Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley

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. Wiley protocol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) T. S. Wiley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? For over five years, there has been only one editor for these two papers. I am the subject's husband and, as COI, I do not edit the document, but make suggestions in the talk page. The editor WLU is so irretrievably biased about this subject that I need another editor to look this over. The entries in the article are extremely damaging to the subject, and have been for years. The article is slanted and arguments to the contrary, including sworn testimony to the US Senate, are dismissed. In the most recent conversation, WLU dismissed the topic as a fringe theory on a fringe theory. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? WLU (talk · contribs) Nraden (talk · contribs) Here are some comments from just the past few days short paragraphs from the talk page that illustrate his bias: Here is the reference to the rebuttal of Rosenthal in the journal Menopause - [1] Thanks for making the changes so far. Neil Raden (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC) The worst part of the article is this phrase "potential financial conflicts of interest regarding financial incentives." No sources. There are no conflicts of interest, that is a criticism from ten years ago. Today, Wiley provides only packaging material (syringes, bags, labels and packet inserts) to the compounding pharmacies (about 100 at present). This is no royalty or kickback. The vast amount of revenue from the Wiley Protocol goes to pharmacies and physicians. Pharmacies purchase the other materials from sources specified in their contracts, and there is no financial activity between those suppliers and Wiley. It's a squeaky clean operation. Unless you can source something to the contrary, I would suggest you remove this right away. The entire relationship between Wiley, doctors and pharmacies is clear and above board. Neil Raden (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Is T.S. Wiley's SWORN TESTIMONY to the US Senate not a reliable source? It seems to me that her sworn testimony, where she is articulate about her approach and quite critical of mainstream medicine, more compelling than some doctor with no credentials in this field (Erika Schwartz) who uses her husband's connection to the NYT to trade on Suzanne Somers' notoriety and get published in the newspaper. Seems like a real lack of balance to me. Neil Raden (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Here;s an example. Much of the criticism of the WP is based on the conclusions of the Women's Health Initiative (which has itself come under attack.) Wiley states in her testimony, "The failure of the WHI trial is partially due to the lack of understanding of the biology of the reproductive and menopausal state as well as, the indiscriminant choice of study subjects without well defined entry criteria, such as on the average enrolling subjects 12 to 15 years into menopause, creates unfathomable noise for the outcome." Is this not equivalent to Rosenthal's ethical concerns? A published criticism of a trial? Neil Raden (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC) A letter to the editor is a reliable source only for the opinion of the letter's author. Wiley's sworn testimony is similarly just reliable as a source about her own opinion. In the case of actual experts, those opinions can be worth including, but given Wiley's lack of actual quantification and expertise in a relevant area (a degree in anthropology and three scientific papers), it's a dubious inclusion. Wiley giving sworn testimony doesn't make her right, and it doesn't make her an expert - nor does being articulate. Wiley giving testimony before congress is not the same thing as appearing in a peer reviewed journal, and if I saw Wiley's opinion on the WHI page, I would remove it as a fringe expert not worth including. The Wiley protocol is a fringe theory of a fringe theory that is regarded as dubious by the medical establishment. That's where the due weight should fall, irrespective the failings of Erika Schwartz's page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Yes, I have been patient with WLU for years, on the Talk page only, but the prominence of Wikipedia in searches is harming Wiley as the article reflects the negative opinion of WLU and no one else. He has stated very clearly in the past that he is very much opposed to the subject matter, whihc makes him a poor choice of editor, especially as sole editor. Here is my question: If someone defames you in a reliable source, how are you to defend yourself on Wikipedia if everything you say is "original research?" Even a letter to the editor of a respected medical journal, WRITTEN BY A THIRD PARTY M.D. is dismissed. If there is controversy, why isn't the whole controversy aired, not just one side? Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I would like WLU to be asked to recuse himself from these two article and ask for some help finding some editors who can moderate this objectively. How do you think we can help? I'm not sure, but if we can't get some other eyes on this, it would be better to remove both articles removed the offending starwmwnt Neil Raden (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Neil Raden (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Wiley Protocol, T. S. Wiley discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The Wiley protocol is a subset of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, which has no mainstream credibility - a fringe theory. Accordingly, due weight requires the page reflect the mainstream opinion and not give the impression this is a well-founded, well-substantiated scientific and medical approach, and should include what criticisms are available. Neil doesn't like this, but we are not a place to promote unfounded ideas. I have no issue with another editor editing the page in compliance with the P&G. Neil has been admirable in restricting his edits to the page in question, as one of the few regular contributors I am by default the person he is likely to talk to about this - but the page is adequate as is as far as I'm concerned. I have seen no new sources that I think should be integrated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC) WLU has not been admirable, he poses as a fair editor but wields a heavy pen against ideas he doesn't like. Have a look at his work on the Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy page. He should be banned. Please see my many suggestions ignored on the talk page. WLU contradicts himself - if the Wiley Protocol is a fringe theory of a fringe theory, why is it notable to Wikipedia? The controversy? That's been over for 5-6 years. Wiley has trained doctors around the world and thousands of people follow the protocol. If Wiley and the Wiley Protocol are notable enough to warrant Wikipedia pages, why not actually DESCRIBE the Wiley Protocol. There are three words of criticism and controversy to every word that describes the subject. Another contradiction is that WLU excoriates Dr. Erika Schwarz but uses her unfounded opinion freely to denigrate Wiley's work. Pick a foot and stand on it. WLU's statements in the Talk page depict a personal tinge and are far from objective. And I would be willing to bet he is completely uninformed abut the subject. All I ask is to have an editor who is not openly hostile to hormone therapy to judge all of this on its merits. WLU uses a couple of sources to shoot down Wiley, which are full of errors, but allows no defense, even a published rebuttal in the same journal where the paper was published. There are dozens of testimonials about the WP on Youtube, including 6 or 8 by doctors. Dr Erika Schwartz on Page 6 of the New York Post, a gossip page with pinups? That's a reliable source? The same Dr Erika in the National Enquirer? C'mon. If someone defames you on Wikipedia, what are you supposed to do, wait for a stranger to defend you in a "reliable source?" My suggestion is that WLU step aside (as I have in editing the articles) and that we restructure the articles to a pro/con format instead of this 6 years long ad hominem. It is materially affecting Wiley's ability to pursue her work because Wikipedia is a powerful source of information. Neil Raden (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC) I am a regular mediator/clerk here at this noticeboard. First, let me note that making legal claims or threats, or anything that even resembles them, is one of the fastest and easiest ways of becoming blocked from editing, see WP:LEGAL. If you feel that you need to make legal claims, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation via their contact page, but otherwise entirely refrain from making or alluding to such claims and I would strongly suggest that you also go back through the material that you have posted here (and elsewhere) and remove all references to libel. If you feel an assertion about a living person in an article or in a discussion is not supported by reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia policy, please follow the instructions in the biographies of legal persons (BLP) policy by immediately removing the material. If it is restored, then report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard, but remember that while issues of libel may underlie the BLP policy, discussing or making claims or threats about libel will still probably get you blocked. Second, this noticeboard and other dispute resolution processes here at Wikipedia generally do not work very well on open-ended claims about bias about entire articles. If you have specific assertions in the article which you feel are not reliably sourced, then please point them out. Otherwise, you may not get much response here. Third, I've not looked at the article or the talk page, but if the example you give above (the one following "Here are some comments from just the past few days short paragraphs from the talk page that illustrate his bias:") is typical, I see no bias at all in his response given there. Sworn testimony and letters to the editor are, indeed, not generally considered to be reliable sources at Wikipedia and I fail to see what it is that you might consider to be biased in that response. Fourth, I see from this discussion that you have expressed surprise and disagreement with Wikipedia's sourcing policy as much as five years ago, but seem to still be struggling with its ramifications. Could it be that what you are identifying as bias in WLU is actually nothing more than the effect of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, where all that can be reported here is what is reported in reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia? As noted in that 2007 discussion, it sometimes happens that all a matter is notable for, based on Wikipedia standards, is the negative things about it, and positive things have not been reported in a way that allows them to be reported here, with the result that the Wikipedia article appears to be biased when in fact it is merely limited. If the negative things are, indeed, reliably sourced (again, as defined by Wikipedia), then it is unlikely that the article will be removed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC) I did not make a threat of legal action. What I said was that some things the editor said about Wiley in talk pages verged on libelous. There was no threat real or implied. But I'm not satisfied with your answer because when a third party makes damaging claims about you that are not factual in a so-called reliable source, you have no recourse on Wikipedia, and these statements are damaging in a very real way. I found it extremely frustrating that a third party rebutted these claims in the very same journal, but the editor refused to acknowledge them. His application of Wikipedia policy is very selective and I would appreciate it if you would consider this more closely. Neil Raden (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Word to the wise: I strongly advise that you follow the advice TransporterMan gave you instead of denying that you did it. Then once you have purged your posts (including the one above) of words like "libelous", we will be free to examine your claims of bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Suggestion I concur with Guy Macon and TransporterMan. Even using the phrase "verged on libelous" suggests that there may be cause for libel charges to be started. We understand that you believe that there is a lack of accuracy in the article, however there are ways to express your thought (such as parliamentary language) without bringing the legal aspect of the equation into play. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Normally I would examine Neil Raden's claims and, if they turned out to be accurate, I would take appropriate action to fix the problems. Instead I am ignoring the claims and not looking at the page; there is no way in hell i am going to get involved in a Wikipedia dispute where one side is making thinly-veiled legal threats that I might get sued if I fail to agree with their position. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC) I reworded. Mea culpa. Also added c=some comments to the Wiley Protocol talk page. Neil Raden (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Actually, I'll just paste them here to make it easier to follow. This article has so many errors in it, I don't know where to start, There is also a Wiley Protocol for Men, women's testosterone, melatonin and thyroid, all transdermal preparations, and a cortisol replacement. There is also a patented anti-aging cream, also transdermal and dispensed by prescription only, as are the others with the exception of melatonin. There has never been any controversy about any of these except the women's protocol, and hat controversy dates to 2005 and I believe 2007. There is a 400 page clinical practice guide for the doctors compiled from a dozen years of clinical experience (of the doctors), a rigorous program of testing of the preparations for purity and consistency that the licensed pharmacies must adhere to quarterly, as well as testing of the compounding techs to ensure they do not absorb any of the materials. These are all contractual obligations. The wo-day seminar concentrates on topics of endocrinology and her research that lead to the creation of the protocols and the second day lead mostly by doctors teaching clincal practice, a course so packed with material that it is certified for 17 CME's (Continuing Medical Education), 75% of a doctor's annual requirement. So in addition to all of the (dated) controversy, it migtt be a good idea to actually explain what the WP is and the how the program works. All adverse reactions are reported to Julie Taguchi MD and there have been no serious ones in 12 years. There have been cases where people haven't done well, that's medicine. Not every one responds the same, Some are non-compliant (the protocol takes some work to follow) or they've added supplements that interfere with the protocol, which carries a warning: "WARNING: Herbs, Supplements and some Prescription Drugs may diminish the effectiveness of this treatment," as well as detailed packet inserts on use, etc. So I guess you could still say it's "potentially dangerous," but there is no evidence of it._ Neil Raden (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC) None of the controversies regarding the Wiley Protocol have been resolved, to my knowledge. Debv (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Given the lack of sources (beyond Neil's assertions) I can't see any way this can move any further forward as a complaint, or even as an expansion of the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC) I'm the complainant here, and was hoping to get the opinion of someone other than WLU. It goes without saying that Debv's opinion, owner of a WIley hate site, is not needed here. There is only one source that mentions concerns about the Wiley Protocol. Dr. Highnote was one of the authors and is currently president of the organization that published it. She denies that any doctor ever said that, it was in fact an uninvited guest from Debv's organization. Not a doctor. She wants to get a retraction into the record. What would Wikipedia consider an acceptable reliable source? Neil Raden (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC) There are only two citied sources for the negative comments about the Wiley Protocol, Rosenthal and the ACAM Proceedings. I've already asked for instructions about a retraction by one of the authors of the ACAM article. The Rosenthal article in the journal Menopause was full of factual errors that were disputed by Dr. Julie Taguchi MD, published in the same journal. WLU wrote that a letter to the editor is not a reliable source. I disagree. Taguchi figured prominently in the Rosenthal article, was interviewed at length by Rosenthal, and widely misquoted. Taguchi didn't offer an opinion, she disputed Rosenthal's facts. That is relevant. At the very least, mention of Taguchi's rebuttal is essential as it casts doubt on Rosenthal's credibility. Neil Raden (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC) There is some background information about this topic and the editors involved in it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive34#Wiley_Protocol_and_T._S._Wiley_.28closed.29 --Guy Macon (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC) FWIW I've got copies of the Taguchi letter to the editor and Rosenthal's response (and can provide them if requested). I saw nothing that struck me as requiring immediate addition. I'll re-read them at some point to confirm, but I certainly don't see either as a key source that demands the article be substantially rewritten. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC) I find this opinion bizarre. Here is what the Wikipedia article says, "The Wiley Protocol has been criticized as unethical due to the start of a Phase II clinical trial with no Phase I, a lack of approval by an institutional review board, a lack of an experienced scientific investigator leading the trial, no inclusion or exclusion criteria and no evidence that the study population has been told that the research has not passed an ethical review,[6][9]" Taguchi directly disputes every one of those claims in the same journal. How can you NOT reference it when Rosenthal is your only source for this statement? This is precisely why I need other editors to look at this. There should be a follow on statement that says, "These claims are dismissed in a published LTTE to the same journal, claiming that Rosenthals's facts are completely wrong. There was nan IRB number given, and Dr. Taguchi has been a principal investigator on over 40 clinical trials." Taguchi gave Rosenthal this information in phone interviews.I don't know if she just misunderstood or committed academic fraud to make a point, but you cannot let her one source stand when there is credible published evridence it is wrong. Am I just wasting my time arguing with you, since your mind is already made up, or are other editors reading this? Neil Raden (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC) You say nothing of Rosenthal's response to Taguchi, which was published in the same issue. Debv (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Debv makes my point for me - Rosenthal's reply starts with something like "Thanks to Dr. Taguchi for indicating she did not understand my article". The two together net to zero as far as I'm concerned. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC) You titled the section "Controversy." You can't have a controversy without two sides. Now publish the other side or I will. If you revert it, it will escalate this.This dispute resolution has not been helpful. It's just you and me again. Neil Raden (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Wiley Protocol: Who are the players and what are their interests? I would like to step back and look at the big picture, which might involve asking questions that have been answered before, so please be patient. My first question is this: among those who have posted to the Wiley protocol article, talk page or to this noticeboard entry, what is your involvement? Are you a relative of one of the people mentioned in the article? Do you control or contribute to an off-wiki website that covers this topic? Are you a patient that has had this or a competing treatment? Are you in any way involved with a competitor? Note that there is nothing wrong with any of the above, but full disclosure is strongly advised. I will have more questions later. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC) From my user page: "I run the web site Wiley Watch, which scrutinizes T. S. Wiley, her Wiley Protocol, and its stakeholders." My cumulative revenue from this endeavor to date is exactly $0.00. I don't accept donations and I don't endorse Wiley's competitors. Debv (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks! Like I said, nothing wrong with that, as long as it is disclosed. Any connection to rhythmicliving.org, or is that someone else? Also, have you decided to voluntarily not edit the article because of a potential COI? (I am not saying you should or should not or that you do or do not have a COI - I am just getting a feel for the issues and participants at this point). I also have a question about [ http://wileywatch.org/wiley_and_wikipedia ] (the links to wikiscanner are dead, BTW; -- looks like a temporary situation as they do some work on the site) Have you brought these concerns up on any Wikipedia noticeboard such as WP:SPI or WP:COIN? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Rhythmic Living is run by a woman whom I’ve come to consider a friend and we’re certainly of very like mind when it comes to the Wiley Protocol. We are not the same person, contrary to baseless claims that have been made here. No, as the histories show I don’t make substantive, non-minor edits to these articles. I’m content to provide information and perspective on the talk pages. I haven’t edited the content proper of these articles in over five years. As for the issue with Wikiscanner and the anonymous edits that were happening at the time, that was nearly five years ago. It hasn’t been a concern since, not to my recollection. Thanks for the time and attention you’re bringing to this. Debv (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC) I am T.S. Wiley's husband and I agreed to not directly edit the Wiley Protocol or the T.S. Wiley article. I contribute my information only to the discussion pages. I did make one exception. I edited the Wiley Protocol page to enter the US patent # it had received. WLU immediately reverted it with no comment, showing his continuing lack of good faith. When I questioned him, he said I included no reference. Duh, it would have taken him 30 seconds to find it on the USPTO website, or he could have just asked me for the link instead of deleting it. When I provided the link, I guess he had no choice but to put it back in. But that is the only instance in five years for which I made an edit to the page. I would like debv to answer your question about her connection to rhythmicliving.org. We believe they are the same person and Debv is a sockpuppet for Laurel McCubbin who runs rhythmicliving. You should also know that rhythmicliving was originally a site devoted to the Wiley Protocol (hence the name rhythmic, which is the keystone of the Wiley Protocol), but became a hate site when Wiley would not allow McCubbin to monetize the site. The sole purpose of both sites is to spread distortion and outright lies about the Wiley Protocol. It's a longstanding vendetta, not a disagreement over a medical protocol. Neil Raden (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Also, I have no direct financial interest in the Wiley Protocol, I am not paid by any of her ventures. I'm just a husband who is sick and tired of seeing his wife's name and work dragged though the dirt by two people (who may just be one person) and by a Wikipedia editor who applies WP as it suits his point of view. All I want is a fair article, not a lot of excuses why half-baked sources are allowed and bonafide ones dismisses. The Wiley Protocol article doesn't even describe the Wiley Protocol. Neil Raden (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Without saying who I think is right or wrong (right now I just want a list of the players and their interests), I can assure you that I plan on seeing that this is handled fairly and according to Wikipedia's principles. I will get help from someone more experienced if needed. I would also like to mention that when I ask a question, "I prefer not to say" is a perfectly acceptable answer. This is not a court or an interrogation room, and Wikipedia has a strict policy of protecting user privacy. That being said, the answers I have gotten so far are incredibly useful. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC) I'm explicitly not responding to any of the baseless accusations above. Debv (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Just to save others the investigation: Neil Raden did add content to Wiley protocol on February 1, 2011 about a patent issued: [2] Above he claims that this was immediately reverted by WLU and without comment. Well WLU did in fact remove the text but it was over a year later, on April 27, 2012: [3]. And it wasn't without comment: [4]. Debv (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC) I am still hoping to hear from WLU and to find out, if he/she chooses to reveal the info, whether there is any connection with Wiley, a competitor / critic of Wiley, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC) I have no connection to Wiley, personal or professional. I have extensive experience editing the bioidentical hormone replacement therapy page (of which the WP is a type). I stumbled over the WP or BHRT as part of routine editing, since both weren't very good pages I edited both to their current, MEDRS-compliant versions. I don't promote or criticize BHRT or the Wiley protocol in any meaningful way bar my activities on wikipedia (which as far as I'm concerned is simply routine editing of two fringe topics that have very little mainstream credibility). Neil has generally refrained from editing, and the edits I've seen haven't been ones with substantial COI problems (AGF however...) I have copies of several sources (Rosenthal being one I certainly have) in case you need any. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Also, I'm a he. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC) I just checked Wiley protocol and T. S. Wiley and I don't see anyone else involved other that the three listed above. Anyone disagree? Which brings up the question, why are there only two editors listed in the "Who is involved in the dispute?" at the top of this noticeboard entry? (No harm done -- the real problem is when someone doesn't get the news that there is a noticeboard discussion -- but please be more careful in the future.) Also, does anyone disagree with the assertion that those two pages are where the dispute centers? OK, so a couple of closing remarks and I will start the next section. No more accusing Debv of being the author of the Rhythmic Living website. She (he?) has said it isn't true, and here at Wikipedia we Assume Good Faith. In fact, let's all try to avoid any personal comments and keep this a discussion about what is on the Wikipedia pages. If anyone thinks Debv should not be editing because of a Conflict of Interest (nobody has indicated that) the place to bring it up is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard after this is settled. The description of the dispute only lists a Neil Raden / WLU dispute. With that, I am dropping that topic. As I've indicated I'm content to provide information on the talk pages and I feel no reason at this point, nor have I in recent history (meaning about the last five years), to edit the articles directly, apart from technical, non-controversial edits. Debv (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Evidence supporting / refuting alleged bias In this section, we will be discussing specific edits that someone believes are a problem. I think we all know how to cite sources. but if anyone is a bit rusty with citing edits, please see Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide, Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide and Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide for help. I want to see a link for every source cited and a diff for every edit discussed. I am going to start with this claim from earlier in this thread: "The worst part of the article is this phrase 'potential financial conflicts of interest regarding financial incentives.' No sources." That statement is in the lead of Wiley protocol.[5] (Note how I added a diff leading to the edit where it was added. That's the sort of thing I am looking for). The edit comment for that edit was "rewrite to be closer to body text" So the next thing to do is to look at the article as it existed at that time.[6] So, is that statement in the body text? Yes. It is in the criticism section of the page as it existed when the edit was made, and it is still there today: "...concerns over conflicts of interest regarding financial incentives..." and there is a citation: (Rosenthal MS (2008). "The Wiley Protocol: an analysis of ethical issues". Menopause. 15 (5): 1014–1022. doi:10.1097/gme.0b013e318178862e. PMID 18551081.) That edit was made in 2008[7] The pubmed link in the cite leads to an abstracy that uses this wording: "Breaches of professional ethics include conflicts of interest with respect to financial incentives" It appears that the claim "The worst part of the article is this phrase 'potential financial conflicts of interest regarding financial incentives.' No sources." is dubious. We will look at the claims made right after that a bit later -- please be patient, one claim at a time. Is there a diff showing anyone on the article talk page questioning the use of that phrase, either in the lead or in the criticism section? Anything claiming it is unsourced or violates WP:WEIGHT? If so, was there a response? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Debv was inactive when Nraden started this section. On those two pages, I don't think there are any other regular editors. Debv has also in the past indicated she would not edit directly. Citations in the lead are optional per WP:LEAD, I didn't make a point of including them. I have a copy of Rosental's article if you would like the full text. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I agree that there is no need for a citation in the lead if the claim is cited later. I usually suggest that only on articles that are very large, which makes the later cite hard to find. Thanks for the offer, but I don't need to study the sources in any great depth unless someone claims that the page misrepresents what is in the source. Right now I am focusing on what Nraden called "the worst part of the article" (thus his main complaint). He claimed that it was unsourced and when I checked I found that it was sourced. That's actually OK - you are allowed to make a mistake about whether something is sourced, especially if you need to look farther down the page to find the cite. What I am focusing on at the moment involves the "have you tried to resolve this dispute already?" question at the top of this noticeboard entry. I am looking for evidence about whether this issue was brought up on the talk page and if so whether the issue was responded to, and I want Nraden to look this up rather than someone else posting the answer. The reason is because if there was no effort to resolve the dispute on the article talk page, I am going to recommend closing this noticeboard entry and sending all of you back to the talk page with the option of opening another one on the same issue if you cannot resolve it there. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC) (Sound of Crickets chirping...) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're looking for from me at least. The only section on the Wiley protocol talk page is my discussion with Neil. Pretty much all the content and context can be found on that talk page and this discussion board. I have no issue with closing this noticeboard and sending it back to the talk page, but that won't address Neil's concerns since the only person who regularly edits the page (me) doesn't see any need to make any changes. The WP is still unsubstantiated, and no new sources have turned up to indicate the wikipage is out of date. Close it if you'd like, but the dispute will remain unresolved - Neil thinks the page is biased, I don't, and nobody else seems interested in seeing if I'm right or wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 03:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Actually, someone is interested in whether the page is biased. Me. Above, I analyzed Neil's main complaint about what he believes to be bias on your part. I found this claim to be totally without merit and to be based upon an assertion of something being unsourced -- an assertion that is factually incorrect. I am more than willing to closely examine any further allegations of bias, and I will have no problem with telling you that you are being biased if I find evidence of that. So far, I have not seen any evidence of bias, and Neil went silent when his first allegation was shot down. As far as I can see, you [WLU] have done everything right, but I am open to evidence to the contrary. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC) I have lots of other concerns, not just the one you resolved. Most importantly, the article is just not informative. Reading it, you still would have no idea what the Wiley Protocol was, except the controversy. Second item, you haven't addressed the issue over Dr Taguchi's refuting Rosenthal in the journal Menopause. WLU refuses to add Wiley's newest peer-reviewed paper, which plays against claims she is "unqualified." I could go on, but I do not want to see this issue go back to the talk page because nothing will change. Neil Raden (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Guy, if you're going to do it anyway it might be worth simply closing this section and engaging with Neil and I on the talk page about specific sources and points, your call either way but I am glad another editor is engaging. That's ultimately what the page needs (in my opinion). As an FYI, the article Neil is talking about is this one in which she and a coauthor publish a mathematical model in a physics journal. I think it's irrelevant to the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC) WLU, I prefer to keep it here so I can focus narrowly on the dispute. The way thing should work is that, while we are all working on resolving the dispute here, other improvements where nobody disagrees are ongoing on the article talk page - fixing grammar, finding sources, that sort of thing. Neil, no problem with being busy, but please try to let us know. You can say even you want to take three months off, and we will work it out (probably by archiving and re-opening). Getting Biographies of Living Persons right is very important to Wikipedia, and I want to fully examine every issue you have. OK, moving to the next issue, Neil, I need something better defined than "the issue over Dr Taguchi's refuting Rosenthal in the journal Menopause. WLU refuses to add Wiley's newest peer-reviewed paper." First, when you bring something like that up, include a link (can you confirm that the link WLU gave was what you were talking about?) Second, I need a diff showing where you asked that it be added and a diff where there was a response to the request. That will give me the details I need to evaluate the claim. Did you suggest it as an external link? Did you want to put in some specific wording with that link as a citation supporting it? I can get some of this from WLU, but I prefer to hear the details directly from you. Take us much time as you need; we want to get this right. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC) I believe there are two issues above - one related to Rosenthal and one related to Wiley's newest paper. "Rosenthal" refers to one of two peer reviewed articles written by M Sara Rosenthal (here and here) but is probably referring to the first one, found in the journal Menopause. Julie Taguchi is a researcher who has collaborated with TS Wiley. She wrote a letter to the editor of Menopause, and I believe that is the document Neil is referring to (see here, but I haven't been able to find a full-text online; I can e-mail it if need be). Rosenthal replied to Taguchi's letter in the same issue, and I believe refuted Taguchi's points sufficiently that I see no need to include them. That's my side of things, Neil can correct me if I'm wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#AIP Advances -Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2012 (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.

Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–1996)

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. Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–1996) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? User:TopGun placed pov tags on the article without providing a clear reasoning. Initially he stated the reason was, "To be specific, it is stating Pakistan's support for Taliban at multiple occasions as a fact which is clearly not a neutral POV." When attribution was provided to all the statements involving Pakistan and the Taliban and the tags were removed, TG placed the tags again, this time refusing to provide a reasoning on the talk page referring to a mediation in this topic area (which is however not inclusive of this article).[8] The mediation among other things deals with the question whether Pakistan's support to the Taliban 1994-2001 can be stated as a matter of fact or needs attribution, but attribution in this article was provided. TG failed to provide any reasoning for the tags including on the mediation pages and I don't think the article needs to spot tags without any specific reasons being brought forward. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? TopGun (talk · contribs) JCAla (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–1996)}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Discussion on talk page How do you think we can help? Please provide your input whether pov tags are justified in the article for the content mentioning Pakistan's relationship to the Taliban. This is the content in question: By October 1994 the Taliban movement had according to academic consensus and on-the-ground reports attracted the support of Pakistan who was unhappy with the unsuccessful Hekmatyar, which saw in the Taliban a way to secure trade routes to Central Asia and establish a government in Kabul friendly to its interests. Although Pakistan followed a policy of denial when it came to its connections to the Taliban, senior Pakistani officials such as Interior Minister Naseerullah Babar would later state, "we created the Taliban" and former Pakistani President Musharraf would write "we sided" with the Taliban to "spell the defeat" of anti-Taliban forces. In 1996, the Taliban returned to seize Kabul, this time as analysts such as Ahmed Rashid describe with the decisive support of Pakistan as well as Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia. reflist JCAla (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–1996) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Without even reading into the article in great detail, the neutrality issues are very obvious. There is heavy use of loaded words, and this probably needs to be addressed first. After that is attributing points of view correctly. Just because sources X and Y says something does not mean Z is true. For example, something like "By October 1994 the Taliban movement had according to academic consensus and on-the-ground reports attracted the support of Pakistan" is an issue, because it gives the impression that this is the only viewpoint on the matter. Generally, for attributing points-of-view, you use the "X person of Y company/publication said blah blah blah" but other factors are important here. The above sentence is essentially saying that Pakistan supports a terrorist organisation, albeit in a worded up way, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The sources provided are from peer-reviewed journals, but whether the views within are fringe theories is a different matter altogether. However, if there is already an RFC open regarding this article, then that should be pursued first, and re-discussed later if necessary. The article will need lots of work, either way. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 15:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the hint with regards to "loaded words", I improved that, maybe you can have another look. But that is not the real issue here. On the matter of Pakistan's support to the Taliban among reliable sources that is indeed the only viewpoint among reliable sources, except for Pakistan's denial which has been identified as a specific policy of denial by the sources and has been superceded by later Pakistani admissions to some parts of the support. There exists no reliable source stating "Pakistan did not support the Taliban 1994-2001". JCAla (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC) If the issue is "did Pakistan support the Taliban?" then the best path forward is the following: Editors must provide specific quotes from reliable sources. The list of sources above in this DRN is a good start, but the next step is to provide specific quotes from those sources which say "Pakistan supported the Taliban" or similar statements. Conversely, if editors have sources that say "Pakistan did not support the Taliban" or "Pakistan opposed the Taliban" or similar, then quotes from those sources should be identified. If sources cannot be found for this opposing viewpoint, then the tag should be removed, and the article must represent the other viewpoint (presuming sources are available for the latter). See WP:BURDEN. The sources should be assessed for reliability. Blogs and the like are not acceptable. Potentially biased sources may be used (if reliable), but will need to be noted as such per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The material in the article should be updated to reflect what the sources say. It is safe, but crude, to simply quote the sources in the article and identify each source. Better is to summarize the sources in an encyclopedic paraphrase (and if sources are potentially biased, identify the source per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). If the sources have multiple viewpoints, the article needs to include them all, although WP:UNDUE requires that the article must convey to the reader the relative strength of the viewpoints amongst the reliable sources. Following those steps (on the article Talk page, not here) should be a good path forward. --Noleander (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Hi, I left a message on the article's talk page which JCAla completely ignored and opened this discussion here. We have an RFC on the issue at Talk:Pakistan which will show some consensus on the matter - I advised JCAla to wait for it to be over though this was replied with bad faith accusations. Further more this discussion is a fork of the formal mediation already started on the topic area specifically covering Pakistan and Taliban dispute which has been lingering for months. This discussion should be moved to the same so as not to be counter productive: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/India, Afghanistan and Pakistan. PS. I agree with the points given by the two uninvolved users above. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protandim Side Effects Selection

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. Protandim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? User Cresix, :continues to remove source information and links to medical sources like the University of Maryland, Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, and now has placed and editorial warning on my account . The user Cresix replaces the post with standard Lifevantege company information as seen below. Protandim Side Effects According to the manufacturer, the side effects of Protandim may include allergic responses, gastrointestinal disturbances (stomach ache, diarrhea, vomiting), headache, and rash of the hands and feet This is what I want the page to read……………………… Milk Thistle – “The University of Maryland Medical Center states that milk thistle may react with a variety of medications, including, anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, anti-seizure medications, blood-thinning drugs, anti-cancer agents, cholesterol-lowering drugs. http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/milk-thistle-000921.htm The Bacopa flower (Bacopa monniera) is being tested as an Epilepsy drug to control seizures. See the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health study posted here. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19944749 Green Tea concentrations can contain toxic levels of sodium fluoride(January 2005 issue of the Journal of American Medicine), which accumulate in its leaves during processing and manufacturing process (Caries Research (1996) 30:88-92 Fluoride content in caffeinated, decaffeinated and herbal teas). Tea leaves appear to be good absorbers of toxins and extract fluoride from the water above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) set for fluoride in drinking water which is 4 parts per million (ppm). Fluorides in teas are found together with aluminum. The combination of aluminum and fluorides in tea is of urgent concern, due to the increased damage done by fluorides when in the presence of aluminum, especially “neurological” and renal damage. (Health effects of tea ) Recently many fingers are beginning to point to child immunization drugs as the source to the explosion in Autism in the population. Along with Mental retardation, Learning disabilities, Communication disorders, Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Conduct disorder, and Oppositional defiant disorder. The specialists are questioning the amount of Aluminum in the immunization drugs, as the possible source to the destruction of the normal nerves system and its normal functions. Since aluminum is a common bonding agent to the components in the immunization drugs, it is high on the list of a hazard. Ingestion of cosmetics products are a leading cause of Neurotoxicity in females. Many of the ingredients in Protandim have been used as cosmetic ingredients used by lifevantage. Neurotoxicity A detailed personal account of side effects from Protandim can be found here http://protandimzombieapocalypse.wordpress.com/. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Cresix (talk · contribs) DrPlum (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protandim Side Effects Selection.}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? We have discussed this and he has placed warning on my page, because I said he keeps replacing the post with the limited info that the company wants to provide. How do you think we can help? Adding the information so it is not removed, maybe locking the page after the information is posted. DrPlum (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Protandim Side Effects Selection discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Not sure why as soon as i hit save it placed it as a Closed discussionDrPlum (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2012 (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.

Secular Humanism

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. Secular humanism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? I tried to remove material from the lede of the article that was in breach of WP:OR as well as MOS:LEDE and possibly WP:SOAP. This was reverted on the basis of the lede being the result of "longstanding consensus". I pointed out that per WP:CONLIMITED the editors of a particular page can't choose to ignore other policies based on consensus at one article. This was ignored. I tried to open an rfc to get opinion from beyond the usual cohort of editors at the article. The rfc was repeatedly delisted. The regular group of editors are choosing to ignore various policies, and will not allow me to attempt to bring in editors from outside of their group. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? 89.100.207.51 (talk · contribs) Mann_jess (talk · contribs) Ghmyrtle (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Secular Humanism}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Discussion on talk page, on Mann_Jess's page, and at AN/I where Mann_Jess is attempting to have me blocked. How do you think we can help? By bringing an uninvolved pair (or pairs) of eyes to the dispute. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Secular Humanism discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. This is already under discussion on the talk page (by editors other than the ip... as the ip refuses to discuss the matter on talk), as well as on ANI. There is agreement among all parties involved that the ip starting an RfC before discussing the matter was inappropriate. For some reason, the ip seems to want to bring this issue to every place he can except the article talk page, despite being advised to do so repeatedly. I'm not sure what further discussion here will accomplish, and this appears to me to be a case of forum shopping.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC) I do not refuse to discuss matters on talk. That is a lie, so stop repeating it. You refuse to let me invite editors from outside your usual group to the talk page. I started an rfc as you insisted that the matter had been talked to death by the regular editors. You don't want people from outside the page contributing in case they disagree with you. You do not own the page, and you do not get to decide that policies like MOS:LEDE and WP:OR do not apply to the page. I added well sourced information in place of the OR, and it was removed. Forum shopping is bringing an issue to multiple forums. I have not brought the issue to any forum other than this one. Therefore this is not forum shopping. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC) "You refuse to let me invite editors from outside your usual group to the talk page.". That does indeed seem like an obvious case of forum shopping. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC) How is that forum shopping? What other forum have I raised this issue on? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Comment. The IP has failed, and indeed refused, to discuss any of his/her concerns on the article talk page, despite repeated requests from several editors. It is not a "lie" to restate and emphasise that fact. Other editors there, including myself, Jess and others, are happy to discuss improvements to the article in a proper way (that is, by discussing properly sourced and balanced improvements to the main text, and then a suitable summary in the lede), but the IP has repeatedly failed to engage in the proper process. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC) No, I have not refused. That is a lie. You only seem happy to discuss the article if outside editors are excluded, and if you get to ignore policies that would be inconvenient for your version of the article. Excluding editors from outside the project is what leads to WP:BIAS. I tried to add well sourced information to the article, and you deleted it and replaced it with the previous unsourced material. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings

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. 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? 1) The lead states that Merah wished to "avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank", and is based on this opinion piece. Other sources quote Merah's exact words, "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine" and report this aspect of his motivation differently, without ascribing the actions of "the Jews" to the "Israeli forces", or limiting the deaths of Palestinian children to specific regions. I would prefer the lead to reflect how Merah's comments were widely reported. See 1234567 Resolved 2) Based on this source I added to Sarkozy's other thoughts on these attacks, that he noted an antisemitic motive. This was improved upon with this edit by Vice regent. Since I have been repeatedly accused of "misrepresenting the source", but no suggestions of improvement have been offered, can you advise me how to accurately present this information. Vice regent, contrary to his previous edit, is now entirely opposed to its inclusion, and I am concerned at the apparent tag-teaming, which has previously been commented on by an admin. My suggestions have twice been stymied with a "Let's wait and see what the other editor has to say".12 Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Vice regent (talk · contribs) Somedifferentstuff (talk · contribs) AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Discussed on talk page How do you think we can help? Assess the merits of my statement, and suggest a rewording that would reflect Merah's implication of the "the Jews", and would make note of the antisemitic motive. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 16:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC) 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. 1) Reading the Grant article, it's clear that his goal is not to accurately define the motives of the shooter, but to caution against drawing conclusions about motive too quickly. His opinion is more along the lines of "The shooter was quickly (and incorrectly) presumed to be a member of one group, so we must condem that group. But in reality he was a member of some other group, and already people are condemning that group. Let's all stop rushing to judgement." His statement that "The Jewish children were killed to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank." is not his opinion, he's just stating what the collective press/governmental/man-on-the-street opinion is at that moment. In fact, later in the article, he states the true message of his writing: "The point here should be clear: it is far too easy to shift responsibility away from the man and onto the environment in which he operates, and to advance a given political agenda accordingly." As such, I don't think using this article to source a statement that Merah's motivation was to "avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank" is accurate interpretation of the source. In any case, any time you can quote the direct words of the person, it's better. 2) Sarkozy clearly said it, it was quoted in a reliable source, so I see no issue with including it. It's especially relevant because Sarkozy did not attribute the act to any specific group, but simply commented on the motive. I think the edit by Vice regent clearly and accurately summarizes the quote and puts it in the right context. Those are my 2 cents, anyway. I would encourage you three to continue to work together on this, as you're all clearly motivated to get the article right. This is a massively good thing. Waiting for commentary by the third person in a three-way dispute can be frustrating, but is in the end the best policy to prevent protracted edit warring. Good luck! Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC) My observations: Although The Telegraph is a WP:RS, Grant is writing his column as an opinion piece and not as a reporter. If something from his column were to be used in the article, it'd have to be attributed to him, "George Grant says that..." However, given the seven good, reliable sources that Ankh.Morpork provides with a direct quote from Merah himself, there's absolutely no reason (no Wikipedia policy-based reason, anyway) to try to base this statement in the article, written in Wikipedia's voice, on a Grant opinion column. Use the direct quote from Merah, in quotation marks, attributed to Merah. I actually prefer Ankh's version over VC's, but I do not like Ankh's "noted" because that indicates (in Wikipedia's voice) that there are anti-Semitic motives when there may not be. I would go a step further to use a direct quote from Sarkozy, because we have one. I would write, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that "the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious," and also said "The Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man." He didn't say those two things together, according to the sources, so the article should not say "adding." Both thoughts needs to be attributed to Sarkozy, in the contexts he said them. I also would avoid "though" because that makes it seem (however slightly) that it would be natural to assume that something anti-Semitic would naturally be in accord with Islam. Zad68 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Would "Sarkozy said that "the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious" and later added/said that "the Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man" be appropriate? Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC) If the sources indicate that's the order in which he made his comments, yes. Zad68 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC) I find Zad68's analysis compelling; if there are already seven good, reliable sources providing a direct quote from Merah, then why would the article rely on an opinion piece by George Grant? And since we have Sarkozy's statement, the article should simply quote it. Jayjg (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Agree with much of what is above but, given the politicised nature of the response to the murders, the article should generally avoid using quotes from politicians to narrate facts. So, a quote from Sarkozy will be fine in the context of a section about responses, but not in the context of material trying to pin down a motive for the crimes. Formerip (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC) 1. Can someone, perhaps AnkhMorpork, propose how the direct quote would be used? My primary objection to that has been the redundancy of the material. That's fine in the body, but in the lede saying the same thing twice gives it undue weight. Might I propose the following: Merah said his actions were to "avenge Palestinian children". Many reliable sources, not opinion pieces, report this (BBC Sky News Al-Arabiya etc.). 2. Sarkozy cited antisemitism as a motivation at a time the French authorities believed this attack to be that of a neo-Nazi (please read the source) and not Merah. So while, we can include Sarkozy's remarks, it would be misleading to say that Sarkozy said this about Merah. Its best to add Sarkozy's remarks on antisemitism in the 2nd paragraph of the lede, which talks about events preceding the Merah's identification as the perpetrator. The remarks on Islam should go in the 3r/4th paragraph. VR talk 03:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Apparently what Merah said was "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". The word "Jew" keeps disappearing from the quotes being offered - it's almost as if the fact that the children he deliberately shot and killed were Jews had nothing to do with Merah killing them. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC) So how exactly would you phrase it? How about: Merah said he attacked the Jewish school to avenge Palestinian children source1source2.VR talk 06:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Since your primary objection has been "redundancy of material", do you agree to using Merah's exact words as recommended by Livitup, Zad68, Jayjg and FormerIP, and stating: Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because, "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". Your last two suggestions have failed to address my concern, reiterated with Jayjg's comment, "The word "Jew" keeps disappearing from the quotes being offered". Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC) I do agree to using Merah's exact words, and "avenge Palestinian children" has been cited by reliable sources as Merah's exact words. My above suggestion does use the word "Jewish". What is it that the word "Jew" conveys, that the word "Jewish" does not? In any case, I'm willing to compromise on this minor difference if it means faster dispute resolution.VR talk 13:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC) You above suggestion contracted Merah's statement and I shall accentuate what was omitted. Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because, "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". You are conflating the description of the school as "Jewish", with what "the Jews" did in Palestine, which should both be specified when describing Merah's motivation. Are you agreeable to this change? Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Information from some of the sources that were posted above: Source 2 above states, "says he wanted to avenge Palestinian children, according to his remarks through the door to the police who urged him to surrender" Source 3 states, "French interior minister Claude Gueant said Merah had said he was fighting to 'avenge Palestinian children.'" Source 6 states, "to have killed the Jewish children out of vengeance for the suffering of Palestinian children" Source 7 states, "the killings were to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children" In other words, we shouldn't solely rely on Merah's quote when describing this. Also, if you look at sources 4 and 5, the quote is in the present tense, not past: "The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC) A shared characteristic is that all these sources see fit to report Merah's exact comments regarding this issue. Considering other editors' comments, and your stated objection is "we shouldn't solely rely on Merah's quote", are you agreeable to reporting Merah's exact words? Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC) This quote is already in the article (See Motivation section). If we decide to put it in the lead as well, then the context needs to be presented. From Source #5 above: "Asked why he had killed four Jewish people – including three children – at a school in Toulouse on March 19, he said: 'The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine.'" --- I will comment on the stuff regarding Sarkozy later. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC) How would you like the context of this exact quote to be presented? I had previously suggested, "Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because, "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". You seem to prefer the present tense of "kill" used in source 5. This is fine with me; do you consent to, ""Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because, "The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine"? Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC) So I think there are multiple things Merah said. He said "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine". He also said he attacked the school to "avenge Palestinian children". So, we have two proposals. Merah said he attacked the Jewish school because "The Jews have killed our brothers and sisters in Palestine." Merah said he attacked the Jewish school to "avenge Palestinian children". Both mention the Jewishness of Merah's targets, although the first one mentions it twice. I prefer the second. Like I said, I'd be willing to compromise because the difference is relatively minor, and there are more significant issues with the article.VR talk 12:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC) You correctly state that both mention the Jewishness of Merah's targets. However it is not the case that the first one does so twice, the second mention refers to why Merah did it, a completely different aspect. Thank you for your compromise and I now await for Somedifferentstuff's response to see if he is similarly agreeable. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Putting it in the context of the article: "Merah's motivation for killing the French soldiers was to attack the French Army for its involvement in the war in Afghanistan; his motivation for killing the Jewish civilians was to avenge Palestinian children, having stated, "The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine" This ties in with the description in the first paragraph ("French soldiers and Jewish civilians") and the Ozar Hatorah school is mentioned in the second paragraph. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I dislike combining "to avenge Palestinian children", together with the much preferred method of simply stating his exact words, as it is is repetitive and limiting. I would like to specifically state "Jewish school", which is more informative and how many sources report this. Thus I propose, "Merah's stated motivation for attacking the Jewish school was to avenge "our brothers and sisters in Palestine" killed by "the Jews". Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Source do state "avenge Palestinian children" as Merah's exact words. I agree that Somedifferentstuff's version is a bit repetitive, but it's the only one that seems to satisfy the requirement of all users here (it mentions both "Palestinian children" and "the Jews"). In any case, the differences between proposed versions are getting insignificant.VR talk 22:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Seeing as you have expressed agreement with my previous proposal, I politely request that you withdraw from this specific discussion between myself and Somedifferentstuff. Thank you Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Mentioning the Jewish school together with Merah's "avenge" phrase seems eminently reasonable. This is what brought these murders to international attention. It is odd to find a wiki editor opposing this. Tkuvho (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC) I'm fine with using the Jewish school but not okay with chopping his quote. My proposal is: "Merah's motivation for attacking the Jewish school was to avenge Palestinian children, having stated, "The Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine." ---- "children" is a key part of this which is sourced and needs to be included. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Fine. I accept this form. Can you read the editors' feedback regarding point 2 and explain how you would like the presentation of Sarkozy's comments that "the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious"?Ankh.Morpork 09:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC) I am not sure this is the right place to discuss this, but the phrase "his motivation was X, having stated Y" does not sound grammatical. Tkuvho (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC) I think you are correct. Are these grammatically preferable or can you suggest an improvement? "his motivation was X, stating Y", or "his motivation was X; he stated Y"Ankh.Morpork 09:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Dispute #2 Moving on to Sarkozy: AnkhMorpork, will you post the exact sentence you want in the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Either my edit or Vice regent's version, are fine with me, or ""Sarkozy said that "the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious" and later said that "the Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man"Ankh.Morpork 14:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC) I will post a version here with the refs:: French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated that the killings were not motivated by Islam,[9] but rather by antisemitism.[10] So looking at the reference for the antisemitism material, the first thing that needs to be discussed is that this article was written before it was known who exactly the perpetrator was. The first paragraph of the article states, "French police investigating the fatal shootings of a teacher and three children at a Jewish school in Toulouse on Monday are hunting three soldiers who were expelled over claims they were neo-Nazis, the local Le Point newspaper reported." Whereas the reference for "the killings were not motivated by Islam", states, "Speaking just hours after it was confirmed that gunman Mohammed Merah had been killed in a gun battle following a 32-hour siege in Toulouse, the French president called for calm. "The Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man. Before deciding to target Jewish children he targeted other Muslims." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Sarkozy said, "Of course, by attacking children and a teacher who were Jewish, the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious." Why does it matter if the perpetrator had been identified at that point? Ankh.Morpork 10:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC) The reason the timing matters is because the quote you're referring to was before they had actually spoken to the shooter, so the amount of speculation was greater. Looking at that same quote, you would need to give proper weight to the previous sentence, where Sarkozy stated, "We do not know the motivations of this criminal." Also, Sarkozy is specifically talking about the Jewish school when he talks about antisemitism; he is not talking about the other attacks. So stating "but rather by antisemitism" doesn't make sense and is not supported by the source. In that same quote he states, "Regarding our soldiers, we can imagine that racism and murderous madness are in this case linked." Remember, there were multiple attacks and out of the 7 people killed, 3 weren't Jewish. This is what we have: "French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated that the killings were not motivated by the Islamic faith.[11] - Possible addition - Speaking about the Jewish school shootings before the suspect had been identified, Sarkozy stated that "the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious", but prefaced this by acknowledging that he did not know the motivations of the shooter.[12] Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC) The full quote reads: "This act was odious, it cannot remain unpunished," Sarkozy said. "Barbarity, savagery and cruelty cannot win, hate cannot win. The republic is much stronger than all this," Sarkozy said, announcing a minute of silence in schools on Tuesday. "We do not know the motivations of this criminal. Of course, by attacking children and a teacher who were Jewish, the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious." You state that it should be clear that he was referring to the school attacks. No problem. You appear to be having your cake and eating it: you are happy to include Sarkozy's statement about there being no Islamic motivation, yet when Sarkozy mentions antisemitism, you dismiss this because he said, "We do not know the motivations of this criminal". Not knowing the motivations does not mean that something does not appear obvious. This can be resolved by writing "Sarkozy said that it appeared obvious..., which does not make any misrepresentation about him knowing anything. Ankh.Morpork 17:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC) AnkhMorpork, I've already said that Sarkozy's statement about antisemitism can appear, but not in a paragraph about Merah. It should appear earlier. Do you think that is reasonable?VR talk 02:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC) AnkhMorpork, what you stated above being the full quote is not the full quote. Have another look at the article. Regarding your bullet point #2, antisemitism can be mentioned but it's not okay not to give weight to his previous sentence in the quote where he stated, "We do not know the motivations of this criminal". This material from the quote, "Regarding our soldiers, we can imagine that racism and murderous madness are in this case linked," needs to be given weight as well. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Do you support stating, "Sarkozy said that the antisemitic motivation of the school attack appeared obvious."Ankh.Morpork 13:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC) No I don't. You're not giving any weight to the previous sentence nor any weight to what he said about the soldiers. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC) We are currently discussing his comments regarding the school attack. Why are his comments about the soldiers relevant to how this specifically is presented? What do you think is an accurate way of summing up ""This act was odious, it cannot remain unpunished. Barbarity, savagery and cruelty cannot win, hate cannot win. The republic is much stronger than all this. "We do not know the motivations of this criminal. Of course, by attacking children and a teacher who were Jewish, the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious. Regarding our soldiers, we can imagine that racism and murderous madness are in this case linked."Ankh.Morpork 18:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Why have you largely focused on what he said about the school attacks but not what he said about the soldiers? We need to have his comments on both. Here's a quote: "Before deciding to target Jewish children he targeted other Muslims." He added: "We cannot allow this kind of ideology of hate or terrorism to take over our country." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC) I am focused on this because this is the content that you consistently delete and the reason why we are at DRN. There is no dispute regarding other content, at least not on my part. I shall repeat what other uninvolved editors have said: Sarkozy clearly said it, it was quoted in a reliable source, so I see no issue with including it. It's especially relevant because Sarkozy did not attribute the act to any specific group, but simply commented on the motive. I think the edit by Vice regent clearly and accurately summarizes the quote and puts it in the right context. - Livitup I would write, "French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that 'the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious,' and also said 'The Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man.'" - Zad68 And since we have Sarkozy's statement, the article should simply quote it. - Jayjg Agree with much of what is above but, given the politicised nature of the response to the murders, the article should generally avoid using quotes from politicians to narrate facts. So, a quote from Sarkozy will be fine in the context of a section about responses, but not in the context of material trying to pin down a motive for the crimes. - FormerIP I recently tried adding this content not to the lead but to the article body and you have still reverted me. I ask you again, how would you like this quote to be rendered "This act was odious, it cannot remain unpunished. Barbarity, savagery and cruelty cannot win, hate cannot win. The republic is much stronger than all this. We do not know the motivations of this criminal. Of course, by attacking children and a teacher who were Jewish, the anti-Semitic motivation appears obvious. Regarding our soldiers, we can imagine that racism and murderous madness are in this case linked."Ankh.Morpork 15:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC) I just want to re-iterate my proposal. I think the Sarkozy quote should present in some form in the lead, but not in the paragraph about Merah, because Sarkozy was nto talking about Merah. The second paragraph is probably a good place to insert it.VR talk 01:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Never mind. It appears that user are currently in favor of keeping discussion of motivation out of the lead. I'm starting discussion on the talk page.VR talk 01:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Note Clerk's note: Are one or more parties in this discussion acting as mediator/clerks or is this just a general discussion that ought to be occurring on the article talk page? If the latter, then I'd like to copy all of this over to that page and close this thread here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC) There is a dispute that is ongoing (see here [13]), and I think it's best that the discussion remain here. Can you suggest what you think is the best way to move forward. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC) It seems to me that saying that "French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the antisemitic motivation of the school attack appeared obvious." without first saying that he said it prior to the identity of the shooter being known allows the false impression that he was saying it in reference to the ethnic/religious/political/etc. characteristics of Merah in particular. To allow that is a violation of the no original research (NOR) policy because it allows readers to draw a conclusion from the source which was clearly not intended by the source. Changing the sentence to read, "Prior to the discovery of Merah as the attacker, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the antisemitic motivation of the school attack appeared obvious." prevents that false impression from being drawn while allowing the generality of Sarkozy's statement to carry over to Merah's possible motivations without giving the impression that it was drawn from Merah's specific characteristics. I would note, moreover, that to allow this false impression to remain may also be a violation of the biographies of living persons policy in reference to Sarkozy, as it could falsely imply racial bias on the part of Sarkozy towards Merah. In regard to the material removed from the lede of the article in the diff you give, above, it clearly would seem too detailed and too sensationalist to appear in the lede, but I express no opinion about whether it might have a place elsewhere in the article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC) I approve your proposal.Ankh.Morpork 18:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC) I'm fine with that wording as long as it's followed by a statement he made after the shooter had been identified and killed. Prior to the discovery of Merah as the attacker, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the antisemitic motivation of the school attack appeared obvious. After Merah had been identified and later killed by police, Sarkozy stated, "The Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man. Before deciding to target Jewish children he targeted other Muslims."[10] - Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Your suggestion is unnecessarily wordy and implies a divergence of views. How about, "French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the antisemitic motivation of the school attack appeared obvious. When Merah was later identified and killed by police, Sarkozy stated, "The Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man. Before deciding to target Jewish children he targeted other Muslims. Ankh.Morpork 11:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC) We seem to be going around in circles here. The phrase, "He stated that "the Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man," and others have echoed this view." was already in the article in the diff Somedifferentstuff last cited above and does not seem to be in contention. The phrase, "Before deciding to target Jewish children he targeted other Muslims." is a new addition which had not been proposed in that diff. It hardly seems necessary to make the point and seems to be an unnecessary continuation of this dispute. Would you, Somedifferentstuff, be willing to exclude the latter part if AnkhMorpork is still willing to make the first sentence as I suggested, above? The paragraph would then begin, sans footnotes, "Prior to the discovery of Merah as the attacker, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the antisemitic motivation of the school attack appeared obvious. He stated that "the Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man," and others have echoed this view. Some media have described Merah..." Can't we agree on that, wrap this up, and all move on to other things? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC) I am fine with this proposal. At what point does WP:CONSENSUS kick in?Ankh.Morpork 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Transporterman, the first sentence starts "Prior to the discovery of Merah as the attacker". No problem here. The next sentence starts "He stated that" which is clearly misleading because it appears as a continuation of the first sentence, never stating that this statement was made after the shooter had been identified. I'm willing to close this if we use AnkhMorpork's previous suggestion, "French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the antisemitic motivation of the school attack appeared obvious. When Merah was later identified and killed by police, Sarkozy stated, "The Islamic faith has nothing to do with the insane motivations of this man. Before deciding to target Jewish children he targeted other Muslims." Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Have you actually looked at the implemented version? It expressly states that "After Merah was identified, Sarkozy stated..." and your claim that "it appears as a continuation of the first sentence, never stating that this statement was made after the shooter had been identified" is complete nonsense. Please recheck the proposal and stop mounting spurious objections because you can't be bothered to check out the latest concession to your singularly unhelpful editing. I disapprove of any further amendments to what I consider to be a balanced statement, as your concerns were directly addressed.Ankh.Morpork 11:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Let's not talk about one another, only about edits. Since I've not actively edited the article before, but only made suggestions here, I'm sure Somedifferentstuff just missed that I had done it and I should have dropped a note here that I had. I apologize for not having done so. Since my last edit to the article appears to satisfy SDS's last objection, above, I am going to close this thread 24 hours from now unless anyone has some additional objections. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:12, 31 May 2012 (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.

