Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 40
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Contents
- 1 Harvard University (Notable people)
- 2 Bulgaria
- 3 Talk:Focus on the Family#Recreational drugs
- 4 Disruption in Serer religion
- 5 Resource-based economy
- 6 Political positions of Mitt Romney
- 7 Talk:Georgia_State_University#Primary_logo
- 8 Libyan_Civil_War, Talk:Libyan_civil_war
- 9 Talk:2012 Burgas bus bombing talk page
- 10 Joseph de Maistre
- 11 Eternalism (philosophy of time), Talk:Four-dimensionalism
Harvard University (Notable people)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This argument is just going over the same territory again and again. The filing editor should do one of the following things: (a) make a mediation request at WP:MEDCOM, (b) file a WP:RFC, or (c) if he believes that EEng is editing tendentiously file a complaint against EEng at WP:SPI. I would, however, caution the filing editor that even if he believes himself to be technically correct in removing the section (as I believe that he is) that removing an entire section, rather than merely tagging it or editing it to cure its ills, may be seen by some editors as pushing the editing envelope. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The problems revolve around the Notable people section. At this point, the most relevant issue is the question of whether the information in this section should have citations. I deleted the section because it was completely uncited and included a lot of BLP information. ElKevbo reverted, objecting on the grounds that " some of it is common knowledge and trivially verifiable." I redeleted per WP:BLP and began a discussion at the talk page. Eeng rereverted shortly thereafter, saying that WP:BLPCAT trumped my reading of BLP. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
We're still locked in at the D stage of WP:BRD. I would typically go next to WP:3O, but we're already at five opinions, so my experience tells me that they'd likely decline the request on those grounds.
We could use a few more eyes and thoughtful opinions. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Harvard University (Notable people) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Why would one need citations when listing notable alumni? Where would the citations link to? Electric Catfish 15:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, I wouldn't delete the section, either, and wholly agree that the best practices version is to tag and wait a few days, help look for sources, and then delete whatever hasn't been sourced, but policy clearly says that it's acceptable to just go ahead and delete. @Jorgath: Policy requires an inline citation once the material has been challenged. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like the community agrees that all this material should be accompanied by inline citations. I've gone ahead and tagged the offending material so we can pull together those citations in the near future or strike it if no one bothers.
So have we reached a resolution on this? I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths, but I also don't want to leave this active on the noticeboard if we've reached a consensus.— Bdb484 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment - WP policies are clear on this: All material in all WP articles (and lists and categories) must be verifiable, per WP:Verifiability. That means citations (footnotes) must be supplied. Referring to other WP articles or lists is not sufficient. Although it is possible to find other articles without citations, that is not an excuse to avoid providing citations when requested. Per WP:BURDEN, the burden is on the editor wishing to include the material to provide the citations. Before removing uncited material, it is polite to post a notice and wait a couple of weeks before removing uncited material (but it is even more polite to look for citations before removing). --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Bulgaria
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | I'm going to collapse this one for now, because of the request for mediation. Will archive it once the outcome of the request is clear. (Steven Zhang) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The Formation section of Bulgaria article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria, which was in effect since 2006 was changed, with the date 681 eliminated from it. The users Ceco31,Gligan, Apcbg, ximhua & V3n0M93 disagreed with this change and expressed their opinion on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bulgaria, quoting Encyclopedia Britanica, which clearly states that the beginning of Modern Bulgaria starts in 681 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84090/Bulgaria/42721/The-beginnings-of-modern-Bulgaria, therefore the date 681 should be retained in the Info box for accuracy purposes. Other arguments listed were that the creation of the Bulgarian language and alphabet happened in the X century Bulgaria, which was an integral part of the Formation of Bulgaria. The national symbols of Bulgaria - Lion also carried over. The dominant religion - Bulgarian Orthodox also carried over. Bulgarian identity and naming of the country and people was carried over. Thus, for historical accuracy the section should be renamed Formation with the dates 681 (First Bulgarian Empire) and 1185 (Second Bulgarian Empire) present. Also, examples were given with Poland, Serbia, Portugal, Spain, Germany which have a Formation section, which accurately shows the historical dates for those counties. The above facts were rejected by Tourbillon, Chipmunkdavis and William Thweatt. When an attempt was being made for a compromise with them by offering them 3 options (by ximhua), it was rejected in a rude and uncivilized manner. Users involved
Since there is clear difference of opinion we've offered 3 compromise options to the other party a) revert back to original 2006 version b) remove the section completely c) use the Formation section with the years 681 & 1185 in it.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Yes, I've tried to have a civilized discussion by offering a number of compromises, yet this was met with rude comments and no desire to listen.
Convince the other party that when there is difference of opinion, it is best to compromise. For example removing this content completely. Ximhua (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Bulgaria discussionTo recapitulate the issue: the InfoBox originally had three date lines:
And it was changed to:
The change was a shift from "Formation" to "Independence" and the removal of the top line "First Bulgarian Empire 681". The reason for deletion is that there is a dedicated article on First Bulgarian Empire, and thus including its start date in this article which focuses on modern Bulgaria is confusing for readers. Arguments for keeping the 681 date is that there is some continuity between the first B.E. and the modern states; and that the InfoBox is more useful to the reader with the additional information. Is that a correct summary of the issue?
