of the protest goals. Why not a section entitled "Issues and Goals"? I see a section entitled as "Income inequality" and being devoted to the subject alone to be wandering into original research. As far as your version. I have stated you should be bold and add it a little at a time and see what happens. You could always add all of it and see what happens, but then you must be able to allow other editors involved to edit it, question it and remove it if they follow proper procedure. Removal of content is acceptable even as stated by essay, WP:BRD. Having content removed is not a disruption. It happens all the time. You, yourself have removed content. Is there a compromise you might consider? Perhaps drafting out a merging of some content into an issues section along with some additonal content cited to RS about the other issues and the protestor goals?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
It does seem to me that the terms of the dispute are shifting. We started with a dispute over the wording of a sentence in the text. That dispute seems to have been resolved. Now, the entire section is being disputed? --regentspark (comment) 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Amadscientist, on reading your diffs I'm not sure I see what your issues are. Generally, in the diffs, you express the concern that highlighting income inequality as the main issue underlying OWS is not directly supported by reliable sources and therefore either the entire section should be removed or 'income inequality' be moved into a broadly titled 'main issues' section where other issues are also discussed. Is that a fair assessment? --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
|