Adal Sultanate

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. Adal Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? The issue is that the user seems to accept the fact that the reliable sources say "Dakar" was the first capital of the sultanate but wont include it in because he wants to include the previous "zeila" as the capital of a previous adal emirate under another sultanate for reasons i dont understand. also i have given him many reliable sources indicating that the people in the sultanate spoke an ethio-semitic language but he seems to ignore those and he inserted a POV language section to counter my input by including things like "Arab genealogical traditions" which has nothing to do with the language section of the article and also he changed up my original paragraph in the language section and inputted his own interpretation Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? ‎Middayexpress (talk · contribs) Baboon43 (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Adal Sultanate}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Talk page and through an administrator How do you think we can help? by giving outside input on the dispute i believe it can be resolved Baboon43 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Adal Sultanate discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Drive by comment - One quick thing you (Baboon43) could do is post a request on the the project pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethiopia and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Somalia, inviting uninvolved knowledgeable editors to contribute to the article's talk page. A third or fourth editor may help resolve things. If no one responds, consider randomly selecting some active editors from those project membership lists (they may not be watching the project page) ... but make sure you dont violate WP:CANVASSING. Or, ask for help from some history/geography volunteers at Wikipedia:Feedback_request_service#History_and_geography. Finally, initiate an RfC following WP:RFC process. --Noleander (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Comment - The presentation above is not at all the situation. The issue actually involves User:Baboon43 being unwilling to accept the fact that the Adal state in question was originally headquartered in the city of Zeila in modern-day northwestern Somalia (c.f. [14], [15], [16]). And he is unwilling to accept this ostensibly because that would place the polity's origins far from his own self-admitted hometown of Harar in eastern present-day Ethiopia, a city that was Adal's third capital (personal information that he volunteered, presumably because he deemed it relevant to Adal-related discussion). He has repeatedly attempted to remove all reference to this fact (e.g. [17]). The matter has been discussed extensively on the article's talk page (1, 2), where relevant links, quotes and references have also been presented, including material explaining the language matter he alludes to above. Middayexpress (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Ok ill give what you suggested a try Noleander, The article is about adal sultanate not adal state emirate city town or anything else, its about the sultanate..also another problem with the user is he goes off topic and makes it personal by now giving links out about discussion on another talk page. his accusations of me having a personal agenda is why i decided to pursue this dispute. as for one of the RS he ignores that states dakar is the first capital is this [18] he also seems to twist my words i never claimed my home town is harar but my ethnic origin is revolved around that city which still has nothing to do with the dispute Baboon43 (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC) As can be seen above, I have never accused the user of having a personal agenda. I mentioned the relevant fact that he happens to be from the very ethnic group that today inhabits the location of Adal's third capital ("i told you zeila was a PORT for hararis and the city of harar it was controlled by them[...] there's no confusion i am a harari and amir nur and imam ahmed were leaders in my city thats truth" [19]). This is personal information that he himself first volunteered (not me) in an Adal-related discussion, clearly because he thought it was relevant. So complaining about me following his own lead and doing the same makes no sense at all. Also, please note that Adal already existed as a state before its original capital was moved from Zeila to Dakkar and from there eventually to Harar; its golden age was, in fact, during its initial Zeila period (c.f. [20], [21]). Middayexpress (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Generally, personal characteristics of editors should never be discussed, even if the editor volunteered the information. Such ad hominem discussions almost always distract from the content decision. See Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. I suggest that you both go back to the Talk page and request other uninvolved editors who are familiar with this topic area to help out. Someone from the Projects or the Feedback Request Service will help, though it may take a couple of weeks to find someone. --Noleander (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Really? i keep getting redirected to noticeboards, RS redirected me here even though they agreed with my sources being more clear than the other users. Baboon43 (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC) In situations where reliable sources conflict, you can compromise by including and explaining what both sources say.Curb Chain (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC) The only reason that the one editor (singular, not plural) on the r/s board agreed with Baboon43's claims regarding Adal's capital was because the actual situation was completely misrepresented there too. And this was made possible in the first place because the user never even notified me of that post. Granted, it's not required that he does, but it is considered common courtesy in an ongoing dispute. Had he notified me, I would have simply linked to this source indicating in plain English that "Zeila in the north became the first capital of the Somali State of Adal", and he is certain to have then received a very different response. That said, I agree with Curb Chain's advice. It seems to be the most reasonable solution given the circumstances, though I doubt it will satisfy the other party. Middayexpress (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC) I've done some Google research, and all the sources seem to agree that Adal's main city was Zeila, then Dakar, then Harar. The switch from Zeila to Dakar was in the early 15th century (around 1415) which, and this is important, is the same time Adal shifted from being a mere emirate to a full fledged state/sultanate. Thus, it is debatable whether Zeila was a capital of the state of Adal or not (although it is 100% certain that it was the major city of the precursor to the state of Adal). In this situation, Curb Chain's advice above is best: Just explain all the details of how Zelia could be considered the first capital; and also how Dakar might be the first capital. Just represent the viewpoints of the sources and you can't go wrong. --Noleander (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC) im not denying the fact the concept of Adal existed before the sultanate was formed in dakar but adal sultanate did not exist in zeila because the supreme sultanate was ifat sultanate..zeila depended on the capital had the capital abandoned zeila than it would decline as seen in the later parts of adal history..Ifat sultanate collapsed when the last sultanate was killed at zeila and zeila was taken over by ethiopian solomonic dyanasty than ifat sultanates royal children went to yemen regrouped and came back and founded a successor called the Adal sultanate..zeila was the richest city in adal and ifat because its a port that is why they call it a main city but there's difference between for ex. new york and washington d.c..one is a capital the other is famous..this source clearly states this although historians on other sources like to mention zeila because it was the seat of the previous sultanate and seem to be unaware of ifat[22] Baboon43 (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC) The article needs to reflect the sources, so we need to figure out how to incorporate the source that says Z was the capital of the "state of Adal". Here is a rough wording that could be useful: "Before Adal was a sultanate it was a ?????. The capital of Adal at that time was Zeila.[use MidDay citation here] In year YYYY the Sultanate of Adal was formed according to most historians, but source CCC concludes that it was formed in YYYY. In year YYYY the capital was moved to Dakar, although some historians believe that .....[citations here]. ". I think this would be consistent with WP policies, and should help the reader get the big picture. Create a paragraph like that, then propose it in the article's Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Helpful advice. However, please note that various modern scholars indicate that Adal was already a sultanate when Zeila was its capital and principal city. That includes the Ethiopianist and Somalist scholar I.M. Lewis, who in one of the links I posted earlier describes the shift of Adal's headquarters from Zeila to Dakkar and eventually to Harar (e.g. [23]). So the confusion seems at least partly to stem from what modern authors have written on Adal. The actual historic descriptions from medieval Arab scholars, on the other hand, are quite consistent in noting the centrality of Zeila vis-a-vis the state of Adal. Case in point, as Edward Ullendorff noted on Al-Maqrizi: "The war of attrition between the central Christian highlands and the Muslim sultanates, entrenched all along the eastern and southern fringes of the Abyssinian plateau, is the principal feature of Ethiopian history during the following two centuries. Proceeding from east to west we first encounter the sultanate of Adal (Muslim writers such as Maqrizi refer to it as Zeila, but Adal and Zeila are largely synonymous and their histories closely connected) on the Dankali and Somali coast. At times Adal formed part of the state of Ifat; its ruler was styled Amir or Imam (Negus in the Ethiopian chronicles), and one of them who opposed Amda Sion's march against Zeila, in 1332, was defeated and slain." Middayexpress (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Adal sultanate did not exist simultaneously with ifat sultanate the source i gave above clearly states that..zeila was occupied by enemy forces so there's no way they can form a sultanate in zeila itself i believe historians are refering to ifat when they mention zeila because ifat is the precedent to adal as children of ifat sultanate formed adal sultanate. As this source clearly states again fall of ifat created new adal in dakar [24] Baboon43 (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC) That modern interpretation seems to be contradicted by the link Lewis link I posted. If we consult the historic testimonials from Arab and other authorities, they tend to be more straightforward about Adal. Regarding Al-Maqrizi: "Adal, one of the Mussulman States (kingdoms) in East Africa that played an important part in the wars between Islam and Abyssinian Christendom. Makrizi[...] enumerates the following seven Islamic States in Southern and Eastern Abyssinia, which he designates as mamalik bilad Zaila: Ifat, Dawaro, Arayabni (Arabaini, Arababni), Hadya, Sharkha, Bali, Dara. From Abyssinian chronicles, other States are known which stood on the same footing as the above, one of them being Adal. -- Adal ('Adal) is situated to the farthest east of those States, and is approximately identical with the present "Côte française des Somalis". The inhabitants are partly Somali, partly 'Afar (Danadkil). It is mentioned the first time in the wars between the Abyssinian king Amda Seyon (1314 - 1344) and the Mussulmans. In the march of Amda Seyon upon Zaila (1332), the king of Adal, who wanted to bar his passage, was vanquished and killed. Under the kings Zar'a Yaekob (1434 - 1468) and Baeda Maryam (1468 - 1478) negotiations took place between the Abyssinians and Adal; afterwards there was fought with changing fortune" [25]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC) I don't think either of you are listening. I repeat: the solution here is to have the article include both viewpoints that the sources state. For example, the article can say "Some historians conclude that the state of Adal only became a sultante in the year YYYY when the capital was moved to Dakar. Other historians believe that the Sultanate of Adal existed before YYYY, when the capital was in Zeila. Yet historians AAA and BBB determined that the Sultanate based in Zeila was not the Sultanate of Adal, but instead was the Sultanate of CCCC. ... etc... " If necessary, list the names of the historians that hold each view. The only complicated thing is if there is a large majority of sources that hold one view over another: in that case the article should use a wording that indicates that one view is more accepted or more commonly held than the other view. --Noleander (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Baboon43 and Middayexpress, I would encourage you to follow the advice that Noleander is giving you. Doing what he describes above will not only take away any reason for the two of you to be in conflict, but will also make the article better. Everybody wins. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2012 (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.

Jerash

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. Jerash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? It is about adding town Souf in Jerash article and mentioning that it only played the main role in Jerash city and Jerash goverenate. There are 4 sentences are wrong and I've provided an evidence about that which is: First: Look in this version of Souf article, the source here in Jerash article is a circular referencing which is already taken from the wikipedia article. look here to make sure. so this sentence should be deleted cause of fake source. Second: Same here, the sentence related to the source has the same circumstances with fake source. Third: in here the sentence never appear, and let's suppose it does! this's not the right place and it has no relation with topic. anyway have a look Forth: here this reference doesn't mention the sentence in anyway. in addition that user already wrote souf in this version by anyway. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Banimustafa (talk · contribs) Historyfeelings (talk · contribs) 46.185.141.158 (talk · contribs) 94.249.72.86 (talk · contribs) 86.108.119.86 (talk · contribs) user banimustafa is from town Souf, also he only participate for only 1 idea which is Souf. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Jerash}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? We've discussed that issue in the article for more than 12 days and I wrote a conclusion but no answer and the other part keep playing around the direct answer until I wrote my evidence and no answer also. How do you think we can help? Delete sentences related to fake sources, Cause these sentences are already wrong and doesn't exist. HF► 18:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Jerash discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Maybe you should close or remove the rfc template now that you have filed a DRN.Curb Chain (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Done. --HF► 23:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Proof for point of view: 1: Look in (this version) of Souf article, the source (here) in Jerash article is a circular referencing which is already taken from the wikipedia article. (look here) to make sure. so this sentence:Souf was the seed for modern Jerash. should be deleted cause of fake source. 2: Same here, the sentence: The people of Souf and its surrounding villages moved to Jerash. Later it became a destination for many successive waves of foreign migrants. related to the source has the same circumstances with the above fake source. 3: in (here) the sentence: Souf was the center of the al-Meradh area, the truth is: village Dibbin is the center: (Look Here), as a proof. By the way this's not the right place for this info and it has no relation with topic. 4: (here) this reference doesn't mention the sentence related to it in anyway. (look here to make sure) in addition that user already wrote souf in (this version) by simple edit.--HF► 16:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC) I am a volunteer clerk/mediator here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I just looked at the article and talk page. I am not yet prepared to comment on the actual dispute, but I can give all of those involved some good advice: Talking about the article content is Good. Talking about other editors, not so much. Try to focus on article content without being distracted by conflict. Providing links supporting your position is Good. Claiming that a source says something without making it easy to check is Not So Good. Making sure that your links directly and explicitly support your point is Good. If any of your links don't say what you claim they say, change that now. They will be checked. Check and fix typos now, before someone wastes time on the wrong link. Claiming that a link doesn't say what the person who posted it claims it says when it actually does say what the person who posted it claims it says is Bad. If you have done this, change it now. The claims will be checked. Remember, make polite, calm and reasoned arguments, and if the other fellow seems to be getting a but upset, become even more calm and even more polite. More later after I study the situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC) I've fixed links, thanks for concern.--HF► 18:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC) OK, I have taken a quick look at the article, history, and talk page, and two things jump out at me. First, we have this sentence: "Souf was the seed for modern Jerash." with a citation to: Surhone, L.M. and Tennoe, M.T. and Henssonow, Souf, VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller AG & Company Kg,2010 Now right off the bat, something is fishy here. Wikipedia does not use phrases like "was the seed of." What does "the seed of" mean, exactly? I would expect something like "X is the oldest city in the Y region, dating back to to the year YYYY." That citation set off alarm bells. Nothing printed by VDM Publishing is a reliable source. They print material copied from Wikipedia. So we have a sourcing problem with this article. The material appears to j=have been added by 86.134.246.80[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerash&diff=490811953&oldid=488940125] I am dropping a note on Curb Chain's talk page in case he wishes to address this issue in the article. OK, moving on to the second thing that jumped out at me. I see in the history an edit war between Wakwakwiki (see below) and Historyfeelings over the edits made by 86.134.246.80 [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] which only stopped when the page was put under full protection,[41][42][43][44] then later semi-protection.[45] For those who may be wondering why Wakwakwiki is not listed under "Who is involved in the dispute?", Wakwakwiki is a banned[46] sockpuppet of Banimustafa,[47] who has his own history of blocks[48] (as has historyfeelings[49]). Can we all agree that this is not the way to settle disputes and focus only on the actual article content and citations? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC) I do really agree, I always want to focus on the article. Besides, I agree of what you've said also. --HF► 20:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Thank you User:Guy Macon for notifying me of the problem of VDM Publishing. I have removed the citation involving VDM Publishing so the phrase is unsourced. I can now be removed per WP:BURDEN if another editor so chooses, but I have not myself as I do not know of the veracity of the phrase or if it can be sourced.Curb Chain (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC) HF, would you be so kind as to strike out (using <s> and </s>) anything in this DRN that you believe to be resolved? That way we can concentrate on the unresolved issues. Also, check to see if any on the issues in "Dispute overview" are duplicates of issues in "Proof for point of view." Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC) I'd use &lt;s&gt; rather than <nowiki>. —Tamfang (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC) I second this motion. Thanks Guy for this great idea and for moving this discussion along and helping with the content improvement.Curb Chain (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Thank you Guy Macon & Curb Chain for your ideas, I think deleting fake sources is not enough, what matters most is deleting the sentences related to that sources since these sentences are not found, and the sentences randomly placed according to a personal desire. Besides, I've checked the issue and there's no duplicates of issue; so we've these sentences, which I suggest an action (according to the "evidences" above): Souf was the seed for modern Jerash. For many centuries, Souf was the center of the al-Meradh area during the Ottoman Empire. (should be removed) (At any case I think it would be better to just say Jerash arose from of a number of ancient villages.) The people of Souf and its surrounding villages moved to Jerash. (should be removed, or written this way: The people of surrounding villages moved to Jerash. Cause there's no idea of putting a single out any specific village. Inhabitants of Souf & Sakib and other villages in Jerash region were among the founders of the modern city of Jerash in the second half of the nineteenth century. (should be removed, or Delete Souf itself, or delete Sakib and Souf, but to inform you there was a source for Sakib in a famous newspaper in Jordan called © Ad-Dustour Newspaper which is here but maybe it is also a circular referencing, you can check that also. And I've got something new about village Sakib, and why It was mentioned; that cause the name of Jerash/Garas was abandoning for Sakib during the Ottoman rule and that was not yet permanent since Garas/Jerash re-appeared in Ottoman tax registers. Look at this reference please. And we can notice in this part specially Souf was added randomly according to a personal desire without any care. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 If you allowed to end that cases, and I will be glad to strike out cases one by one. Thank you very much--HF► 21:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC) OK, here is where we are. HF (historyfeelings) has made what appear to be some valid points here, and Banimustafa has chosen not to participate here, but is still opposing HF on the article talk page. HF appears to me to be be in the right, but I would be more confident in that opinion had Banimustafa chosen to present his side of the story. I am not willing to spend hours crawling through the talk page and making an informed decision, with the probable result being me becoming one more party to the dispute. I would also note that there is some sockpuppetry going on. Banimustafa has been blocked for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Banimustafa/Archive) and Banimustafa has accused Historyfeelings of sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historyfeelings/Archive), an accusation that did not result in a determination that the accusation is true. I would also note that admin User:Boing! said Zebedee (who reported Banimustafa to WP:SPI) has expressed an interest in this, and that Curb Chain has made some improvements to the article that everyone appears to be happy with. So I am throwing this out to the other DRN volunteers for advice: where does this go from here? I am out of solutions. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for caring in this case, I would suggest a solution, which is taking an immediate action toward clear points. If you allowed you can Have a look above, and delete/add anything clear to you. I think if you take an action toward clear points nobody can object at this. For me I would like to take an action specially if it's clear, but as you know I am a part of this dispute and I don't like to break rules. Thanks again for your time.--HF► 23:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC) OK, here is my solution. HF, go ahead and make whatever changes you think are right in the article, but do them one at a time leaving at least a couple of hours between them. If the edit stays, good. If the edit gets reverted, wait a while without commenting. I will see the revert (I am watching the page, but I do sleep once in a while <smile> ) and I will, if possible, tell one of you that you are wrong. Make sure your changes are backed up by the sources you cite, because that's an important fact in figuring out who is right. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks, I've made changes. I hope this will solve the problem. And as you watch the page, I wish everything will be ok. :) --HF► 17:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC) It looks to me like you have not made any changes to the page, just to the talk page. I think you should try editing the page and see what happens. See WP:BRD --Guy Macon (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Hello, It was already done. Have a look here--HF► 14:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC) please. Ah. My mistake. Your edits look fine to me. If another editor reverts them we can all get together and discuss whether he has a good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2012 (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.

Achille Talon

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. Achille Talon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? The dispute centers around a character called Vincent Poursan, who is named as an example of punning names. The character in question is a retailer selling anything the plot requires and "mercantilism in the flesh" (paraphrasing our french colleages). His name sounds like Vingtcinq Pourcent" (25%). This has been changed to "2000%" (interpreting the name as "vingtcent" (twenty hundred), which is not even french or, more recently as "centvingt" "120" which makes no sense. Calling for a source has proven ineffective, consulting with our french colleages has yielded only responses from the same users. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Tamfang (talk · contribs) Pkoppenb (talk · contribs) Kleuske (talk · contribs) To source a pun is _very_ hard. I've been scouring the net for one, but came up blank. An example of punning names is, however, neccesary to explain the character of the comic of which i have been a fan since i first read them, some 35 years ago. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Achille Talon}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I've tried to argue, bring arguments on the talk-page, but that has only resulted in one party deleting the mention of Vincent Poursan and its replacement by "Virgule de Guillemets" without any explanation as to _why_ that's a punning name, leaving the reader thinking "so what?". I'm a fan of Achille Talon since childhood and i'm getting pretty fed up by my two esteemed opponents. How do you think we can help? Provide a thirdfourth opinion, take a look at the arguments presented and judge for yourself. Kleuske (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Achille Talon discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. (Comment from uninvolved editor) Hi everyone. After having a brief look through the talk page discussion, it seems that you are all missing a very important point, which is that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to put their own interpretations of a source into Wikipedia articles, per the policy on no original research. If no sources exist that explain the nuances of Vincent Poursan's name, then the policy says that we cannot include it in the article at all. If there are no English sources then French sources would be perfectly acceptable, but if there are no French sources explaining the reference then we probably should leave it out. Looking over the article, it looks like the sourcing is a major issue: the existing sources look like they probably wouldn't pass our guidelines on reliable sourcing, and a significant proportion of the article is unreferenced. Someone needs to go through the article and either source statements to reliable sources or remove those statements for which sources cannot be found. Removing the interpretation of Vincent Poursan's name may be a necessary consequence of making sure the article is verifiable. Having said this, we are allowed to source descriptions of the characters to the comics themselves; however, any attempts to interpret the characters' names would run counter to the advice on using primary sources found in the no original research policy. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC) It seems Kleuske and I first met M.Talon about the same time! I'd explain my reasoning (again) but Strad makes it moot. —Tamfang (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Agree 100% with Stradivarius' comments above. The WP:Verifiability requirement requires citations for all assertions in the article. The following paragraph is in dispute: Characters have punning names. The local retailer (his business being whatever the plot happens to require) is Vincent Poursan, which in French sounds like vingt-cinq pour cent ("twenty-five percent"). The name of Talons love interest, Virgule de Guillemets, who is the editor in chief of a highbrow ladies magazine, translates (roughly) as "Comma of Quotationmarks" and sounds like an aristocratic name. There are no citations (footnotes) provided for that paragraph. Unless an editor can provide a reliable source that talks about the punning, that whole paragraph should be removed from the article. Ditto for all other paragraphs/sentences missing citations. See WP:Verifiability, WP:Original research, and WP:BURDEN. --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 31, 2012 at 13:43 (UTC) Reason: The dispute appears to have been resolved by application of policy. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:43, 31 May 2012 (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.

Class action lawyers

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. Class action lawyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? User "TooCostly" keeps reverting page to a very biased version. I tried to clean it to a more strict neutral point of view and warn them, but they simply delete the changes/warnings on their talk page and revert the changes. No communication from them on talk page. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Useredit8741 (talk · contribs) Toocostly (talk · contribs) Cannot get response from user. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Class action lawyers}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Warned user on their talk page. Mentioned changes on the talk page of Class Action Lawyers. How do you think we can help? Looking for explanation on how I can get this person to keep the neutral point of view version, either by locking page or blocking them. Useredit8741 (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Class action lawyers discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. This is an edit warring issue but I don't know what else to comment on beyond that.Curb Chain (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) I agree - this looks like a conduct dispute, and not something that this noticeboard is equipped to deal with. The version that Toocostly prefers is an obvious violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and Useredit8741 was right to revert it. Reporting it here was also a smart move, as edit warring is almost always a bad idea, even if the individual reverts are justified. I have redirected the page to Class action for now, as Useredit8741's version was unreferenced, but I would have no problem with restoring the article if someone wants to write a neutral article that also satisfies Wikipedia's verifiability policy. I will warn Toocostly about the edit warring policy on their talk page now. If the edit warring continues then we might need to ask an administrator to block them, by filing a report at the edit warring noticeboard (or less likely, the administrators' noticeboard for incidents). Or alternatively, feel free to send me a message and I will file the appropriate report. And finally, Toocostly, your version is definitely not neutral enough for Wikipedia, but maybe you could try starting a blog and posting it there instead? If you put it on a private blog then it will stay around, but I'm afraid that it won't stay around for very long on Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 05:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC) I observe that Toocostly has no Wikipedia history at all other than this hobbyhorse "article". A cluebat may be necessary. —Tamfang (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 3, 2012 at 15:31 (UTC) Reason: Looks like the problems have subsided on the page, no real discussion here other than comments by mediators. If problems persist, I suggest going to WP:WQA 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.