The modern Bulgarian state does preserve the name of older states. Modern Bulgarian language is based on Old Church Slavonic, something like Latin for Eastern Orthodox Slavs, and was codified in the 19th century. The question about culture is really thin - while much of recorded Bulgarian culture from the Middle Ages has survived, there is also a lot of Islamic/Ottoman influence during the 500 years of occupation. Not only is the modern state different from the empires, but the two empires themselves had numerous differences. The ruling dynasties were different. The capital was different. The historical gap between the first and the second empire lasted for about 165 years - from 1018 to 1184-6. They were, however, closely related in terms of geography - at their greatest extent, they both controlled more or less the same territories. The Ottoman conquest of the Balkans basically erased all attributes of the Bulgarian state - its ruling dynasty, the nobility, the clergy and the arts. Even before the conquest, the Second empire had disintegrated to a number of smaller kingdoms. National consciousness ceased to exist and even the early rebels (haiduks) were not fighting for a national cause. Even if culture survived, the entire region of what was Bulgaria was defined by the Ottomans simply as Rumelia, populated with Christians regardless of their ethnicity and culture. Local residents certainly spoke Bulgarian, folk art was in Bulgarian, but apparently none of this had cohesion given the lack of central government, a truly Bulgarian elite, or national policies. It's quite obvious what the situation was if the Bulgarian National Revival was started by a book that had to remind the locals that they actually have a past. The arguments about symbols are irrelevant, because Bulgarian symbols such as the lion are shared with other European countries. And finally, post-1878 Bulgaria is only based on a portion of Medieval Bulgaria's territories; its capital is different, and, unlike the older states, it has a constitution, bureaucracy, separation of powers, a legal system, a parliament and national-level codified language. To summarise, modern Bulgaria took a great chunk of Medieval Bulgaria's culture (and also that of neighbouring countries), including the name; but this inheritance was passive, unguided, and with a lot of foreign influences added. The invaders threw all Christian nations in the pot after 1400 and erradicated their consciousness. We've already noted why there is no political continuity (different government, different ruling dynasty, different capital, and so forth). - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Noleander. Here are some more details. The statement that the language was different is incorrect. The language was Bulgarian or Old Bulgarian from the beginning. Church Slavonic is just another name for it. Here is a link: http://www.europe-cities.com/en/666/bulgaria/history/language/ Language? Answer: Language was the same. Here is a reference on history: http://www.europe-cities.com/en/666/bulgaria/history/language/ Culture? Answer: Culture was very much the same and not much has changed, retaining the core Bulgarian customs like Koleda (Christmas) Gergiovden (St. George's day), etc. Some of those are from pre 681 even. Here is a link: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/bulgaria_customs.htm Name? Answer: The country has always been called Bulgaria Locale? Answer: Bulgarians have always referred to them and were referred to by others as Bulgarians. During the Ottomon era, did the residents of the Bulgarian region speak Bulgarian? Answer:Bulgarians continued to speak Bulgarian. Refer to themselves as Bulgarian? Answer: Yes, Bulgarians have always referring to themselves as Bulgarian Have a Bulgarian culture? Answer: Yes, see customs link: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/bulgaria_customs.htm (Ximhua (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)) Here is a source that clearly mentions and identifies Bulgaria and Bulgarians as such during the Ottoman period: http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htm, it also states: "Nevertheless, certain Bulgarian groups prospered in the highly ordered Ottoman system, and Bulgarian national traditions continued in rural areas." This source is Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress of the United States. (Ximhua (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC))
I'm afraid the world disagrees strongly with CMD and Tourbillon (http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htm and http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/9.htm), here are some some quotes: "Village church life also felt relatively little impact from the centralized authority of the Greek Orthodox Church. Therefore, between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries, the villages became isolated repositories of Bulgarian folk culture, religion, social institutions, and language." "The Ottoman system also recognized the value of Bulgarian artisans, who were organized and given limited autonomy as a separate class. Some prosperous Bulgarian peasants and merchants became intermediaries between local Turkish authorities and the peasants.", "Some Bulgarian merchants assumed positions as intermediaries between Turkish and European markets, grew rich from such connections, and established offices in the major European capitals. As the Bulgarian cultural revival spread from the monasteries into secular society, these newly wealthy groups promoted secular art, architecture, literature, and Western ideals of individual freedom and national consciousness." etc., etc. This clearly answers the Noleander's question was Bulgaria referenced as Bulgaria and were Bulgarian's referenced as Bulgarians during that period. The answer is: YES On customs, of course there is an overlap with other Christian countries, this is natural. However, if Bulgaria has disappeared, would it adopt some Muslim holidays as well. There are none. Also, there are many uniquely Bulgarian customs mentioned in the link: LADOUVANE, KOUKERI, etc. (Ximhua (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC))
So, the articles of Poland, Croatia, Serbia, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, etc., etc. are all not good, however they all follow the WP consensus on the info box. Also, the First and Second Bulgarian Empire were major powers and quite independent and sovereign entities. (Ximhua (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC))
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Just a gentle reminder to all participants in this discussion: Here at DRN we do not discuss user conduct; we only discuss content. Please be careful to limit your remarks to edits, not editors. If you wish to address another editor's conduct or make requests to them about how they conduct themselves, do so on their user talk page or at WP:WQA, WP:RFCU, or Here is the definition for sovereign country: "A sovereign state is a political organization with a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area. It has a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states." Both the First and Second Bulgarian Empire match these criteria 100%. At this stage let's wait for Noleander's final verdict, as he is the mediator here. (Ximhua (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC))
First, I question the use of the definition of "sovreign state" in this discussion. That really is a form of modern construct, based on the circumstances of modern life. I am not at all sure it can be reasonably applied to governmental entities of an entirely different era. Secondly, I note that there is over one thousand years of history between the "early" Bulgarian governments and the later ones. I find it all but impossible to assume that there is any good cause to believe in any sort of significant direct continuity between entities over a thousand years apart. So, on that basis, I have to think that inclusion of the First Bulgarian Empire in the template above would almost certainly be giving undue weight to the potential linkages between the two. I could, perhaps, depending on establishment of notability, an article on the History of the Bulgarians. If I am right in jumping to a conclusion that the "Bulgarian" ethnicity relates in some way to the ethno-linguistic group which were a significant population of the First Bulgarian Empire, that would certainly be a place where the history of Bulgarians could be traced. But I can't see, based on the time differential between the two governments, that there is sufficient reason for us to declare a linkage of the disparate governmental entities in the template under discussion. It might, however, not be unreasonable for an article to review a history of the ethnic Bulgarians, depending on notability, weight, potentially POV forking, and possibly other factors, none of which I myself know much about. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Noleander, I think you were inclined towards the Formation approach, other folks have also posted in its favor. It is clear that all of Tourbillon points were refuted with specific examples and references from respectable sources. He has not provided a single source to prove that Bulgarians didn't speak their language or didn't call themselves Bulgarians during periods of independence loss. We are now discussing the semantics of what is a sovereign country, even one of the Independence editors (Chipmunkdavis) have agreed this is irrelevant. My question is what would you, as a mediator, recommend as next steps in order for this to be brought to a closure, as Tourbillon may never change his opinion? To Grandiose: Please, read the above discussion to understand the reasons, but in nutshell a) consistency with other countries articles b) There is direct continuity, which is proven above (Ximhua (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)) John Carter, there is direct and proven continuity. I'm re-posting with links. I'd urge all to back their statements with actual references, as without these, the statements don't really carry value. Language? Answer: Language was the same. Here is a reference on history: http://www.europe-cities.com/en/666/bulgaria/history/language/ Culture? Answer: Culture was very much the same and not much has changed, retaining the core Bulgarian customs like Koleda (Christmas) Gergiovden (St. George's day), etc. Some of those are from pre 681 even. Here is a link: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/bulgaria_customs.htm Name? Answer: The country has always been called Bulgaria Locale? Answer: Bulgarians have always referred to them and were referred to by others as Bulgarians. During the Ottomon era, did the residents of the Bulgarian region speak Bulgarian? Answer:Bulgarians continued to speak Bulgarian. Refer to themselves as Bulgarian? Answer: Yes, Bulgarians have always referring to themselves as Bulgarian Have a Bulgarian culture? Answer: Yes, see customs link: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/bulgaria_customs.htm (Ximhua (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC))
Will, the difference between your and turbillon's statements and mine, Ceco31, Gligan, Apcbg, Druster48 & V3n0M93 is that we back up our case with facts and verifiable references, whereas you and turbillon only ... talk. Give me prove that the states are different, you haven't provided a single link. I've provided you proves from respectable sources that there is direct continuation on language, culture, alphabet, customs, name & identity. Even, the moderator has told you that political system is insignificant. I've given you prove of Bulgarian aristocrats during the ottoman period, of wealthy Bulgarians during the period, of the thousands Bulgarian schools during that period, of the customs that survived, some from pre 681. My sources are from US Library of Congress and Britanica. Where are yours sources? If you have nothing else to add other than empty talk, please be kind enough to stop posting. Instead, try to read some of the examples that I've posted, try to educate yourself and you will quickly realize that the fact is that this is the same Bulgaria and the dates 681 and 1185 only provide a complete picture to the reader. In order to be consistent with Wikipedia standards and countries like Poland, Croatia, Czech Rep., Portugal, etc. all major historic dates should be listed in the info box starting with 681. How can't you see that statements that the "First and Second Bulgarian Empire were not sovereign states" are so wrong that they don't even deserve to be commented and that even CMD denounced them. How can't you see that the complete denial of the Bulgarian alphabet and language and calling it "Latin" is so easily proven wrong, just google Cyrillic alphabet. This alphabet was created in the X century in Bulgaria and has played and still plays a central piece in the formation of the Bulgarian state and nation. It is so easy to see it is the same. Unless, you have valid and serious references that explicitly deny Bulgaria's connection with Second and First Bulgarian Empire, please stop posting and kindly let the moderation advise on next steps. (Ximhua (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC))
We are making progress, so if you finally agreed that Bulgarian culture, religion, self-identity remained and continued, then the question becomes what is WP standard for other countries: Serbia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland, etc. and many other countries have all important historical dates in their boxes. To turbillon: your references are from single sentences from light books taken out of context or your own writing in this dispute, how funny you are. Here are some references that are from Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress of the United States (http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htm and http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/9.htm), again some quotes: "Village church life also felt relatively little impact from the centralized authority of the Greek Orthodox Church. Therefore, between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries, the villages became isolated repositories of Bulgarian folk culture, religion, social institutions, and language." "The Ottoman system also recognized the value of Bulgarian artisans, who were organized and given limited autonomy as a separate class. Some prosperous Bulgarian peasants and merchants became intermediaries between local Turkish authorities and the peasants.", "Some Bulgarian merchants assumed positions as intermediaries between Turkish and European markets, grew rich from such connections, and established offices in the major European capitals. As the Bulgarian cultural revival spread from the monasteries into secular society, these newly wealthy groups promoted secular art, architecture, literature, and Western ideals of individual freedom and national consciousness." Here is also a reference on language: http://www.europe-cities.com/en/666/bulgaria/history/language/ Here is also a link about a Bulgarian prince during the ottomans, a statesman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bogoridi CMD, please read it. I can see turbillon's nationalistic urge to describe the ottoman period as if all Bulgarians disappeared and all things Bulgarian were lost. I'm afraid WP is no place to play the nationalistic card, but to be accurate. Bulgarians did survive in this period and retained much of what they had in terms of language,religion, self-identity, name, etc. therefore continuity is in place. Again, it seems CMD has agreed on continuity of culture, language, religion, self-identity, what a great progress we are making, now once you realize the need for consistency with other countries, with history longer than a couple of centuries, you'll realize that 681 and 1185 should be include for historical accuracy and proper service to the reader. (Ximhua (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC))
I fully support ximhua. The year 681 & 1185 should be in the info box for historical accuracy. This article is about Bulgaria at large not about the third Bulgarian state, thus this debate is pointless. Of course 681 and 1185 should be there, these are natural and extremely important dates for the formation of Bulgaria and Bulgarian national character. It is a limited and one sided view that the years should only reflect the latest incarnation of a country. This makes no sense and is not consistent with other countries. You can't create a self-invented rule and impose it on a single country. This is not per WP standards. The uninterrupted passage of rule of law, capital, etc is insignificant minutia and is not followed for other countries like Serbia, Croatia, Spain, Czech Republic, Poland, etc. Include 681 and 1185. Include 681 and 1185. Also, if you go to Bulgaria talk page you will see turbo insulting other contributors by calling them trolls, "has less patience than me in dealing with trolls. at 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)" as well as nationalists "you seek to impose your skewed, petty nationalistic point of view" at 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The turbo user is clearly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29 There were other users who posted here in favor, namely: Apcbg, Ceco31, Gligan, V3n0M93 (Drustur90 (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC))
Proposed compromiseThere does not appear to be consensus developing, perhaps because the prior Bulgarian empires fall into a grey area: the gap in continuity during the Ottomon era is an odd situation, so there are no other similar WP country-articles to look to for guidance. Two additional uninvolved editors opined (Carter & Grandiose) but nothing concrete came from that. Based on a suggestion from Grandiose, I'd like to propose a compromise: What if the InfoBox looked like this:
That way the readers get informed of the fact that there were the two prior political entities, but they are marked as separate. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Come on, the names are pretty explicit First Bulgarian Empire and Second Bulgarian Empire, I can't imaging someone confusing Bulgaria with ancient Rome :-) Formation is the term used in most other countries, so it is widely accepted. The "Third Bulgarian State" on the other should satisfy the desire for separation that was requested. So overall, I still do think it is a good compromise, and I'll gladly vote Yes for the version with my minor updates. (Ximhua (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC))
I have to agree with CMD here. This material is not of the kind that the infobox was created for. If we are to use the infobox, then we should use it in the way it was intended to be used. Inserting the material in the infobox is to a degree inherently misleading, confusing, and somewhat POV, in that so far as I can tell the only real continuation is the use of a single word, Bulgaria. By the same token, the Holy Roman Empire could be argued as a continuation of the Roman Empire. The facts however do not support such a clear linkage there, and I don't think they do here. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I'm not trilled with this much as I don't see the need to have a seperation between the Empires and Third Bulgarian State... however I'm inclined to say yes if this is the only compromise possible. John Carter, please read the Britanica link below, it was quoted earlier as well: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84090/Bulgaria/42721/The-beginnings-of-modern-Bulgaria The FACTS are, that every single article on the history of Bulgaria includes The First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire, again every single source does it. No exceptions. These entities are linked. Period. (82.137.85.21 (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)) The 82.137.85.21 IP was me Druster90, didn't realize I wasn't logged in. (Drustur90 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC))
The compromise is a good one, it includes all major dates for Bulgarian history and the dates picked are the ones when an entity has been established or re-established, same as Poland, Serbia, Croatia, Spain, Portugal, Czech republic, etc. If one side is willing to accept the non-existent separation between the different incarnations of Bulgaria and have voluntarily added the line Third Bulgarian State, why can't you agree on a compromise? (Ximhua (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC))
OK, I re-read your original comment "It would be an acceptable compromise if we didn't have Volga Bulgaria and Old Great Bulgaria as well.". I actually have no problem to include Old Great Bulgaria in the Info box. So here it is.