Circumscribed_circle

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. Circumscribed circle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? I have added an external link regarding a novel way to compute the circumcenter coordinates for a circumcenter, and someone keeps removing this link. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Obviously, someone either hasn't read the article at the link, or doesn't know enough mathematics to appreciate it. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Circumscribed_circle}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I don't know who to contact. Please email me the email of the person or editor who is doing this, and I'll discuss it with him/her. How do you think we can help? 98.108.205.19 (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Circumscribed_circle discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Armenian Genocide

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. Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? I have been subjected to a forgery of my editorial history in which changes which I did not make are shown on the diff page as composed by me; and the actual changes I made are not shown. Meantime, a comparison of the main article before and after my editing today will show the minor revision I made to a paragraph (2.1) entirely removed from the location of the edit charged against me by Gazificator and which he/she falsely produced a counterfeit diff text to support . There is 'assume good faith', "it's not about winning or losing" etc. But is there also an admonition to never engage in dirty tricks against those we differ with and use one's technical skills to neutralize another editor with whom we have clashed on an issue? Please see following exchange: Hi. As you know Armenian Genocide is under AA2 sanctions but you're still editing it without seeking consensus and compromise. Please read WP:SPA and WP:Disrupt. Gazifikator (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC) GAZIFICATOR: As I indicated on your Talk page and on the main article Talk page, you are way off base: With your post today at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=495790789&oldid=495787044 you have made a grave mistake. You posted a forgery of an edit that I did not do on the date and at the time indicated. My edit today was on section 2.1 "The Young Turk Revolution of 1908", the last paragraph. This reflects very badly on your judgement and constitutes an unethical attempt to impeach my credentials as an editor. I did not touch line 37 in my last edit. Please take note. Your activity goes well beyond disruption. Diranakir (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Here is the diff where you deleted the translation of Medz Yeghern [1]. Gazifikator (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC) TO GAZIFICATOR: You are only presenting the same forgery a second time. I did not touch the term Medz Yeghern on the date indicated or any of the section in which it is mentioned. Please explain how you can attribute changes to me which I did not make and thereby falsify the history of the article. The revision I made on this date was to section 2.1 "The Young Turk Revolution of 1908" . It is reflected in the current version and can easily be compared to the immediately preceding version. Are you going to falsify that history too? Diranakir (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Diranakir (talk · contribs) Gazificator (talk · contribs) I can't believe such a dirty trick at Wikipedia. Is it just the average? Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Armenian Genocide}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? When it has come to such blatant dishonesty, I don't think we can foresee a resolution. How do you think we can help? You can help by reining Gazipitator in, blocking him, whatever. How can I or anyone else contribute their best when the record of our contributions can at any moment be falsified by an editor motivated solely by partisan advantage in an ongoing dispute? Diranakir (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Armenian Genocide discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Exactly what is the dispute here; Has your account been compromised?Curb Chain (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC) @Diranakir: Maybe you can break this into two pieces: (1) It sounds like you want to add some material into that article; and (2) Your edits have been altered. For issue (1), I suggest you engage in discussions on the article's Talk page, and get input from other editors. Be sure to include quotes from the WP:Reliable sources you are using. For issue (2), as Curb Chain indicates above, maybe you should change the password on your account. Also, what does your own edit history show? Click "My contributions" at the top of the screen: does it show an accurate list of your edits? If not, change your password and see if the problem happens again. --Noleander (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC) It boils down to this: the diff page displayed at the link below is totally fraudulent; a forgery. With the page divided left to right, the revision on the left is attributed to me. I never made such a revision. My identity was stolen.The revision I made today was on a totally different section of the article (2.1). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=495790789&oldid=495787044 My revision today was the following 2 sentences: "One of the numerous factions within the Young Turk movement was a secret revolutionary organization called The Committee of Union and Progress. It drew its proliferating membership from disaffected army officers based in Salonika and was behind a wave of mutinies against the central government." In place of (on 1 June 2012): "Among the numerous factions of the Young Turks also included the political organization Committee of Union and Progress (CUP). Originally a secret society made up of army officers based in Salonika, the CUP proliferated among military circles as more army mutinies took place throughout the empire." Curb Chain, I need you to tell me if what I have described is indeed a sign my account has been compromised. And if my account has been compromised, immediately followed by Gazificator issuing me a warning to back off edits to the article, is Gazificator allowed to steal my name and falsify my editing history with impunity and, at the same time, put my editing practices under a cloud and possibly have me blocked? Yes, we have a serious disagreement over one point in the content of the article but forgery and identity theft is no way to deal with it. I expect some form of honesty and redress out of this matter. Noleander: I'm not going back to square one. Either you understand or you don't. Thanks for trying. I can't break it down any other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Diranakir, please try this experiment. First, look at the diff you posted before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=495790789&oldid=495787044 Diranakir on the left, Gazifikator on the right, correct? Now look at the diff before that (you move back and forth with the "previous edit" and "next edit" links). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=next&oldid=495393920 SassoBot on the left, Diranakir on the right, correct? Make a note about what is in the left column under the SassoBot name. A caption and a date. Which, by an amazing coincidence are the exact things you changed in your edit... Click on "previous edit" one more time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=495393920 Thehelpfulbot on the left, SassoBot on the right, correct? But wait! Sassobot never changed the caption or the date! So your post must have been "totally fraudulent" and "a forgery"! So tell me, why should you, Diranakir, be allowed to "steal Sassobot's name" and "falsify it's editing history with impunity"? (Note that the words "steal", "falsify" and "impunity" are from your statement above.) Diranakir, you shouldn't be stealing Sassobot's identity like that. SassoBot is just a defenseless bot who adds and corrects interwiki links. But wait, there is still more! It turns out that most edits on Wikipedia show the same thing!! We are ALL guilty of forgery and identity theft!!! Go ahead. Pick any two consecutive edits on any page and see for yourself. Or could it be that there is another explanation? Could it be that the SassoBot --> Diranakir Diff doesn't show SassoBot's last edit and that you, Diranakir, are not guilty of forgery and identity theft? Could it be that on the right it shows what you changed and on the left it shows the same parts of the page before you changed them? Could it be that the column on the left is not what SassoBot changed in its previous edit? If so, then the same rules apply to the Diranakir --> Gazifikator edit, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Guy Macon: In reference to diff page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=495393920 I find the name Sassobot at the top (followed by arabic script). I do not find the caption or date under that name that you are referring to and furthermore do not see what--if I saw them-- they would have to do with what I put into the article or took out of it. My revision on June 3 was only at line 90. I did not touch line 37. Your response does not demonstrate to me that I did something I did not do. Guy Macon: I will restate my case another way. The first paragraph as you see it at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&direction=prev&oldid=495790789 and in contrast to the previous version is not the product of my editing and falsely attributes the wording of that paragraph to me (once again, in terms of the difference from the previous version). I would hope Wikipedia has some way of correcting the record. If not, then Wikipedia is not what I thought it was and shows itself vulnerable to partisan manipulation and distortion. Diranakir (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.127.31 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Re: "In reference to diff page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=495393920 I find the name Sassobot at the top (followed by arabic script). I do not find the caption or date under that name that you are referring to", of course you didn't. What part of "Sassobot never changed the caption or the date" are you having trouble understanding? Go through my argument again. I am using the exact same argument that you used to "prove" that Gazifikator changed your edit to "prove" that you changed SassoBot's edit. Either both are true (and you are guilty) or both are false (and Gazifikator is innocent). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I, like Guy Macon and Noleander, am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. Let me see if I can simplify this just a bit. Diranakir, I think that you are merely misinterpreting what is shown in the diff screen. The caption at the top of the left hand column shows who made the last previous edit and when, but the article text below that caption does not show the content of that edit. Instead, it merely shows the chunk of the article text, without any necessary relationship to the edit shown at the top of the left hand column, as it existed before the edit in the right hand column was made. It's there only so it's easier to identify what was changed in the edit in the right-hand column. To see the contents of the edit indicated at the top of the left-hand column you must click the "Previous edit" link below the caption at the top of the left-hand column. As an example, look at this diff of your last edit here at DRN. The right hand column shows what you did. The left-hand column shows, at the bottom, the text of DRN before you did that edit, but it bears no connection with what is shown in the caption at the top of the left hand column which shows that ClueBot III archived one discussion from the active DRN page to the DRN archive (that is, it deleted that discussion from the active DRN page for the purpose of copying it to the most recent DRN archive). You can see that removal by ClueBot III if you click the "Previous edit" link. There is no forgery in the diff you've given unless you are contending that the edit in the right-hand column of this diff is not your work. If that is, indeed, what you are trying to say, then you need to know that it is not possible for even an administrator to forge an edit or change an edit record in the way you are suggesting and the only way it could have been done by one of your opponents is if one of them guessed or otherwise hacked your password, logged in as you, and made the edit. If that is the case, the best way to address it is, first, to change your password to something unguessable, and, second, ask for the edit to be removed using the revision deletion process set out here. It appears to me that what you are mainly concerned about is intentional action by another editor, but if your concern is instead that you feel that the way Wikipedia routinely does diffs mischaracterizes your edits then that is a programming matter that should be raised at the technical section of the Village Pump, not here. Finally, that should take care of your forgery concerns, which are not really a proper subject for this noticeboard. If you wish to bring up an issue about the content of the article, please feel free to do so, but if you have not done so by this time tomorrow, I will close this thread as a conduct, not content, matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC) TransporterMan: Thank you. You have pointed out what I hope will be the solution to my dilemma, i. e., edit deletion. Yes, I am definitely contending--and in fact know with absolute certainty--that the edit shown in the right-hand column at line 37 is not my work. At the same time my edit shown at line 89 in the same column is definitely my own work and is the only edit I made on that day. 67.169.127.31 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC) You "in fact know with absolute certainty" several things that are not true. Sorry to be be so blunt, but those are the facts. Everything shown in the right hand column of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=495787044 is an exact copy of what was on your edit screen when you clicked on the "save page" button. Everything shown on the left is an exact copy of what was in the article before you edited it. Every place where the two are different shows a place where you - not someone else - edited the article. It is, in other words, a true and accurate record of your edit in "before/after" format. Your claim the "my edit shown at line 89 in the same column is definitely my own work and is the only edit I made on that day" is wrong. I don't think you are lying about what you changed, but I do believe that you are mistaken. For example, on line 14 you changed the dash in "1915–1923" to a hyphen and two spaces, making it "1915 - 1923". On line 50 you changed "15th and 16th" to "fifteenth and sixteenth". On line 61 you -- not someone else -- changed "mid-19th century" to "mid-nineteenth century". Then you correctly labeled all of these "19th" to "nineteenth" changes in your edit summary: "To correct grammar and improve wording" You made those changes. Nobody else. Your claim that ""my edit shown at line 89 ... is the only edit I made on that day" is just plain wrong. I also double checked to make sure you weren't looking at the wrong diff. Your edit made at 15:50 (UTC) on 3 June 2012‎ was the only edit you made that day. You have not made an edit since then, and your previous edit was on 19 May 2012‎. You made all the edits shown in diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=495787044 . Nobody else editing that page has the ability to change the history of diffs that shows your edit. No administrator can change the history of diffs that shows your edit (they can change the visibility if someone posts private information, but they cannot erase or change the diff.) Jimmy Wales cannot change it. Someone with sophisticated programming skills and physical access to Wikipedia's severs might be able to pull it off, but it would change the "last modified" time stamps, show up in the logs and raise all sorts of alarms. That's not what happened. You are wrong. What you claim happened did not, in fact happen. You have no evidence that it actually occurred, because it didn't, and couldn't have. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2012 (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.

Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012

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. Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? The DIFF:I added an election prediction market snapshot (Intrade) for the Gubernatorial Election Wiki page happening in my home state. The purpose was to supplement traditional polling data with prediction market data, since there was alot of coverage about these things in the media, and after some research found that these prediction markets have been around for over 20 years and generated academic interest as well. After a named and an anonymous user deleted my entry for no reason, another user deleted my entry on the basis that "This is not on other Wiki election pages, so it doesn't belong here." This didn't make sense so I reverted the deletion and asked to discuss on the talk page. Another user added 5 sources of recent articles about election prediction markets. The user that deleted my entries then made personal attacks on the talk page and was going to gather others to show me "that this does not belong, and teach you what an edit war is." There was some productive discussion, (after an admin declared WP:0RR), consensus was reached that "A lack of Intrade articles elsewhere does not preclude its use here" and other questions were posed, and I, (being the original contributor) provided academic and news articles, with examples to other users requesting more info and clarifications. Then two additional users disagreed with the consensus and claimed 'A lack of Intrade articles elsewhere" means this information should be deleted. One of these users reverted my entry 3 times after the admin WP:0RR, made another personal attack, and claimed my WP:TALK was "combativeness." I responded with talking this issue with dispute resolution, and the latter user wrote another personal attack. Note - There have been additional contributions from other users on the Wiki page in question that relate to this issue, and on the talk page after this notice was published. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Patriot1010 (talk · contribs) America69 (talk · contribs) Rxguy (talk · contribs) Incitatus13 (talk · contribs) If there is something to discuss beyond ad hominem of a Wiki contributor that counters the "properly referenced material" on the talk page, let's have it! Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I made a contribution, followed Wiki guidelines edit guidelines, asked for discussion on the talk page, did not reciprocate personal attacks directed at me on the talk page, followed admin guidance when one was called in, presented a case with properly referenced material, and provided additional responses with concerns from other editors. After receiving additional personal attacks and violations of an admin's guidance from other users, and since it involved more than one user, I generated this dispute resolution. How do you think we can help? The main theme of the issues some users have with my contribution to this article is that they feel this contribution "does not belong here." versus my contribution providing "a supplement to poll data of an election." If we can answer that question - does it belong here" I think everyone will agree (whether it does in fact "belong" here or not), that the sources and information I provided on the talk page supports that my contribution of the Intrade snapshots does indeed provide "a supplement to poll data of an election." and was relevant to this election. Patriot1010 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012 discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Could you point me to the place where this "admin declared WP:0RR"? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I interpreted this comment that way - is this not the case? "I am an Administrator, and as such I have been asked to intervene to stop an edit war. Please do not revert other people edits so frequently just to prove a point. You need to seek consensus on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Edit warring—GoldRingChip 22:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)" (not trying to be difficult - just how I interpreted it). Patriot1010 (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I, like Guy Macon, am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. I took a stroll back looking for prior decisions or discussions about Insight or similar issues. I discovered nothing specifically about Insight, but I did find this deletion discussion from August, 2010 involving a very similar issue in which the community decided to merge, rather than delete, an article (last version here) consisting of nothing but predictions about the 2010 US House of Representatives election into a section of the United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 article. While Intrade was not among those predictions (it was mentioned by one editor in the deletion discussion), the principle of whether or not predictions should be included in political articles would seem to me to be much the same. If a content issue is not controlled by policy or guidelines, consensus for the content of each article must stand or fall on its own, of course, so that deletion discussion does not create any precedent or policy, but may give some insight as to the opinion of the Wikipedia community on this issue. Under this section of the consensus policy, since the inclusion of the Insight predictions has been properly and timely challenged then they cannot be included in the article unless the proponents establish consensus for their inclusion. Such is clearly not the case at this point in time, so if the proponents wish to continue to pursue the matter, I would suggest filing a request for comments to bring the matter to the attention of the entire community. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I will do a request for comments, thanks, and more editors (proponents) have chimed in. It looks like another user (proponent) expanded the section in dispute, and another user engaged in WP:NOBLANKING...Some claim "consensus has been reached" by vote, or because "they have been there longer" ... I know what WP:CONSENSUS says but it seems some editors have a different view of what consensus is than what is at WP:CONSENSUS for this issue. Patriot1010 (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2012 (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.

Bernhard Goetz

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. Bernhard Goetz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Goetz is apparently the author or source for some of this biographical story. In it he claims to be a squirrel rehabilitator. In fact, experienced and state-licensed rehabilitator, familiar with his activities in this capacity, have found it appropriate to complain to the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation (the regulatory agency in this instance) about Goetz's treatment of squirrels. Attempts to add this element in a relatively neutral way have been edited out by Goetz. He has added personality attacks against those licensed rehabilitators to the article talk-page. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? R. Rassendyll (talk · contribs) Bernhard Goetz (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Bernhard Goetz}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? RFC posted. How do you think we can help? The problem is objectivity. Is it possible to block Goetz from editing out content with which he disagrees? djenner (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Bernhard Goetz discussion One or two editors are attempting to add the material shown in diff [50]. The WP:Reliable source requirement does not permit material which is sourced to "Private communication"s. Therefore, the editors that are removing that material are correct to do so. Material critical of Goetz's animal treatments can only be included if a source, such as a major newspaper, or a TV show like CNN, reports on it. --Noleander (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I, like Noleander, am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. I fully concur with him on this matter but would add that as an inadequately sourced negative statement about a living person, the statement is subject to immediate removal from article space in accordance with this section of the biographies of living persons policy and replacing it may subject an editor to possible sanctions. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Please close Looks like another case of forum shopping; I don't see the filer listing editors that he has been in a dispute with.Curb Chain (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2012 (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.

Tomás Garrido Canabal

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. Tomás Garrido Canabal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Member (Mamalujo) trying to forward his own ideology, his poor editorship, not consulting the talk page but instead edit-warring, trying to claim that Socialism and Fascism are the same (due to his own classical liberal views), adding weasle words. He keeps putting Tomas Garrido Canabal and his Camisas Rojas under the category Fascism and keeps trying to add the Fascism infobox onto both pages. This is not at encyclopedic as he is not officially fascist and thus shouldn't be put under that category. Mamalujo has been asked to provided evidence that Garrido was inspired by Italian Fascism and he has offered no such evidence. On the other hand, people have give a lot of sources concerning Garrido's socialist policies in Mexico and even his home life, in which we found that one of his sons was named Lenin, further indicating that he considered himself a Marxist. Diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom%C3%A1s_Garrido_Canabal&diff=467463986&oldid=467237738 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom%C3%A1s_Garrido_Canabal&diff=494803963&oldid=494766763 Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Mamalujo (talk · contribs) The_Mummy (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Tomás Garrido Canabal}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I had commented on the talk page and tried to resolve the dispute. How do you think we can help? Stop the member in question from turning the article into a forum for his personal believes and stop him adding weasle words to try to make the article POV. The Mummy (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Tomás Garrido Canabal discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Classical_Liberalism