(Ximhua (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC))
I don't even understand why are we discussing the origin of Bulgarians or comparing Bulgaria with other countries. Including previous Bulgarian entities is completely out of the question. The definition is far too wide and could bring under the spotlight just about anything, that does include Byzantium and the Ottoman empire, which happen to occupy about half of the 1,300-year period of Bulgarian history. Why turn the infobox a chronology of past events when there's a pretty good history section already. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
cmd you can't be serious, and apparently haven't even read the article on Bulgaria. In this article the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire are discussed in detail, but I guess you'd suggest to remove them. The formation of country is what is listed in this infobox and what is present in other European countries. We need to be consistent. If there were no First Bulgarian Empire and Second Bulgarian Empire there certainly would not have been the Tsardom of Bulgaria. You have already admitted on continuation of culture, religion, alphabet, language & symbols. Why is it such a big deal for you to add these dates? They do occur for most European countries, they do occur in the Bulgarian version of the article for Bulgaria and they do occur in every source on Bulgarian history. Did you know that the Soviet Union was ruled by a Georgian - Stalin for a while and that the entire elite of that country was eliminated in 1917, that the country was overrun by Mongols at some time. I'd like to see you convince the Russians that they have to remove 862 from their page. I'm really trying to understand why do you keep bringing insignificant stuff like political system, etc. Why are you not looking for a compromise? (Ximhua (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC))
Let me remind you that at least 6 named users have posted against this on the talk page and here, namely: Ximhua, Ceco31, Gligan, Apcbg, V3n0M93, Druster90. Just because these other folks don't post all the time, like you do, doesn't mean that they have not expressed their opinion. They have and it is clearly documented. Your continuous insults are against WP rules and I'm keeping count. You are constantly contradicting yourself, as at one point you complain that there are too many related Bulgarian States "It would be an acceptable compromise if we didn't have Volga Bulgaria and Old Great Bulgaria as well. They are related to Bulgaria 1.0 because of the ruling Dulo clan" and then you flip flop saying that they are unconnected (your last post). So, which one is it? The dates 681 and 1185 are essential for the accuracy of the article and they either need to be added to the box or the article needs to be reverted to its 2006 version, which remained unchanged for 6 years. (Ximhua (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC))
Yes, you did contradict yourself and you know it :) Apcbg expressed his opinion pretty clearly in the Talk page, let me remind you "To maintain that "modern Bulgaria has no relation to the previous states" is beyond me; it defies common sense. Naturally such predecessors would rather be medieval than 23rd century states :-) By the way, the oldest European state is most certainly Armenia. Apcbg (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)" You have no arguments. Every single source on Bulgarian history mentions the dates 681 and 1185 and they have to be in. (Ximhua (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC))
Formation:
I have a question which seems not to be answered in any of the previous posts. Not knowing much about Bulgarian history, if it seems that there are certain similarities between the Turkish Yoke of Bulgaria and Austrian occupation of the Czech kingdom (1621-1918). The question is - at all times the Habsburgs ruled the Czech lands as the Czech kings (and/or Moravian Margraves). What was the title which the Turkish rulers held as regards the territory of Bulgaria? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there were a number of sub divisions typically corresponding to a city, for example Sofia. However, there was religious autonomy, subsequently clear national identification via first the Archbishop of Ohrid, established as Bulgarian entity in 1018 and abolished only in 1767 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbishop_of_Ohrid and then the Bulgarian Exarchate in XIX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Exarchate . Both of these entities were created prior of the 1878 and existed within the ottoman state. (Ximhua (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)) Steven Zhang ,fantastic idea on the mediation committee! I've actually submitted it today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Bulgaria and have indicated agree. Please, take a look and let us know if anything further is needed. (Ximhua (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC))
Noleander & Steven Zhang, please help. Tourbillon has indicated on the mediation page that he accepts, but now he doesn't. I've placed links to discussions on both this page and talk page, so all is in the open. He is attacking me with sock threat. I need your help to move this dispute to the next level, as the facts are pretty obvious and reputable sources support it. (Ximhua (talk))
I've added a summary of the opposing side's comments on the mediation page. However, I'm expecting the committee, to read thru this discussion and the talk page to get more familiar with the matter. I'd also expect them to research Bulgaria's history and view sources provided. The decision has to be made based on facts and arguments, not the number of posts. (Ximhua (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC))
|
Talk:Focus on the Family#Recreational drugs
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.| | Consensus has it that "substance abuse" should be used on the article. No further discussion here is needed for now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The Focus on the Family (FOTF) organization has stated that it is against drug abuse. One editor feels the term "recreational drug use" is NPOV and that is "not negotiable" to use the term abuse. A reliable source, the Los Angeles Times, uses ther term "substance abuse" in describing the position of FOTF. This terminology is also acceptable to the editors commenting except for the one. The term "recreational" makes the problem sound benign and is not the term used by the article subject and RS. The discussion on the talk page has reached an impasse. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page only How do you think we can help? A DRN volunteer can provide additional insight into the discussion so that a consensus can be reached. Opening comments by Still-24-45-42-125I'll briefly outline my thinking. FotF, in their own words, opposes "drug abuse". If we were quoting them, we'd have to use exactly that term. If we're paraphrasing, however, we're obligated by WP:NPOV to do so with neutral terminology. And we're encouraged to paraphrase rather than quote, precisely so that we can maintain neutrality. While FotF apparently does not distinguish between drug use and drug abuse, we have to. There are no reliable, neutral sources that equate the two. It's also very misleading. Consider that a slim majority of Americans supports legalization of marijuana, but it would be completely inaccurate and biased to claim they support drug abuse. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who supports drug abuse by that name (or, "substance abuse", or really, anything abuse). Another possibility would be to say that FotF opposes the use of "illegal drugs", but this is also problematic. They don't oppose these drugs because they're illegal. In fact, they oppose them even when they're legal and they oppose their legalization. So legality is either a side issue or a conclusion, not a reason. The most neutral term I've found is "the use of recreational drugs", which emphasizes that these are drugs that are primarily used for pleasure and entertainment as opposed to medical need. Some of these drugs also have medical use -- consider MJ -- but FotF opposes them because of their recreational aspect. For this reason, we can't say "recreational drug use", as they also oppose medical marijuana usage. I believe the objection to "recreational" is that it implies that drugs are fun. I'm not sure what to say about that except that they're misunderstanding the meaning and intent. I consider this term to be about as neutral as possible, and really the only acceptable paraphrase. If any of you have a viable alternate, I would be glad to consider it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by BelchfireFirst, this is not a new dispute This is actually a continuation of an earlier dispute that in is now closed. 1. This started over specific language in the lead: "It is listed as an anti-gay group by the Southern Poverty Law Center due to its promotion of discrimination against LGBT people, promotion of scientific ignorance, and misrepresentation of research."[11] 2. New wording was agreed to: "It is considered to be an anti-gay group by several organizations." [12] 3. I reorganized the lead per WP:MOSINTRO, preserving the new sentence, without disturbing anything else: [13] However, one editor found this unacceptable (take note of the edit summary): [14] 4. Discussion ensued, and the DRN volunteer was brought back in. Talk:Focus_on_the_Family#Belchfire_gutting_the_lead 5. There were three key points:
6. The first two paragraphs were not in dispute at this point. The third paragraph needed adjustments, if it was needed at all. NOTE, Still's proposal did not include the sentence that was worked out in the original dispute. 7. Still-24-45-42-125 left the discussion. I waited until the next day, noting that Still was active on Wikipedia, but not participating in Talk. I took what we had agreed on and made it the lead (with trivial changes per discussion, see edit summary). [15] 8. Still-24-45-42-125 then inserted his third paragraph [16], bypassing the unresolved discussion. Without discussion, there were POV edits and low-level edit-warring. Still-24-45-42-125 then reinserted language that was removed via the DRN. [17] 9. With the dispute put in context, we arrive at the present disagreement concerning the lead. The phrase "recreational drugs" is original research. FotF does not use the phrase in any reliable source he has been able to produce. In the the discussion, he plainly has to use his own reasoning to obtain it. Four other editors have made source-based arguments for "drug abuse" or "substance abuse", which Still-24-45-42-125 refuses to accept. While 72Dino should be commended for pursuing maximal agreement, all should be aware (and in some cases, reminded) that unanimity is NOT a requirement for consensus. Moreover, allowing a single editor to halt the collaborative process is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. There are numerous policies and essays guiding those holding a minority view that, for the good of the encyclopedia, they are to acknowledge when they are out of step with more widely-held views, and move on. In fact, this is one of Wikipedia's core values, and it often marks the difference between a collaborative and a disruptive editor. Belchfire-TALK 19:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by LioneltFOTF uses "drug abuse." Los Angeles Times uses "problems of chemical substance abuse." The sources presented make a strong case for "substance abuse" or similiar--not recreational drug use.– Lionel (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Talk:Focus on the Family#Recreational drugs discussionI am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. I am just starting to look at the edit history and the previous DRN filing, so it may be a day or so before I am up to speed. In the meantime I invite other DRN volunteers to weigh in on this dispute. In case you were wondering about the 2000 character limit, this was filed before we added that, so it is under the old rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment - The FOTF's own policy statements use terms like "drug abuse" and "alcohol abuse". It is clear from their policy statements that they are not opposed, for example, to recreational drinking. Using the term "recreational drugs" in the article would impart a meaning that would be a bit misleading to readers. Unless a significant source is found that explicitly uses the term "recreational" vis-a-vis FOTF, it would not be appropriate to use it in the article. (PS: I'm glad to see that the article now has a 3-paragraph lead, mirroring the body of the article). --Noleander (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The tract I quoted from at length is an official FotF publication and it very clearly lumps MJ in with alcohol and Ecstasy, arguing against recreational use of any of them. I'm not sure how detailed we can expect our sources to be. I mean, how many specific drugs would we have to have FotF name before we could say "they oppose recreational drug use"? If you look at other primary sources, there's no reason at all to think that they mysteriously sanction LSD or nitrous oxide. Take a read: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/abuse_and_addiction/substance_abuse.aspx Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Here's a sample paragraph from later in the article I just linked:
As you can see, they explicitly oppose cigarettes, alcohol and illegal drugs. On the same page, they also speak of locking up the medicine cabinet to prevent recreational use of otherwise medically necessary drugs. And so on. It's all there. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone disagree with the claim that this has been resolved? Is there anything more we need to do here, or can this be closed as resolved? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Problematic use seems better than recreational use as recreational use is not always bad, excessive drug use has many variables (age, weight, substance) as opposed to problematic use of which is an accepted term as used in the diagram. Also, it's not used in the article, so can give a change that all editors might agree with. How about a straw poll here. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Here are the options for the straw poll:
To vote, add the number of your choice and sign below. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
If your other two choices can be shown to come from RS's, I am open to them. If not, then I am flabbergasted that a veteran Wikipedian such as yourself would put them on the table in a dispute where OR is at the root of the disagreement. Belchfire-TALK 01:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
An important point that I don't think has been made in this very long discussion is that the organisation is not really a reliable source for characterising its own stance. We wouldn't say in WP voice that the Ku Klux Klan is opposed to the crime of race-mixing, would we? Or that NAMBLA supports the human right to inter-generational sex. We can only really describe FOTF as opposed to "drug abuse" if they are tolerant of my daily but highly responsible use of crack cocaine. Formerip (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Disruption in Serer religion
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.| | The two tags on Serer religion will be removed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
On 14 July 2012 User:Eladynnus tagged the Serer religion as WP:POV without an edit summary [21] and left a message on the article's talk page suggesting the Serer culture is not as sophisticated as being portrayed here, see POV issues discusion. In that discussion, they also accused me of deliberately presenting inaccurate information and said they needs a French speaker to evaluate all Serer articles and sources. Apparently they had an issue with some images which are actually Serer pictographs. I have told them in that discussion (several times) to be bold and edit the article if they have alternative reliable sources. Instead, they have resulted in edit wars with me by placing tags here, here and here. Even an administrator in that discussion told them their tagging is unjustified, yet they still continued placing tags. I even added an additional ref to the section they take issue with just to keep the peace [22] (better seen here) but their actions have continued (see diffs above). Note also that since this issue started an IP all of a sudden appeared from nowhere and placed a speedy deletion template on the Serer religion article [23] which I have removed here. As of todate, Eladynnus has made no attempt to edit the article other than placing tags (see their contribution history [24]). Apparently, they are waiting for a French speaker to evaluate all Serer articles and sources (see the discussion above). I've told them I have never heard of that, and Wiki's articles cannot be hijacked in that way. The article is fully referenced and they are free to go through the references. With respect, if they cannot read French, that is their problem not mine. Please would someone intervene in this because this issue is getting out of hand. Note that I have also posted a message to another editor [25] who mistakenly reverted my edits without seeing the previous reference I added, and saying my edit summary was contradictory to the templates I removed [26]. Users involved