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. Classical liberalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Several editors claim that the interpretation given in the article for the origin of "dismal science" has been shown to be incorrect. Another editor believes that the view currently expressed in the article is "mainstream," and should therefore be left, correct or not. The other editors disagree that the current interpretation is either correct or commonly accepted by experts. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? The_Four_Deuces (talk · contribs) Zac Gochenour (talk · contribs) Austinecon (talk · contribs) Several more users are involved, posting only under their IP address. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Classical_Liberalism}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Discussed on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Judge the evidence and adjudicate the dispute based on a third party reading of the evidence presented. ZG (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Classical_Liberalism discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I changed "Classical Liberalism" (a redirect) to "Classical liberalism" (the article presumably in question). —Tamfang (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC) In an article on the libertarian website Library of Economics and Liberty, it says, "Everyone knows that economics is the dismal science. And almost everyone knows that it was given this description by Thomas Carlyle, who was inspired to coin the phrase by T. R. Malthus's gloomy prediction that population would always grow faster than food, dooming mankind to unending poverty and hardship. "While this story is well-known, it is also wrong." This "wrong description" is included in the article and is reliably sourced to Mills, John. A critical history of economics. Basingstoke, Hampshire UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. Another source (Diane Coyle's The Soulful Science: What Economists Really Do and Why It Matters, Princeton University Press, 2010, p.42) says, "[Malthus' "Essay on the principle of population"] earned economics the description the "dismal science" from historian Thomas Carlyle."[51] While it may be that the blog is right and mainstream historians and economists are wrong, we need to go with the academic consensus. I can find no evidence that the blog`s view has received any acknowledgement. TFD (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Here is that libertarian article if anyone should want to, y'know, look at it. —Tamfang (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Consider the following quote, and the title of the essay in which it appeared: "Truly, my philanthropic friends, Exeter Hall Philanthropy is wonderful; and the Social Science—not a 'gay science,' but a rueful—which finds the secret of this universe in 'supply-and-demand,' and reduces the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone, is also wonderful. Not a 'gay science,' I should say, like some we have heard of; no, a dreary, desolate, and indeed quite abject and distressing one; what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science. These two, Exeter Hall Philanthropy and the Dismal Science, led by any sacred cause of Black Emancipation, or the like, to fall in love and make a wedding of it,—will give birth to progenies and prodigies; dark extensive moon-calves, unnameable abortions, wide-coiled monstrosities, such as the world has not seen hitherto!" (Emphasis added) Source: Carlyle, Thomas - An Occasional discourse on the Negro Question, pp. 672-73 (1849) I cannot find any evidence that calls into question the econlib.org claim that this was where Thomas Carlyle first labeled economics the "dismal science". We should report what the sources say about the origin of the phrase "dismal science." We should not put the claim in Wikipedia's voice, nor should we ignore a minority view that quotes Carlyle himself as saying otherwise. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC) There is certainly no dispute here that the consensus (in the sense of "people who are at least vaguely familiar with the phrase 'dismal science' and have at least some impression of its origins and why Carlyle used the term") believes the phrase referenced Malthus and related pessimistic ideas. The question is what the consensus (in the sense of "economists who are specifically referencing the text and have developed an opinion on the origins on that basis") holds, assuming any such consensus exists. It is unclear to me at least whether the Mill text cited above by The Four Deuces is making a claim about why Carlyle used the phrase, as opposed to merely saying, essentially, that the subject is depressing and therefore deserved that description. The Coyle text seems even less useful as evidence of the mainstream economic consensus, as the link given above has the author describing (in an adjacent passage) the modern discipline as "autistic economics". (I make no judgments here as to whether this is an apt description. I'm just suggesting that a neutral reader would probably not see something like that as the consensus voice of mainstream economics talking about itself.) It's possible better evidence exists that informed economic consensus still holds the essay Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question disparages Malthusian population economics (despite not referencing Malthus), but in that case those would be superior cites. Austinecon (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC) This dispute appears to be a case of severe IDHT by users upholding a blog over scholarly monographs precisely covering the issue from University presses clearly indicate the preponderance of scholarly opinion. We follow the weight of the preponderance of scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Agree with Fifelfoo, we should present the view expressed in the scholarly monographs. It appears to me that the sources are strong enough to express that view plainly as fact, as suggested in WP:YESPOV. LK (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC) The Levy article is not terribly accurately described as a blog entry so much as an online encyclopedia entry (an encyclopedia with entries written by scholars in the field, including some with Nobel prizes, and some very much not libertarian -- e.g., Stiglitz or Thaler) that has been published in some form elsewhere as a scholarly monograph and later book ("How the Dismal Science Got Its Name: Classical Economics and the Ur-Text of Racial Politics", University of Michigan Press, 2001), referenced in Journal of History of Economic Thought reviews (See Leonard, Thomas C, "Review Essay: Increasing Happiness by Thinning the Herd", JoHET, vol 30:1, March 2008, 117), etc. It also has the added advantage of referring directly to the text it's ostensibly discussing. Austinecon (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Uninvolved clerk/mediator for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard here. LK and Fifelfoo, WP:YESPOV doesn't say what you think it says. If you are referring to "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice", this is not uncontested or uncontroversial. The fact that we have a direct quote from Carlyle showing that the alleged factual assertion is wrong makes the assertion contested and controversial. You can report that sources X and Y say the contested and controversial assertion. You cannot put it in Wikipedia's voice. In particular, you can never put in Wikipedia's voice any factual claim by any secondary source that is directly contradicted by a primary source. You can only report what the sources say. I can show you a large number of reliable sources[52] that claim that Sigmund Freud wrote the words "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", but that does not allow us to state it as a fact once we find out from a credible (not the same as reliable - we are using it to guide editorial decisions, not citing it) source that he never wrote that. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC) (out) This is not the case of a false quote being sourced to a secondary source, rather it is what MalthusCarlyle meant by the "dismal science". Levy concludes that MalthusCarlyle called it dismal because it was opposed to slavery. But the passage cited does not say that. Levy also ignores what MalthusCarlyle says in the previous paragraphs when he simply calls it science. "Science, however, has a remedy still. Since the demand is so pressing, and the supply so inadequate (equal, in fact, to nothing in some places, as appears), increase the supply; bring more blacks into the labor market, then will the rate fall, says science. Not the least surprising part of our West Indian policy, is this recipe of "immigration;" of keeping down the labor-market in those islands, by importing new Africans to labor and live there. If the Africans that are already there could be made to lay down their pumpkins and labor for a living, there are already Africans enough. If the new Africans, after laboring a little, take to pumpkins like the others, what remedy is there? To bring in new and ever new Africans, say you, till pumpkins themselves grow dear -- till the country is crowded with Africans, and black men there, like white men here, are forced, by hunger, to labor for their living? That will be a consummation. To have "emancipated" the West Indies into a black Ireland -- " free,"' indeed, but an Ireland, and black! The world may yet see prodigies, and reality be stranger than a nightmare dream. "Our own white or sallow Ireland, sluttishly starving, from age to age, on its act-of-parliament "freedom," was hitherto the flower of mismanagement among the nations; but what will this be to a negro Ireland, with pumpkins themselves fallen scarce like potatoes? Imagination cannot fathom such an object; the belly of chaos never held the like. The human mind, in its wide wanderings, has not dreamt, yet, of such a "freedom" as that will be. Toward that, if Exeter Hall, and science of supply and demand, are to continue our guides in the matter, we are daily traveling, and even struggling, with loans of half a million, and such like, to accelerate ourselves." The theory that population will increase until famine occurs would be understood by readers as a re-phrasing of Malthus's theories. Nine years earlier in "Chartism" (1840), Carlyle wrote, "The controversies on Malthus and the ‘Population Principle,’ ‘Preventive Check’ and so forth, with which the public ear has been deafened for a long while, are indeed sufficiently mournful. Dreary, stolid, dismal, without hope for this world or the next, is all that of the preventive check and the denial of the preventive check”. But it is not up to us to read through Carlyle's essays to determine what he meant. We must accept the interpretation supported by the overwhelming majority of historians and economists who have read and interpreted them. TFD (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Malthus called it dismal?! —Tamfang (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to proof-read. TFD (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Here is how Carlyle's essay was interpreted by J.S. Mill in his reply: "If labor is wanted, it is a very obvious idea to import laborers and if negroes are best suited to the climate, to import negroes. This is a mode of adjusting the balance between work and laborers, quite in accordance with received principles; it is neither before nor behind the existing moralities of the world; and since it would accomplish the object of making the negroes work more, your contributor, at least, it might have been supposed, would have approved of it. On the contrary, this prospect is to him the most dismal of all; for either the new Africans, after laboring a little, will take to pumpkins like the others, or if so many of them come that they will be obliged to work for their living, there will be a black Ireland. The labor market admits of three possible conditions, and not, as this would imply, of only two. Either, first, the laborers can live almost without working, which is said to be the case in Demerara; or, secondly, which is the common case, they can live by working, but must work in order to live; or, thirdly, they cannot by working get a sufficient living, which is the case in Ireland. Your contributor sees only the extreme cases, but no possibility of the medium. If Africans are imported, he thinks there must either be so few of them, that they will not need to work, or so many, that although they work, they will not be able to live." (Mill, J.S. "The Negro Question", 1850, my emphasis.)[53] Mill does not say that Carlyle considers the ending of slavery dismal, rather the results that he believes the application of the principles of political economy will cause are dismal. TFD (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I've offered the following compromise on the talk page of the article. "Most modern liberals cite utilitarianism as a rationale for the public policies they recommend. This broke both with conservative "tradition" and Lockean "natural rights", which utilitarians argued were irrational. Although utilitarianism inspired wide-ranging reforms, it was also used as a justification for laissez-faire economics, which entered the public discourse not in the moderate form expressed by classical economists, but in a dogmatic version that cited Thomas Malthus to agrue that population expansion rendered all attempts to help the poor ineffectual. According to this dogmatic version of laissez-faire, the only possible economic approach was for the government to refrain from trying to solve social problems. The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 was defended on "scientific or economic principals" while the authors of the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 were seen as not having had the benefit of reading Malthus.. This view led Thomas Carlyle to write "the Social Science ... which finds the secret of this universe in 'supply-and-demand,' and reduces the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone, is ... a dreary, desolate, and indeed quite abject and distressing one; what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science." Rick Norwood (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Has this been resolved, or is there something else we can do to help? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 5, 2012 at 16:32 (UTC) Reason: Np discussion for four days, appears to be resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2012 (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.

Turkish soccer (sports) match fixing (corruption) scandal

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. 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? This page summarizes the nature and events of Match Fixing Scandal in Turkish Soccer. However, the page is unfortunately organized in a way to accuse Fenerbahce Sports Club (as also clearly stated in a funny way the 3rd paragraph). Majority of the information and references provided are actually not the facts but rumors and/or falsified. When I first saw the page, naturally I would like to edit the page. However, faced with accusations of VANDALISM. [54] When freedom of speech become vandalism, I asked myself? So I am opening this dispute following user:MBisanz suggestion. My intentions are constructive. I would like the page to be either deleted or edited in a fair way. 1 Here is an example of how I was accused of vandalism.[55] I was publishing a recent statement (with references), which was immediately deleted by LordoBalsamico. (Please also see the reason for edit which was called a VANDALISM!!!) 2 Here I am publishing a crucial information which was agian deleted immediately. [56] Which clearly shows Galatasaray is also involved in corruption. The former president of Galatasaray is going to be on trial for 7 years !!!! 3 Examples of falsified information with references but actually rumors. - On 10 May 2012, Michel Platini, President of the UEFA, said "If you do not relegate the teams, you can not be in Europe". - The scandal potentially stretches back several years, with the prosecutor announcing on 26 September that he had discovered suspicious betting activities on a match between Fenerbahçe and MTK Budapest on 30 July 2008. - Authors persist on involving Fenerbahce Ulker Basketball team, however there is not evidence of match fixing on Fenerbahce Galatasaray basketball game.[57] - Here authors are completely falsfying the information stating that Fenerbahce fans were protesting not to be relegated. However the truth is that they are protesting because of TFF's decision on banning Fenerbahce from Champions League. My edits are again tretaed as vandalism :) [58] 4 Some examples of unrelevant information: On 2 May 2012, Galatasaray SK fans protested Turkish Football Federation in front of the UEFA building in Geneva, Switzerland and 13 different country including Turkey. "As a Turk, I'm very ashamed to say this, but only UEFA can clear us," Yusuf Reha Alp, a member of the Professional Football Disciplinary Board(PFDK) told Kanaltürk television during a popular sports show on Monday night. "Turkish football's future is very dark," he also said. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? LardoBalsamico (talk · contribs) 1886kusagi (talk · contribs) Lowercase sigmabot (talk · contribs) Redliveeee (talk · contribs) Kızıl Şaman (talk · contribs) LardoBalsamico is the main user who keeps accusing me of vandalism and keep reverting my edits. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Turkish soccer (sports) match fixing (corruption) scandal}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Yes. I did post in my talk page and also in LardoBalsamico talk page. [59] How do you think we can help? Either delete the page forever or help me edit the page so it has fair and true information. Mguvendiren (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Turkish soccer (sports) match fixing (corruption) scandal discussion It looks like the initiating editor, Mguvendiren, is concerned that unfounded negative material about a particular sports club is being added into this article. It also appears that this sports scandal is widely covered in the news media. This is a fairly straightforward matter to resolve: the article must only contain material that accurately reflects the statements of WP:Reliable sources. If the negative material is not accompanied by a citation (footnote), it can be removed without discussion. If the negative material has a citation, but it does not accurately represent the cited source, the material should be changed to represent the source's statements. That can be done directly, but should usually be discussed on the Talk page first (just present quotations from the source, and discuss how to best paraphrase). If the negative material is out-dated, it should be left alone, but newer sources should be found and incorporated into the article to present the latest, fullest story to the readers (be sure to provide citations for the new material). This can usually be done without prior discussion on the Talk page. If the negative material is not related to the Turkish sports scandal by the source it can generally be removed from the article: editors are generally not permitted to make tenuous connections to the scandal by themselves: the sources must make the connection. In conclusion: editors should present quotes from the sources in the article's Talk page, then discuss how to convey those sources in the article itself. --Noleander (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC) I have moved LardoBalsamico's interspersed comments from the section above to the discussion section. It is against Wikipedia's policies to intersperse your comments with those of the editor you are replying to. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. While this is common practice in mailing lists, where interspersal in a reply is often very good, here on Wikipedia it breaks up the effective primary record of a discussion, making it more difficult to follow who is saying what. It is also unfair; an editor should be allowed to make an argument on WP:DRN without having his argument interrupted every few words. (start of moved material) Based on sources. Please check the article' s source.LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC) It's already been removed. Because it' s not related to 2011 investigation. LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC) It's based on the sources. Mguvendiren talk page It's based on sources in the article. Check the sources first please.LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC) It' s related to the investigation. Because Professional Football Disciplinary Board Member Yusuf Reha Alp is still a member of this board. I already answered other questions. Here: Mguvendiren talk pageLardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC) You can add it. LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Check the talk page Here: Mguvendiren talk pageLardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Because it' s not a Fenerbahce Fan Page. This is wikipedia. We use reliable sources. LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I did answer him regarding the issue. LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC) It' s based on sources not rumors. Please check the sources. LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC) (end of moved material) I encourage LardoBalsamico to put together an argument here in the discussion section rather than shotgunning Mguvendiren's arguments. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2012 (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.

Ramapough Lenape Nation

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. Ramapough Lenape Nation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? the issue is over the words "Noted Scholar" The issue is about Prof Herbert C Kraft, who has written 170 articles on the Lenape, authored many books on the subject and was emeritus professor of anthropology at Seton Hall. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · contribs) Old Moonraker (talk · contribs) Dougweller (talk · contribs) I have given references and included URL where it is stated he is a "Noted Scholar". I have included these links, yet they have not read them nor commented on them. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Ramapough Lenape Nation}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I have discussed on my page, the subject page and theirs. They will not discuss. How do you think we can help? I think they are working together and I need an unbiased opinion. Saying Kraft is just an Anthropologist is like saying Steven Hawkins is just an astronomer. Ramapoughnative (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Ramapough Lenape Nation discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The article is actually called Ramapough Mountain Indians - I'm not clear why the editor prefers the redirect, which doesn't lead to the article's talk page Talk:Ramapough Mountain Indians where you can find that I posted about this at 2:49 pm, Yesterday and his claim that I and another editors are vandals for reverting him. You'll also find my statement that I've taken this to WP:NPOVN]], and on my talk page some discussion which was basically his objection to my removing some obvious original research of his[60] as the sources don't mention how this group might have gotten its name. Understandably the editor as a member of this tribe feels that they are an expert on it, eg "I am a Ramapough and I know the truth", but this is not their article although it is difficult for other editors to make changes this editor doesn't like. As I've said, I've taken this to NPOVN. I think this is argument by authority, I don't disagree that he's a noted scholar as I am aware of his excellent work. The newest revision is hopefully more acceptable - it says "Howard Kraft, a professor of archeology at Seton Hall University who conducted extensive studies of the Lenape, wrote. I've given the editor a 3RR warning and asked him not to call editors vandals on the talk page or in edit summaries when it is simply a content dispute. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Forgot to add that of course the editors reverting him are not working together. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC) The phrase "Noted scholar on New Jersey's native people, Herbert C. Kraft" is an obvious violation of the WP:PEA policy and I reverted it as such, advising in the edit summary that this "Has to be *demonstrated*, not just stated". The OP then restored it. He/she then reversed the sentence order[61], but the peacock term remained; I removed it again, adding to the existing reminders about edit warring on that article on the contributor's talk page. Editors are enjoined to "Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering…" — "Noted scholar" is one such expression.--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Update to my last: The fix provided by User:Fat&Happy, describing Kraft's credentials rather than eulogizing them, is exactly what's required. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC) "Has to be *demonstrated*, not just stated". what do you deem acceptable for a demonstration? Working with Lenape scholars to write over 170 articles, winning awards from the state of New Jersey for his research, becoming Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Seton Hall and giving reference to it printed in black and white in various sources. "Kraft's father, Herbert C. Kraft, was a noted northeastern prehistorian and expert on the Lenape. At the time of his death in 2000, Kraft was emeritus professor of anthropology at Seton Hall University and director of the university's Archeological Research Center and Museum, according to anthrosource.net. " http://tri.gmnews.com/news/2007-11-29/front_page/001.html What else is required to be considered to show demonstration? If it walks, quacks and acts like a duck, guess what.. It's a DUCK! Ramapoughnative (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Your "guess what" in the article that the bird under observation is a duck counts for nothing; the guideline requires "the most reputable experts in the respective field" to have assessed its gait and its vocalization, and to have published their findings. The advice for a simpler, acceptable alternative is: "Believe in your subject. Let the facts speak for themselves…if your [pre-historian] is worth the reader's time, it will come out through the facts". This is the approach taken by User:Fat&Happy, and his/her version of the paragraph (at the time of posting) seems to have resolved the issue. Why are you still persisting with this? (Quotes are from WP:BETTER#Avoid peacock and weasel terms, a supplement to the style manual). --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC) The real problem here is an editor (Ramapoughnative) who drops insults all over the place, after several years here still doesn't understand or accept some of our policies and guidelines, who seems to have a problem with WP:OWN and who doesn't seem willing to accept consensus or that other editors might just be editing in good faith to improve the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC) And now that I've slept on it, I should add that this editor is undoubtedly trying to make this article what he sees as a fair representation of his people and is in an excellent position to get sources. But he needs to learn to play nicely with other editors and to acknowledge that all significant povs need to be represented in the article, and to accept that other editors may know more about our policy and guidelines (and even how to write a good article) than he does. It would be great to work with him in a spirit of cooperation. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - Generally, articles should avoid characterizing the scholars that are mentioned in the article. Calling Kraft a "noted scholar" should be done only in an article devoted to Kraft himself. In this article about the object of study, the opinions and conclusions of the scholars should simply be stated. It is important to use plain, neutral wording that reflects the thoughts and interpretations of the scholars. Editors must avoid the use words that may sway the reader to weigh one scholar over another. However, the WP:UNDUE policy does suggest that the amount of material devoted to the scholars be roughly proportional to their expertise and depth of research (see WP:FRINGE). So if, for example, Kraft is the formost scholar in this field, then it would be appropriate for his thoughts to be represented with more space than other scholars. But the article should not use puffery or flattering words to designate Kraft. --Noleander (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC) I, like Noleander, am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN, and concur entirely with what he has just said. "Noted scholar" is entirely inappropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Entirely agree with User:Dougweller and User:Old Moonraker on this.This issue came to my notice while I was patrolling using Huggle.User:Ramapoughnative has been around since 2007 but has only about 350 edits hence will WP:AGF to him.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 5, 2012 at 18:27 (UTC) Reason: There appears to be a clear resolution, as noted above, pursuant to policy. — 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.

Vassula Ryden

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. Vassula Ryden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? I am attempting to add an important piece of information regarding Vassula Ryden's dealings with the Vatican to the Vassula Ryden page. A group of editors are blocking my attempts. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Sasanack (talk · contribs) Sgerbic (talk · contribs) Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs) LuckyLouie (talk · contribs) IRWolfie- (talk · contribs) It seems clear that the users have no particular interest in Vassula, or where they have, they are very negative about her. It is unclear why they are so determined to prevent a small but important piece of information to a page about someone for whom they have no particular interest. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Vassula Ryden}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Quite a lot of discussion has taken place on the talk page. How do you think we can help? by either persuading the other editors to stop blocking the information I believe is important, or to explain why Wikipedia can not allow its inclusion. Sasanack (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Vassula Ryden discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Filer has edit warred heavily on the article and has not rebutted any of protocol arguments for exclusion advanced by other editors in question.Curb Chain (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - The issue seems to be that an editor wants to add the following material: Later, from 2001 to 2004, a thorough dialogue took place between Ryden and the CDF. At the conclusion of the dialogue, a letter from Ryden was published supplying useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which had been suggested in the earlier Notification. On 10 July 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to some Episcopal Conferences informing them of this. The letter and its clarifications are available on the internet as well as in the published books of the True Life in God messages. And the citation is to http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfrydn3.htm. It appears that the material is relevant to the article, but the issue hinges on the source ... does it meet the WP:Reliable source requirement? The source is www.ewtn.com, which is not a rock-solid scholarly source. I would suggest that editors that want to include this material find other, additional sources that cover that letter and other related issues. The thing that is missing from the source is a discussion or analysis of the letter by a commentator or analyst. See WP:SECONDARY. If ewtn.com is the only source on that letter that can be found, that may indicate that the material is not appropriate for the article. --Noleander (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, the above contains the item I am trying to insert (although I'm open to a change in wording). The reason this item is important is because in 1995 the Vatican issued a negative document about Vassula. This item is referred to in the Vassula page with EWTN being the reference. But I am being blocked from inserting information about the positive dialogue that took place a few years later, using a similar EWTN reference!. There is no issue about the existence of the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger about the dialogue, it is available on this site but I am not allowed to reference that. Detailed and accurate information about the entire dialogue is available here but I am also not allowed to use that. Surely it goes against all the principles of Wikipedia to prevent highly relevant information being made available for no good reason other than (apparently) it is viewed to be propaganda because someone who supports Vassula is inserting the information!--Sasanack (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC) The primary source and associated text is being inserted to infer that Vassula has more acceptance from the Catholic church and that the 1995 notification is possibly no longer valid, which effectively misleads. there is already a very lengthy discussion here: [62]. I also think editors who have no particular interest in Vassula, such as myself, are perfectly positioned to objectively look at the issues and do not see why that would be an issue. I also note that you have not shown here the particular text you want added and the source. Also, if the material is important then a reliable non-primary source would have highlighted it, but they haven't. I also think the reasons for not including the text have already been mentioned repeatedly on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC) IRWolfie's objection that the insertion is designed to "infer" various things, explains why he is objecting to the insertion! Of course the dialogue of 2001-2004 changes the picture of Vassula's stance with the Vatican. That is why it is important and why it is quite wrong to block it from the Wikipedia page. A later letter from Cardinal Levada indeed confirms his view that the 1995 Notification remains valid but that letter also confirms the 2001-2004 dialogue which is being blocked from the Wikipedia page. I should add that most of the discussion on the talk page has been about inserting details of the dialogue from the www.cdf-tlig.org website. Despite this being the most suitable reference, I accept that Wikipedia doesn't like that kind of site, consequently I am using, instead, the EWTN website reference that has been accepted by everyone until now as appropriate for Wikipedia. To respond to IRWolfie's other point that I have not shown here the text I want to insert, I draw his attention to Noleander's 'Comment' which includes the text which, I say again, I am ready to modify if appropriate.--Sasanack (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC) There is no reason why the self published opinions of a Supporter of vassula's should be reported as fact. you appear to be effectively trying to get the opinons of this supporter included indirectly. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC) 'Note Another SPA, Arkatakor, who was posting on the same issue has iniated an identical thread at WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC) EWTN is not a great secondary source, but their summary of the Vatican CDF's four Ryden-related documents here fails to mention dialogue, positive or otherwise. TLIG.ORG i.e. Ryden's supporters, appear to be the only one that is advancing the idea of "positive dialogue". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC) With respect, have you actually read any of these documents? I quote from Cardinal Ratzinger's letter which is the 3rd document on your linked page: Afterwards, and at her request, a thorough dialogue followed. At the conclusion of this dialogue, a letter of Mrs. Ryden dated 4 April 2002 was subsequently published in the latest volume of "True Life in God"--Sasanack (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC) As I mentioned on the article Talk page, there are lots of words and phrases contained in those primary sources. Which ones should Wikipedia emphasize? Which ones should Wikipedia overlook? Depends on your point of view. Which is why Wikipedia editors don't analyze primary sources and selectively emphasize words and phrases from them. Instead, we wait for independent secondary sources to do that for us. Also, there seems to be some confusion on your part about what is a primary source vs. a secondary source. This is EWTN's own summary of the four documents, which if EWTN were reliable and independent, could be considered a secondary source. This is the text of one of the four documents that's been reproduced on EWTN's website, it's still a primary source. All this may seem like mere technicality to you, but the encyclopedia's policies, taken as a whole, are intended to prevent individual analysis and WP:UNDUE emphasis on fringe or non-notable points of view in our articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Whilst you have now succesfully clarified for me the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, I am unclear whether you are saying a primary source is better than a secondary source or vice versa? It all seems a rather academic to me. Cardinal Ratzinger's letter is not very long, maybe you are ok about it being printed on the Wikipedia page and then people can interpret it whatever way they want?--Sasanack (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Re being unclear whether a primary source is better than a secondary source, I believe that WP:PRIMARY will answer all of your questions. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Sasanack, I think the Roman Catholic Church's stance on Ryden section of the article needs some cleaning up, but I don't think highlighting one letter out of four would be an improvement, and indeed it would go against WP's undue emphasis guidelines. The mainstream independent sources that have mentioned Ryden's status with the church as of 2005 merely note that the Vatican has issued warnings about Ryden, they don't go into any detail or analysis such as you wish to add. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC) In which case, are you agreeable to me inserting something like: "Later, from 2001 to 2004, Ryden was in dialogue with the CDF which ended with the Prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger, sending a clarification letter to some Bishop's Conferences" with the EWTN site as reference?--Sasanack (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC) No because that emphasizes a trivial detail that hasn't been emphasized in a secondary source. However (and other non-SPA editors would need to agree to this) I could see one possible solution might be to rewrite the article's Roman Catholic stance section to summarize EWTN's summary of those four letters (clearly attributing it to EWTN and linking to it as the cited source). That way readers clicking on the source get links to the individual letters, and WP gets a dispassionate. TLIG.ORG-spin-free overview of the RC church's correspondence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC) I don't think that's a viable option. EWTN is not a relaible source for the interpretation of Vatican documents. They lack credible expertise and do not have a sufficient reputation for fact checking. They're pretty low on the food chain as far as Catholic information sources go, and I would never use them for anything that's controversial, like this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC) How can you say that "a thorough dialogue" (as described by Cardinal Ratzinger) between the CDF and Vassula is a trivial detail?? Nevertheless, as a way forward, I am open to a re-writing of the Roman Catholic stance which, as it stands, is highly misleading and inadequate. However, I don't know what Arkatakor's view would be. For the sake of the dispute editors, there seems to be only 2 pro-Vassula editors able to edit the Vassula page as it is currently locked.--Sasanack (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Editors should be editing neutrally, and not pro- anything. That you consider yourself pro-Vassula in your editing and want more for "balance" by gettting more pro-vassula editors to edit is worrying and suggests a WP:BATTLEFIELD type mentality. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC) If it is more than a trivial detail then we would have a independent secondary source to make that connection. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Some useful comments have now been added on another noticeboard which are relevant to all this. I think it is fairly clear from the above that a group of editors are blocking a piece of factual information which upsets them and it appears that there is no easy way to stop them. As Fifelfoo says on the other noticeboard about the best source of information about the CDF/Vassula dialogue, "The treatment of Hvidt's work above, and on the article's talk page, is frankly appalling.". Yet Wikipedia seems not to have any way to counteract such behaviour by editors. Nevertheless, I will continue to try to find other WP processes to deal with this problem.--Sasanack (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC) You may want to declare your conflict of interest as the owner of the tlig.org website. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I have never hidden the fact that I am a supporter of Vassula and promote the messages wherever I can. I am neither the creator nor administrator of the tlig.org website although I have a responsibility for the domain name. As I have explained before, one would expect supporters of someone like Vassula to be the main contibutors to a page of information about her. It has certainly been exasperating to deal with editors, who clearly knew virtually nothing about her or her mission, deleting material in such a 'gung ho' manner. Again, I repeat that the editors who are blocking information do appear to be irreligious and this appears to be their motivation in involving themselves in the Vassula page.--Sasanack (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I've opened a thread related to this at COIN. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC) ...At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Sasanack. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC) COIN has closed with agreement that Sasanack does have a conflict of interest. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC) What a pity that the Wikipedia dispute resolution system can happily make solemn pronouncements on conflicts of interest yet cannot do anything to correct the blocking from Wikipedia of highly relevant factual information about Vassula. For the record, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) wrote in 2004 that, "this Congregation published a Notification in 1995 on the writings of Mrs. Vassula Ryden. Afterwards, and at her request, a thorough dialogue followed. At the conclusion of this dialogue, a letter of Mrs. Ryden dated 4 April 2002 was subsequently published in the latest volume of "True Life in God" The original letter can be viewed here and the translation on the 3rd party website (which is negative about Vassula) here. Why is Wikipedia not able to show this information? --Sasanack (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Re: "Why is Wikipedia not able to show this information?". have you read WP:RS? I believe that the answer to your question is there. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC) EWTN is a perfectly reliable and appropriate reference source and is used on the Vassula page elsewhere. So I repeat, why is the information being blocked? Also, just in case you haven't read the words of Wikipedia's founder a month or so ago on his talk page: "I believe that the most effective change we can make to policy in this area is for WP:V to be changed to move the words further apart, so that "verifiability, and not truth" tends to go away as a mantra. It is false. It doesn't describe how we work, nor does it describe how we should work.". Sadly, we have here an excellent illustration of Wikipedia acting just in the way Mr Wales is complaining about.--Sasanack (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I, like Curb Chain, Noleander, and Guy Macon, am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN.: Comment re Jimbo: Though I think from your use of the word "complaining" you may know this already, but that statement by Jimbo was followed by his acknowledgement that, though that's his opinion, that the community recently considered and rejected the change to WP:V that he believes needs to be made. He wasn't happy about either the rejection or the manner in which the rejection came about, but he also made clear that he didn't want people to edit war over it based on his opinion. Also be aware that Jimbo has also said that "as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with 'Jimbo said...' is a pretty weak argument. Surely the merits of the proposal should be primary, not what I happen to think." It is unfortunate that Mr Wales' proposals have not been accepted. This shouldn't be a surprise because I think there are probably quite a lot of editors out there who quite enjoy deleting stuff - a bit of a power trip I think. Comment re use elsewhere in article and blocking: I have not dissected the history of the article to see what's going on but the most likely answer to your objection that EWTN being used elsewhere in the article is very likely simply that no one has yet challenged those usages and that they, too, might very well be deleted if someone bothers to do so. We're all volunteers here and stuff gets put in all the time that violates the rules or shouldn't be here for other reasons (I'm not taking a position, by the way, on whether EWTN is or is not a reliable source; I've not looked at that question and, at this point in time, have no opinion about it, though for the nonce I do defer to the opinions of my colleagues here at DRN). Until someone both chooses and gets around to doing something about it, it sticks around. That could very well be what's happened with the other uses of EWTN in the article. About "blocking," I have not, again, seen what has happened that you are referring to as "blocking" but I suspect that your edits are merely getting reverted or objected-to. Without any intent to imply anything pro or con about the correctness or propriety of those reverts or objections, let me say that they are in no way "official," it's just those editors' opinions and, indeed, if my colleagues or I here at DRN have agreed with them then, with that same cavil, that's just our opinions, too. We decide things by consensus around here and just because one or a few editors feel one way about something, it doesn't mean that they're right. If you want to bring the attention of more editors (and, in theory, the entire community) onto a question the way to do it is through a request for comments, more about which in a moment. There are two points to make about the EWTN references on the Vassula page. The editors who are blocking the insertion of information about the Vatican-Vassula dialogue are quite happy with the EWTN reference for the Notification information and the Levada letter, but when the reference is used for the Ratzinger document it suddenly becomes an unsuitable reference! EWTN (who are NOT Vassula friendly) correctly list four documents, yet my editor friends are blocking just the one document which refers to the dialogue. And yes, the blocking is achieved by these editors instantly reverting any insertion of the item about the dialogue, followed by accusations of warring if I revert them. With regard to the suitability of EWTN as a suitable reference, I fail to see why it is unsuitable. Noleander says the site "is not a rock-solid scholarly source". Well, probably not, but do all citations need to refer to 'rock-solid scholarly sources'? Undoubtedly the best reliable source of all the dealings of Vassula with the Vatican is the cdf-tlig.org site but this has been rejected out of hand because the owner of the site is a supporter of Vassula. But I am happy to see that editors have now come forward challenging that assumption. Mostly-rhetorical inquiry: In light of the Vatican's subsequent statement in 2007, I'm not at all certain why this 2004 statement is worth arguing about. What do you, Sasanack, see that it adds to the article? (For reasons I'm about to explain, this is mostly a rhetorical question at this point and place in time, though you are free to answer it if you care to do so.) It is important to recognize that the 1995 Notification and the 2007 letter are effectively warnings and are not rulings. The Vatican has no jurisdiction over Vassula who is Greek Orthodox. Also, neither document involved any dialogue with Vassula on any level. The ONLY dialogue that has taken place between Vassula and the Vatican is that which took place between 2001 and 2004 and it resulted in the positive letter from Cardinal Ratzinger which is being blocked from Wikipedia. And Cardinal Ratzinger is now the present Pope. Hiding this information from the Wikipedia page totally destroys the neutrality of the Roman Catholic stance section. Possible ways forward: There is a mechanism here at Wikipedia for the inclusion of material which would be otherwise excluded by policy if the community believes that its inclusion is in the best interest of the encyclopedia: The IAR local exception process. The community can, by consensus, agree to ignore the rules and include the material. The best way to go about that would be to start an request for comments on the article talk page, clearly stating the desired edit, the policy-based objections which have been made to it, and the reason that you believe that its inclusion would best benefit the encyclopedia. I would strongly suggest that you very clearly and explicitly make a request that if the consensus of the community is that policy would ordinarily prevent the inclusion of your desired edits that you are requesting consensus for an IAR local exception to the rules, as otherwise you may simply get another "policy prevents it" result. A compelling answer to the inquiry I just made above will, I feel, be essential in obtaining such a consensus and it will be important to remember in constructing your request that the only proper reason for an IAR local exception is that ignoring the rules would benefit the encyclopedia in this instance more than following them. Arguments that the rules are misguided in general, or that an exception would benefit or be more fair to Ms. Ryden or her work, will probably be of no avail. Finally, an RFC can also be used to obtain the consensus of the community on whether the rules do, in fact, prevent the use of these sources, if that's all you care to do. All the above advice is most useful and needs reflection before a decision is taken as to the next stage. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC) PS: Though my foregoing wall-o-text is already far too long, I neglected to mention that, yes, indeed, I am also the coordinator at the Mediation Cabal that closed your request for mediation there because this discussion here at DRN was not yet concluded. You are free to refile that request if you do not like the results here and choose to go that way, rather than go on to an RFC. I would note, however, that all that mediation (whether through MEDCAB or formal mediation at WP:MEDCOM) can achieve is negotiation of a settlement between the editors who are already in the dispute. If any of them are intransigent or are unwilling to engage in the mediation process, it is not likely to succeed, whereas RFC can bring new editors and new opinions into the mix. It's your choice, if you choose to do anything at all. — TM 15:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I just want to make a quick response, TransporterMan, to your lengthy and detailed response. You have restored my faith in Wikipedia! For the first time since editing the Vassula page someone has made a serious attempt to look at the problem and respond in a constructive way. I want to respond to everything you have said tommorrow after reflecting on all your points. But thank you very much for this response which is greatly appreciated.--Sasanack (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I have now responded to your points, TransporterMan, inserting my responses in italics under each of your points. Once again, many thanks for your help. --Sasanack (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Please do not intersperse your comments with those of the editor you are replying to. While this is common practice in mailing lists, where interspersal in a reply is often very good, here it breaks up the effective primary record of a discussion, making it more difficult to follow who is saying what. If it is justified, the prior section really should have a signature added to it (copy of the original), and a note that it is continued below. Instead, if you really need to respond to something point by point, you may wish to adopt the practice of quoting it, perhaps with italics to set it off. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC) As has already been mentioned the specific material only serves to mislead. It has no particular due weight and it gives the mistaken impression that the catholic church accepts Vassula although the current prefect of the CDF has made it very clear that this is not the case. I also think pushing content for which you have a known conflict of interest can cloud your judgment. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Clearly, IRWolfie would like a new WP rule, "No insertion of any material which might be misinterpreted"--Sasanack (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Unless someone thinks that we can further profit by further discussion here, I propose to close this discussion 24 hours from now so as to move on to the next step, if any. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:43, 7 June 2012 (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.

Marshall Strabala

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. Marshall Strabala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Looking at just Marshall Strabala#Gensler The issue or conflict is whether the job position and title of Marshall Strabala is both relevant and important during a) his hiring with Gensler and b) his position at Gensler when the Shanghai Tower was designed. I have provided reliable sources both statistics and cites which indicate that he held the position of "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead" specifically during his employment with while he worked on the Shanghai Tower while he lived in China. Dispute detail For the full thread see TALK at Talk:Marshall Strabala#Late May 2012 update, below I recap the relevant points. Firms like Gensler are normally the "architect of record" people are interested in who designed the tallest buildings or what employee provided the creative input. Examples, see Adrian Smith (architect) and Burj Khalifa - search for "Adrian Smith" and even search for "Strabala". I think that articles on the web such as a news feed "Construction Starts on China’s Tallest Building, Designed by Houston Architect" [[63]] and also an organizational chart, made by Gensler itself "Shanghai Tower Gensler Team Organization" Appendix A of MOTION by Defendant Jay Marshall Strabala for sanctions (docket #71, Appendix A, Page 13 of docket #71) U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois] PACERin Gensler v. Strabala (1:11-cv-03945) https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/ (-or- a non-citable copy of same, page 13, that I have made public here - https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4KiE8753Bbab1lQN0dyVGhnYTQ ) are highly relevant due to the existance of a contrary opinion that is being cited. The contrary opinion stems from the fact that Gensler sued Strabala issued soem news feeds (or a court reportign service picked up on the case). Eventually Gensler lost (note, they has just filed an appeal) as per this ruling http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2011cv03945/256636/47/0.pdf?ts=1329913307 - pagse 1-2 sets forth the facts of the case (which was dismissed in this opinion) as seen by the Judge: Facts From March 2006 to February 2010, Gensler employed Strabala as Design Director, i.e., an architect. (Compl. ¶ 9.) While working for Gensler, Strabala worked on and participated in the design of several buildings, including the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet Center, Three Eldridge Place in West Houston, Texas and Tesoro Corporation’s headquarters. (Id. ¶¶ 10-14.) Upon leaving the employ of Gensler, Strabala began doing business as an architect under the business name 2DEFINE Architecture, with offices in Chicago, Illinois, Shanghai, China and Seoul, South Korea. (Id. ¶ 15.) Strabala promotes his architecture business through a personal website, www.define-arch.com, and a Flickr website. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 20.) On the personal website, Strabala claims to have designed the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates; the Nanjing Greenland Financial Center in Nanjing, China; and the Shanghai Tower in Shanghai, China. (Id. ¶ 21.) On the Flickr website, Strabala professes to have designed architectural works such as the Houston Ballet Center for Dance, Three Eldridge Place, Hess Tower, and the headquarters of the Tesoro Corporation. (Id. ¶ 22.) Gensler has sued Strabala to prevent him from maintaining that he is the origin of design of said architectural works. (Id. ¶ 50.) Adding Strabala's positions "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead" which he held while at Gensler during the design of the Shanghai Tower supported via cites (especially the organization chart made by Gensler itself during Strabala's employment) provides a much more balanced article, considering that the paragraph in question contains the contrary claim via the text in the current Wikipedia Article e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Strabala#Gensler Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower. The current Article reads as follows: Gensler After leaving SOM, Strabala joined the Houston, Texas, office of the architectural firm Gensler in 2006.[2][4] Strabala has been reported to have led the design of the 128-story Shanghai Tower while at Gensler and to have completed the "bulk of the design work".[4] Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower."[9] Strabala also has been credited for leading Gensler's efforts in designing Hess Tower (Houston, 2010) and the Houston Ballet Center for Dance (2011).[10][11][12] However, Gensler has claimed that "'Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing Hess Tower'", and that Strabala was but "'one of many members of that Gensler team'" that designed the Houston Ballet Center for Dance.[13] Strabala left Gensler in 2010.[4] My proposed and reverted update ([64]) reads as follows: Gensler After leaving SOM, Strabala joined the Houston, Texas, office of Gensler global architectural firm as the firm's South Central Region Director of Design in 2006.[2][4] Strabala led the design of the 128-story Shanghai Tower, moved to Shanghai to focus on the project, and is reported to have completed the "bulk of the design work" as both "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead."[4][9][10][11] Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower."[12] Strabala also has been credited for leading Gensler's efforts in designing Hess Tower (Houston, 2010) and the Houston Ballet Center for Dance (2011).[13][14][15] However, Gensler has claimed that "'Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing Hess Tower'", and that Strabala was but "'one of many members of that Gensler team'" that designed the Houston Ballet Center for Dance.[16] Strabala left Gensler in 2010.[4] Oddly enough Novaseminary himself wrote the first sentence above "verbatim" back in May of 2011 he is now trying to change it in the last five days by dropping "as the firm's South Central Region Director of Design" - this I find remarkable as it is the same time I start citing his title during the design and construction of the Shanghai Tower via declarations and org charts and other web articles - with the reasoning that the 'importance of the title' is not cited. Note, I am 108.75.223.67 or Jon Strabala - I always sign with - consider me a potential WP:COI Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? 108.75.223.67 (talk · contribs) Novaseminary (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Strabala}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? We've discussed that issue in the article for about 5 days essentially my initial, revised, and latest update have all been reverted (even afer he agreed with me in one instance), yet I believe provided proper citations to make a stronger case and provide a more balance nuetral article and that I only quoted the cites themselves. The reasons for the reverts don't seem very 'clear' or 'consistent' to first two pillars of wikipedia Wikipedia:Five pillars . I have tried diligently to discuss the problems with Novaseminary's reverts to my edits via the Talk page. There specific Talk section in update Talk:Marshall Strabala#Late May 2012 update it is quite lengthy, and I tried to provide more and more citations (and lengthy discussions) to support the proposed updates I made. At know time did I put an "opinion" or "original research" on the main article. In my most recent edit I provided a what I considered a balanced verifiable perspective, I didn't claim he was Gensler's sole "Director of Design" and did not include any original research ( 16:36, 4 June 2012‎ ) [65] , however this was immediately reverted. Maybe I am the one confused here, but Marshall Strabala, unlke Gensler doesn't release news feed items about law suits, the progress and/or conclusion of any lawsuit and the dismissal are enough to "speak" and provide neutral, verifiable, and reliable sources that can be cited (from the legal record either pacer or RFC express) to counter claim and internet posts at the onset of the case like Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower. I agree with Nova, this isn't a marketing piece but the fact that Marshall Strabala held both positions "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead." while he worked on the Shanghai Tower is important, newsworthy and relevant. It is even more newsworthy and relevant considering Gensler has made the claim Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower.. How do you think we can help? By giving outside input on the dispute I believe it can be resolved via one or more third parties chiming in. I am trying to avoid an edit war here which I fear might happen without third party input. I think that Novaseminary and myself are kind of far apart on things here and a tie breaker so to speak would (regardless of the outcome) would most likely be honored by both of us. Normally we (Nova and myself) can work things out and come to a concessional agreement, but reading the "tea leaves" I don't think it is possible here. Once again note, I am 108.75.223.67 or Jon Strabala - I always sign with - consider me a potential WP:COI 108.75.223.67 (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Marshall Strabala discussion There is a dispute, according to the sources, about who designed this important building. Neither of the two proposals presented above is ideal: one claims that MS designed it; and the other says "he is reported to have designed it". When the sources conflict, it is best for the article to plainly state the two or more viewpoints. Something like "Strabala claims that he is the primary designer of the building, but Gensler disputes this, and says that Stabala was only one member of a team. The dispute led to a lawsuit after Strabala left Gensler ... The suit was dismissed ..." Presenting both sides plainly should resolve the matter. --Noleander (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks Noleander, I have no problem with "he is reported to have designed it" I fully understand your reasoning - I actually like a lot of your text (above - short simple no hype and says the basic facts - users can dig for details via cites if interested). However my conflict question hinges more on the inclusion of the phrase as both "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead." which were his actual titles (or job posistions) while he worked on the Shanghai Tower as per a Jan 1, 2009 Gensler org chart (part of the litigation record and accessible via Pacer and also RFC express) and other citations. I guess my point is that if pre-litigation he held those titles in a Gensler document there shouldn't be much of a dispute of this "fact" so are these titles both relevant and important to the Wiki Article (Novaseminary is saying no I am saying yes)? 108.75.223.67 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI I hear what you are saying, but the specific job titles a person has are generally too detailed to go into a WP article. The WP article should strive for a top-level, encyclopedic tone. Job titles tend to be irrelevant, and can often be misleading or ambiguous. In this particular article, the job title should be avoided because it is a piece of evidence that could be used to buttress one side of a dispute. So, I recommend omitting the job titles from the article, and instead focus on what he did. If there is a dispute (was he the only architect? the lead architect? the lead of the team? a member of a team?) describe both sides of the dispute in plain english. --Noleander (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2012 (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.