Eladynnus should be bold and improve the article if they take issue with a section and introduce RS. I have repeatedly told them to be bold and that I do NOT own these articles and anyone is free to edit them. However, disruption and drive-by-tagging of Wiki articles is not encouraged.
Yes [27].
Resolving the dispute
When I first saw their tags and the discussion they opened up in the article's talk page, I have repeatedly told them to assume good faith and be bold and improve the articles if they have other reliable sources that supports their claim [28]. So far, they have made no attempt to improve the article other than tagging it. I have also added an additional source regarding the images they take issue with just to keep the peace [29], but as you can see, they have added back the POV and disputed fact templates on the article [30].
With respect, these tags do not belong to this article. All the previous disputes with actual contributors to this article were resolved. If Eladynnus believes otherwise, they should be bold and edit parts of what they take issue with by adding RS to support their claim. I have told them this many times which they have not done. Wiki articles cannot be hijacked, or waite for a French speaker who may or may not turn up to do their work for them. As such these templates should be removed and Eladynnus should be made aware that what they are doing is disrupting the project. They can go through all the Serer related articles under Category Serer people and evaluate them. I have no problem with that, but kidnapping them (per their remark on the disccussion above and elsewhere) is not permitted per Wiki policy. Tamsier (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Serer religion discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
First of all, you don't need to specify an edit summary when tagging articles. Electric Catfish 15:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Eladynnus, do you believe the entire article is non-neutral, or that specific sections are? If sections, which ones? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This seems to me to be a situation where an {{expert-subject}} tag might have been more appropriate. Although Tammsier seems to have expertise on the Serer, would you mind standing back and letting another expert evaluate this case as a solution to the dispute? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Drmies supported the original removal of the tag because my most immediate issue was with a section detailing "raampa", a writing system which I and JSTOR had never heard of, and which only had a crank's site as a source. Since the NPOV tag is not for that sort of issue, it was probably right that it be removed at that point. Later I articulated my NPOV concerns more clearly and found the appropriate tag for the raampa dispute, but Tamsier seems to believe that any tags are vandalism and has been posting threats, insults, and ultimatums on the talk page ever since. As you can see from my links above, I've had to restore these tags several times (including once where he didn't mention it in the edit summary 1). Eladynnus (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Proposed ResolutionI propose that the POV tag at the top of the article be replaced by an {{expert-subject}} template with appropriate parameters filled. The in-section tag should be left in place so as to help guide any expert(s) to the locus of the dispute. Both of you would then step back from the article until such time as expert attention has been given to it. Would this be acceptable to both of you? Drmies hasn't yet weighed in, but would you be OK with this resolution too? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Resource-based economy
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.| | No closing comments were detected |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The article currently states that the term "Resource-based economy" is used by the technocracy movement. The term exists in one paper on one website related to the organization. I think that one article by one member doesn't make a whole organisation, and that you therefore can't say that the organization as a whole uses the term. User Earl King Jr disagrees. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussed on the talk page: Talk:Resource-based_economy#Google_books_survey
Providing opinions. OpenFuture (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Resource-based economy discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Unless a source can be tied directly to it being organizational level, then I would refrain from attributing it as such. I've read essays about technocracy and I do not think the term 'resource based economy' comes up often, and when it is used the term is often literal. I think we need sources which state this more clearly before the assertion can be made, since it is a point of contention. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that we have a consensus on this. But I would like a DRN volunteer confirmation on that, and we can then update the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Just can not resist putting words in peoples mouths and being a dick about this? Is there some part of I don't care because it was removed from the article days ago, that compels you to try and spit at other editors? The debate if one calls it that is mostly you doing put downs now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Political positions of Mitt Romney
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Quoting another DRN volunteer,
Also, the filing party has been blocked for edit warring on the page and so it's clear we have not done anything to settle him down and he was just making it worse. We had (and still has) a consensus against him. I, as a DRN volunteer has suggested for him to get mentored, although that will not happen I think. If there is any more disputes, don't hesitate to come here again. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Belchfire made a series of edits[51] that removed a large amount of content from the article, including all mention of Romney's creationism and many essential details about his shifting views on abortion. I carefully reverted some of the changes while keeping others. Now there is a dispute over whether to keep any of the deleted material. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I opened up a Talk section. So far, I have not been able to get Belchfire to come to the table and explain why he deleted so much. ViriiK's participation has been, in my opinion, evasive and unproductive. How do you think we can help? I imagine that you could get Belchfire to participate in the discussion and explain what his edit comments hinted at. Perhaps you can get ViriiK to stop playing burden tennis, too, but that's not as important. Opening comments by BelchfireI'm not sure that this disagreement is resolvable at DRN, for a several reasons. First, this isn't a "small content dispute" (quoted from the top of this page). The triggering event was a single reversion (diff) that undid more than 10K of incremental edits (about 8-10 of them, I believe) undertaken over a period of 7 days. Second, this issue has not been "discussed extensively on a talk page" (quoting from above again). Still-24 initiated this process before any discussion could take place. We can see by comparing these diffs, from the article and from Talk, that he announced his intent to launch DRN just 27 minutes after the last edit. Mind you, this was before I even had a chance to respond. I actually received the DRN notice at :14 minutes after the hour diff, just as I was posting my response in Talk diff, at :16 after the hour.
Now, I'm more than willing to discuss my edits, that's not a problem. But I just want to caution the DRN volunteers and the other participants that, due to the sheer size and scope of Still-24's reversion, the discrete changes accumulated over a full week of re-writing sections of a good size article probably number in the neighborhood of 3-4 dozen, and the changes deserve to be dealt with individually. Based on my understanding, that's well outside the scope of how this noticeboard is supposed to function. So, I offer that this DRN should probably be suspended, if not closed altogether, while the normal means of collaboration are given an opportunity to succeed. Belchfire-TALK 20:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by ViriiK[Comments about other users deleted by dispute resolution volunteer Guy Macon] I've been an editor here for years and I frankly enjoy it. Now this just happened to be the first time I've been involved in a dispute resolution for unknown reasons except Still-IP. My question still remains that Still-IP needs to answer: Are there any changes in particular that you object to? ViriiK (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by LioneltRegarding the substance of the issue, Belchfire did explain his edits. In the edit summaries and on the talk page. His reasoning included: off-topic, irrelevant, partisan cruft, content from 2007, etc. The only issue here is that Still doesn't like the edit and likes the explanation even less. WP:IDONTLIKE. – Lionel (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment by CollectAgain the "political silly season" edits occur - and one is reminded of those who sought edits saying Sarah Palin believed dinosaurs were "Jesus ponies" etc. The use of "religious tenets" of any sort as political ammunition is abhorrent to anyone who actually cares about genuine political issues. One may, if one wishes, look at the nature of edits by any specific editor and find those who are most egregious pushers of the "silly season edits." The case at hand is, alas, one precisely in that category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Political positions of Mitt Romney discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Note: I am going to wait a day or so until Belchfire either makes a statement or it becomes clear that he isn't going to make one before opening this up for discussion. Also, I noticed that some of you have participated in previous dispute resolutions. Please be aware that the rules have changed. We were getting long threads with multiple issues that were very hard for the volunteers to keep track of. The new DR procedures are designed to keep the statements concise and to the point. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I am now opening this for discussion. I ask everyone to please be concise, and to focus on article content, not user conduct. If someone makes a claim and someone else disputes it, leave it at that. We can evaluate the claim / counterclaim without a long discussion about who's argument makes sense. Be calm cool, logical, and provide evidence for anything that is likely to be disputed. Thanks! So, disputed content: retain or delete? Or keep part of it? Or modify it in some way? I am looking for a rough idea of how many editors support each of those options. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
So, as for the content that was disputed here: Diff1Diff2Diff3Diff4Diff5Diff6 Retain or delete? Or keep part of it? Or modify it in some way? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, by my count I have: Objects to removal: Still-24-45-42-125 Supports removal: ViriiK, Belchfire, Lionelt Partially supports removal, wants some put back in: Wasted Time R Could not tell what position is: Collect Let's talk about Wasted Time R's suggestions. Still-24-45-42-125, could you live with Wasted Time R's suggestions, or will you only be happy if it all goes back in? ViriiK, Belchfire and Lionelt, could you live with Wasted Time R's suggestions, or will you only be happy if it all stays out? How about partial agreement? Can we agree on even a small portion? ViriiK, Belchfire, Lionelt, is there anything you can live with retaining? Still-24-45-42-125 is there anything you can live with deleting? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
A three vs. one consensus is generally enough to settle a content dispute, but I am still shooting for an agreement or compromise. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN...and I gotta say...whoa! Slow discussion down guys! I'm putting a hold on this thread - I don't want any discussion to take place until Belchfire has made further comment, but I see a consensus here too. We must be extremely careful about the content that we put in BLPs. It's better to err on the side of caution in most cases - I would advise all here to carefully review that policy, and remember that administrators have the power to impose sanctions against editors or topic areas for violations of the policy. But yeah, let's wait for Belchfire to make further comment. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 03:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
As it happens, I kept most of Belchfire's changes. I objected to these three, but I have been unable to get him to explain his specific reasons for the cuts. Without seeing his arguments for removal, it appears that he's got nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It may well be that he has good reasons, but we'll never know unless he shares them. Please, is it really unreasonable to demand a straight answer? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a scene in The Simpsons in which Lionel Hutz, asked whether he has any evidence, says "We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence." In the same way, you just offered me a kind of explanation, which is to say, a blatantly false explanation.