Thor (film)

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. Thor (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? In articles about superheroes a standard issue to address is the source of the powers of the superhero. In the case of the superhero film "Thor", there is some dispute over the origin of Thor's powers and, in general, of the nature of Thor and the other Asgardians. That is, the dispute is over whether the Asgardians are gods in that their powers are derived from magic and are supernatural, or if they are actually beings from an advanced civilization using incredibly advanced technology, who were perceived to be supernatural and then worshipped as gods by primitive humans. The article originally simply stated that they were "gods", without further explanation. I have argued that this is incorrect, and that even if they are referenced in the article as "gods" because they were worshipped as such, additional explanation is needed because of the many references in the film and elsewhere that they are in fact actually advanced beings. My edits were reverted by two editors who apparently have been involved in this article since it was created, and who have strong feelings on the matter. They have not made any offers of compromise. My sources include the following: a blog post for Discover Magazine, by Sean Carroll, science advisor for the film. He states "the Asgardians from Thor are really technologically-advanced aliens that seemed godlike to our ancestors." http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/05/04/avengers-assemble/ a prior blog post for Discover Magazine by Sean Carroll, where he describes the film's producer Kevin Feige's view of the technological basis for the film: 'Kevin Feige, president of production at Marvel Studios, is a huge proponent of having the world of these films ultimately “make sense.” ...The thinking here is very much based on Arthur C. Clarke’s “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” ' http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/04/the-mighty-thor/ in the film, there is a lengthy exchange in which one character, Dr. Selvig, challenges that Thor's claims could be possible, to which another character retorts "Well magic’s just science that we don’t understand yet --Arthur C. Clarke." and "Well if there is an Einstein-Rosen bridge then there is something on the other side, and advanced beings could have crossed it." The point being that the filmakers would not have bothered including this exchange unless they were communicating to the audience that the fantastic things happening do have a technological basis, which is clearly the case. there is also Thor's quote from the film and trailer: "Your Ancestors called it magic, but you call it science. I come from a land where they are one and the same." There really is no alternative explanation to this quote except that what the humans are perceiving as magic, is in fact just advanced technology. Again, if Thor's powers were based on magic, the filmakers would have had no reason to include this line. The editors who are preventing edits to the article claim that the Asgardians are "clearly" using magic, and (I'm paraphrasing here) that even if they were, because they are seen and worshipped as gods by some humans, they can be referred to as gods in the article without further explanation. Unfortunately, despite my best attempts at discussion, these have not addressed many of the points I raise above, and have not countered with other sources. Yet they insist that no changes to the article can be made. Frustratingly, they have claimed that it is up to me to come up with even more sources to prove my points, despite not having citing any counter-sources themselves. I'd also like to add that, as someone who is new to wikipedia, this has not been a pleasant experience. After making good faith attempts to correct an inaccuracy and cite a credible, verifiable source, my edits were reverted with a flippant comment by an editor who admitted he had not even bothered to read my source. This editor, DarkwarriorBlake, also continued to revert edits while ignoring the talk page for the article, refusing to enter into a discussion on the matter until I engaged him several times. Then despite my good faith effort to engage in a lengthy discussion with DarkwarriorBlake and TriiipleThreat (the creator of the article), they have not been open to any compromise whatsoever. It has been incredibly frustrating. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Cardonculous Darkwarriorblake TriiipleThreat Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I initiated a discussion on a talk page, and it was discussed at length. No compromise was offered by the two editors who are preventing edits to the article. How do you think we can help? I am new to wikipedia, so this isn't clear. But hopefully someone who has not been involved in the article previously could facilitate a compromise. It would be nice to also have some confirmation that if I make an edit to an article that is backed up by a verifiable source, then that edit should stand unless someone can provide a counter-source. For editors who seem to have some attachment to the way an article is written to flippantly dismiss my edits, without any sources of their own, is very frustrating. Why would I bother editing other articles in the future if this practice is accepted? Cardonculous (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Cardonculous 67.188.3.9 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Thor discussion IP: The sources you list above are not very strong. They are two blogs, and some quotes from the movie/trailer itself. Generally, the WP:Reliable sources policy requires more concrete sources: mainstream magazines, reviews in newspapers, books, etc. Blogs are rarely used for WP articles, and only if the author is a very notable journalist or figure. Unless you can come up with some more solid sources, the additional details about the source of their powers may have to be omitted from the article. --Noleander (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC) This doesn't make sense to me. My sources may not be very strong (although I don't know how the movie itself isn't a good source for its own article), but they have no sources at all to back up their text in the article simply stating Thor is a god. There is no citation. They just happened to write it that way when the article was first created, which was before the movie came out, and since no one has questioned it it has stood ever since, despite having no source. Sorry, but my not-very-strong sources should trump their no-sources-at-all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardonculous (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Ah, I was not aware that the "god" material was entirely unsourced. WP:BURDEN says that the editors that want to include the statement that "Thor is a god" are responsible for providing sources; otherwise the material can be removed (after a reasonable warning period). As far as your sources: it is generally a bad idea to use the movie itself as a source for anything other than the plot synopsis. So, within the plot section, it is okay, but outside that, I would look for stronger sources. --Noleander (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC) By the way, one compromise solution is to change the article to say something like: "The character of Thor and the other residents of [that place] are based on gods from nordic mythology. However, it has been suggested that the creators of the movie considered the characters to be extraterrestrial aliens." Or something like that: that way the canonical view (gods) is presented, along with the alternative viewpoint. --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Someone has proposed a compromise edit that side-steps the issue, so there at least is forward progress towards reaching a resolution. Let's say for a second the filmakers were intentionally ambiguous on this point, to allow for different interpretations (and in this case, to avoid angering die-hard comic book fans). I'd be interested to know how those different viewpoints would be included in an article. Afterall, differing interpretations should be a fairly standard thing when it comes to works of art. Cardonculous (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Cardonculous Yes, it is a common situation in WP. The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy has some guidance on that: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view.… Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." That policy page has other detail that may be useful for this situation. --Noleander (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC) IP: Also, you write "I'd also like to add that, as someone who is new to wikipedia, this has not been a pleasant experience." I'm sorry to hear that. I think many of us have had encounters that seem unpleasant, and that problem has plagued WP for a long time. It is a known issue, and many brainstorming efforts are underway to figure out how to improve the situation. Sometimes it is not that they other editor is a jerk, but merely that they are brusque, or impatient. My advice is to hang in there: things get better the more you edit. Maybe try editing some other articles that are less contentious for awhile. WP needs editors. --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks. While as I said I'm quite new here, just based on my own experience I'd humbly like to add the following ideas to the brainstorm: If new text has been added to an article with a new citation, then anyone clicking "undo" or replacing that text with other text that has no citation could receive a warning notice. The notice could provide them a link to the cited source that they are about to delete, so they will at a minimum feel obligated to actually read the source before undoing someone else's hard work. Editors could have the ability to apply a tag that relates a section on the talk page to new text they are adding on that subject. Then, if a different editor deletes that text or reverts edits that have been so tagged, they receive a notice that they should first check (or even respond to) the discussion on the talk page before they are allowed to delete the new text. I can't emphasize enough how demoralizing it is to put in the hard work to both a) find and cite sources and b) also create a section on the talk page where I explain my edits, only to have some editor undo all of my hard work with a single click. Especially if that editor offers no explanation or comments to the talk page, and/or reveals he didn't even bother to read the source. I think the two ideas above could reduce the occurrences of that happening. Cardonculous (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2012 (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:Good Olfactory, User:Alan Liefting

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. Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? User:Good Olfactory and I disagree ion the implementation of guidelines for categorisation of images. I want a third part to determine who is "right" or "wrong". There are huge numbers of images in question and a lot of time is being wasted in restore/revert edits. There is a relevant thread on my talk page at User_talk:Alan_Liefting#Removing_images_from_categories. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) Alan Liefting (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=User:Good Olfactory, User:Alan Liefting}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? User talk page discussions. How do you think we can help? Need to clarify file categorisation guideline implementation -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC) User:Good Olfactory, User:Alan Liefting discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Comment. In the discussion, four other editors have already commented on the issue. I'm all for resolving disputes, but this begins to look like someone searching for the answer he wants to hear when he doesn't get it the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth times ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - After reading the Talk page discussion, I think that images/files in WP categories should be left in the "old" categories until the appropriate long-term solution (e.g. either moving the image/file to Commons, or creating new "Image of ...." categories) is implemented. Recommend that Liefting drop this DNR and continue to work it out in the existing Talk page discussion. --Noleander (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC) This isn't the first time Liefting has inappropriately removed articles from categories, he did the same thing here, fighting it here and leaving an unacted upon cleanup tag here. Yeah, I reacted badly and deflected the entire issue from Liefing's inappropriate removals and the ANI focused upon me instead of this issue, but you can see - his inappropriate removals are ongoing. Dreadstar ☥ 18:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC) And yet another category dispute with Liefting, this editor needs to be banned from removing articles from categories. I'm sure there are more inappropriate actions by this editor, including crap like this. Dreadstar ☥ 19:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Liefting tends to find something that he feels is some kind of endemic issue with Wikipedia, and rapidly increases his edit count by making hundreds of edits in a few days, despite being asked to desist by multiple editors on multiple occasions, and without making any attempt to discuss it first. The claim he attempts to resolve disputes on talk pages is dubious. He objects and ignores others' objections. His propensity to link to highly general guidelines as a solution to a very specific problem (in his perception) is entirely unhelpful, particularly to new users. If I had a pound for every time, when questioned about his actions, he simply stated "See WP:CAT." I'd be at least two or three hundred pounds richer. I also note that recent disruption by him has led to a 31-hour block. It appears to be the petulant actions of someone who doesn't immediately get his own way. If he would act more collaboratively, listen to the community when they talk to him en masse and act accordingly, and stop over-reacting with ridiculous diatribe then I'd be happy to give him more opportunity to continue, but right now there needs to be some serious cooling off and a stop must be made to these horrendous mass-edit sprees Liefting is inclined towards. The Rambling Man (talk) I am unfortunately forced to endorse much of what has been said above. To be generous, Alan appears to feel that his interpretation of policy is the "right" one and everyone else is "wrong". (To be less generous, one might argue that Alan is merely vaguely waving towards policy to support his unilateral actions, but I'm not quite to the point of believing that as yet.) He has a seeming confusion/convolution of WP:CON and WP:BOLD (For example, it seems to me that he feels that: "If I self-assert something is "true", then it must be so, regardless of previous common practice or any contradictory policy/guidelines".) Beyond that, what concerns me is that he's started stating (pushing) these interpretations (POV) to others who may be newer or less informed about common practice on Wikipedia. Besides all this, in general, Alan has been in the past, a seemingly helpful and decent editor. I just find it a shame that he's not understanding the concerns others are trying to convey to him. - jc37 12:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC) This is looking less and less like a article content issue and more and more like a user conduct issue. I am inclined to suggest that the discussion be moved to WP:WQA, and if that does not resolve the problem, to WP:RFCU. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Nah, Liefting instigated this himself and wants a resolution to his own dispute. You can't just toss it over the fence to WQA because several folks have differing opinions to him. You should be contacting him to continue this discussion to its conclusion, i.e. to attempt "to clarify file categorisation guideline implementation". Let's do that. But the first step in that process would naturally be to ask all involved to arrest their edit warring over file categorisation. I'm beginning to wonder if this noticeboard is entirely pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC) The issues are behavioural, not content-based, so unfortunately this board really isn't going to solve the problem. The question asked is already answered, but I'll offer this précis if it might help: Any edit which takes a previously categorised page and leaves it lacking any category is making the encyclopedia worse, not better. --RexxS (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC) It is never a good sign when title has names of editors instead of a description of a dispute, and the filer could not think of a specific page to list. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of tallest buildings in Australia

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. List of tallest buildings in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? There has been as dispute coming down to what is defined as a bulding. However I have found based upon this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building that the definition of a building is: Any human-made structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or continuous occupancy, or an act of construction (i. e. the activity of building, see also builder). However this user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MelbourneStar) (Melbourne Star), seems to be under the impression that certain "Towers" are in-fact, not a building. An outside neutral opinion in this issue would be much appreciated. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? CharlieTN (talk · contribs) MelbourneStar (talk · contribs) The users comments towards myself seem to be quite bias. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=List of tallest buildings in Australia}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I have informed the user on numerous occasions that I believe his information to be inaccurate but they do not seem to want to negotiate ad just revert the page without consulting myself about the issue. How do you think we can help? If a number of users could come to a decision on what should or should not be included as a "building". It would be most appreciated. CharlieTN (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC) List of tallest buildings in Australia discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. What's wrong with using the criteria the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat uses? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Comment: This is the first I have ever crossed paths with User:CharlieTN - unless s/he goes by IP:121.216.86.150 - whom I simply have reverted and explained that the Sydney Tower is an observation tower/structure - not a habitable building, which according to the article Building, needs to be habitable - to be considered one. As well as pointing out on the IPs talk page, that freestanding structures have their own article (Sydney Tower included) - I also provided them previous discussion regarding the tower and this article. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 09:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Comment:I believe you will indeed find that Sydney Tower is inhabitable. Unless you are that ignorant you have not studied the building you are speaking of. - CharlieTN — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieTN (talk • contribs) 09:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Reply: How many floors of this tower, have people living in it - actually, does this tower even have floors? and labelling a good-faith edit as vandalism is against policy, please don't do it again. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 09:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Comment:The tower has a total of 19 floors that are habitable. Whilst none of the floors are used for residential or office space, the building contains a number of facilities including a shopping centre, observation platform, restaurant and communications centre. I believe by "needs to be habitable" you are referring to the building exclusively as a radio mast? Quite the contrary it far from that. - CharlieTN — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieTN (talk • contribs) 09:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Futhermore - The Sydney Tower is not being cherry-picked out of the article. That's the same case with the CN Tower (List of tallest buildings in Canada); The Eifel Tower (List of tallest buildings in France); The Sky Tower (List of tallest buildings in Auckland); and who can forget the world's tallest tower, Canton Tower (List of tallest buildings in the People's Republic of China) -- all of which, are tower's (free-standing structures - not buildings). They are all located in article's that list tall Structures. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 09:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Comment I completely understand where you are coming from. I understand the building is not being cherry-picked. However I do find that these free-standing structures still fit the definition of a building. I think if you where to consult the NSW department of planning they would assure anyone that it is a building. There obviously needs to be a complete universal set of guidelines covering all aspects of structures to determine exactly what is and isn't a building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieTN (talk • contribs) 09:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Reply - I agree that there should be, inconveniently, there is not. I found this on the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat website - they rank the Sydney Tower - as a "free standing structure" - not a "building". -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 09:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC) You both ignored my question. If it is your intent to simply shout at each other and ignore the input of DRN volunteer mediators, I will be happy to close this discussion and send you back to the article talk page to yell at each other. So again I ask, what's wrong with using the criteria the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat uses? if you look here you will see a section labeled "What is the difference between a tall building and a telecommunications /observation tower?" which should settle this dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC) And if you look at my above comment, you will notice that I have already pointed out the Sydney Tower - is a free standing structure, per CTBUH. Sorry if I sound a little sharp, but some people do not appreciate being dragged into a "dispute" (not really one) when they have enough on their plate as it is. Although the other user was bordering AGF, the both of us were definately not shouting each other. Apologies if you got that impression. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 09:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC) What I am getting at is the difference between "The CTBUH says it is an observation tower" and "these are the criteria the CTBUH uses." Does anyone here disagree with those criteria? If so, why? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC) If I have used CTBUH to back my statements above, I do not disagree with it. If Charlie does disagree, I'll be more than happy to continue discussion. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 11:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC) From the CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat) Criteria for Defining and Measuring Tall Buildings: "What is the difference between a tall building and a telecommunications /observation tower?" "A tall “building” can be classed as such (as opposed to a telecommunications/observation tower) and is eligible for the "Tallest" lists if at least 50% of its height is occupied by usable floor area." This appears to be the definition that consensus has agreed on for multiple "tallest building" pages on Wikipedia. I believe that it should be for this article as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Are we agreed that this is the criteria for inclusion we should follow? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2012 (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.