We both know that views on evolution have been relevant in the Republican primaries, as candidates are expected by the religious right to be strongly opposed while Romney's view is (usually) too far to the left to make them happy. [59][60][61][62][63][64] Got plenty more reliable sources where that came from, but you've cloaked like a Romulan, so I expect that you won't even try to rebut my argument. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Gentlemen, we now have a reason to close this discussion, and unless someone gives me a compelling reason not to, I will close it 24 hours from now. The reason to close comes from user Still-24-45-42-125: "My stated reason for invoking dispute resolution was to get a straight answer out of Belchfire. If you're not interested in helping, then close this now as unresolved, and I'll take this to a forum that is interested in enforcing Wikipedia policies." WP:DRN is not the right place to "get a straight answer" out of someone. Nor do we "enforce Wikipedia policies". WP:DRN is for resolving content disputes. Therefore I am planning on closing this case as being fundamentally incomparable with the purpose and goals of WP:DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Georgia_State_University#Primary_logo
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Currently in RFC. Let that finish before there coming to DRN. Hasteur (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Additional reason: Neither RFC or DRN is really the proper procedure for this discussion; it should be filed at Non-free content review, which is the venue intended for this kind of determination. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Fomeister on 22:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Certain editors insist upon uploading a copyrighted image, that does not meet the fair use criteria. At issue, in my opinion is whether the cited argument that ProjectWiki:Universities "policy" can over-rule WP-POLICY. While WP considers logo's fair-use, seals and other images are not logo's and I believe that they should meet all 10 requirements of fair-use. Thank you for taking the time to help resolve this dispute, and I apologize for the time it is taking away from your other contributions to Wikipedia. In response to your comment, and I apologize if it is a repeat from the previous Section, I would like to re-state the reasoning of my BOLD edit, in order of precedence: 1.) ...respect copyright laws... 2.) ...editors may not violate copyrights anywhere on Wikipedia... 3.) Nothing, even a Project Wiki uniguide trumps POLICY. ...participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope... I ask all other editors to speak to this argument that I am making. There is a free use image to be used to represent GSU, it is their logo, and it is free-use. Why should a WikiProject "policy/habit" be allowed to violate these three items? Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to give an example. If Wikiprojects:University decides to include a theme song through consensus, that does not make it right. Common sense tells us that a free-use midi file, versus a copyrighted MP3 file is the way to maintain our Five Pillars. Why ask for trouble, when simply following our own policy in regards to copyright law keeps us safe? How do you think we can help? Perhaps, you could put forth your own understanding of policy, and give us your opinion in regards to this matter. Does the image meet all 10 requirements. To me, it is obvious it doesn't meet at least three of them, but I am open to anything that can resolve this dispute. I would rather be spending my time editing. Talk:Georgia_State_University#Primary_logo discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
|
Libyan_Civil_War, Talk:Libyan_civil_war
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Withdrawn by filing editor. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
A editor is reverting back to another edit which was made by a user as vandalism, forgetting the point that this edit has been made on the same page for a long time[65], and now this person is frequently removing that sourced content as per his own personal likeness[66], [67], [68], [69], he is even removing the talks which backup that point in talk page[70], [71], and then asks to secure this page, but removes the response which is made on the request page[72]. So i thought of getting this conflict here for solution. Users involved
Yes, they are being informed.
Resolving the dispute
I had discussed them before on talk pages, each of them, the editors seemed to be agreeing, but there was never a fair response from this editor as well as one more, after sometimes when these edits remained, i saw that they are being reverted back for no reason.
I think the edits which were being reverted by this user should remain, because they are well sourced and made much before the user who he is pointing as banned user in those pages, also the talk pages should be recovered, because there's no permission from those users who's talks have been removed, and they doesn't seem to be vandalism or spam in any kind. 122.169.17.113 (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Libyan_Civil_War, Talk:Libyan_civil_war discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Not participating in this circus. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:2012 Burgas bus bombing talk page
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Stale. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Redundant passage is written in the article. A reference at the end is given to July 22, and I have argued that the author likely repeated what she wrote on July 21 (as it was very similar), which was already stated on July 20 (article was on July 21 either b/c that's when she submitted article, or repeated it for context...). The July 20 statement is mentioned above in a different passage already, and is fine. The new passage seems redundant, and the referenced article isn't focused on the passage either, which I used to show she was just repeating what she wrote before for context or info. The other editor has argued that it's possible the statement was said twice on two different days, but I have argued there is no proof for this, and gave other examples showing media outlets repeating information stated previously for context. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried asking an administrator, who referred me to Third Opinion. Third Opinion rejected it, since the dispute was at Somedifferentstuff's talk page, rather than the article's talk page. How do you think we can help? Just by saying whether you feel that the passage should be included again with a reference to an article two days later. Opening comments by SomedifferentstuffThere is a content dispute, as noted above, but the issue is larger than that. If you look at the "perpertrator" section of the article[73] you'll see that it contains loads of information regarding Hezbollah. The official who is in charge of the investigation, Bulgarian Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov, said there was no proof that Hezbollah was behind the attack.[74] My view is that since he is in charge of the investigation, his view regarding Hezbollah should be heavily weighted. Right now the POV of the section is distorted. Have a look at this material Activism1234 added.[75] - see the bottom section which starts "According to a media report, Bulgarian authorities have determined that a Hezbollah terror cell was responsible for the attack." Now when you look at the source, it states that they got this information from a television newscast in Israel. This goes against information from Tsvetanov, as well as the view from the White House, which has not made a statement about responsibility.[76] Yet for some reason, Activism thinks this material should remain in the article. And please have a look at the editorial content he added to the aftermath section.[77] At the end of the day, the article needs to be neutralized, and I think it's best for an uninvolved editor to do so. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Talk:2012 Burgas bus bombing discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hi, so I'm Ebe123, an DRN volunteer. I would like to wait for the opening comments of all the other parties before opening for discussion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there a problem with that passage that requires dispute resolution? I don't see it--I see an article with way too much news items in there, and I personally don't care what a certain official says on such-and-such day, but while there is an overlap between the two statements I don't see why we should make a fuzz over it. It's easy to economize the passage, of course:
How does that strike you? Somedifferentstuff, whatever else they believe, will have to believe in editorial economy. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you folks just post a bunch of material after reading "Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary." and "Hi, so I'm Ebe123, an DRN volunteer. I would like to wait for the opening comments of all the other parties before opening for discussion."? I am going to defer to Ebe123 on this -- maybe he doesn't mind -- but to me it looks a lot like you just ignored his clear instructions. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion is now open, and I would like Activism1234 to re-post what he removed as it was not open yet. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you. Somedifferentstuff has issued his opening comments. Unfortunately, he hasn't answered anything of what I wrote. At all. I'd add that personal opinions don't count for "who weighs more." One person may think that the domestic country's intelligence weighs more, another may think a foreign country's intelligence which is considered one of the best weighs more, but at the end of the day, there's no reason not to just include both of them, and complaining that this is mentioned is silly. Tsvetanov said one thing, and that's great. And someone just as notable or important said another thing, and that's great. The comment about the White House not saying it is the same thing - what difference should that make? And besides, White House officials and the Pentagon did say there were markings of Hezbollah, but reporting that as what they said doesn't violate POV. Perhaps we should consider what Vladimiar Popov, a political scientist in Bulgaria, told http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/world/europe/after-bombing-bulgarias-ties-with-israel-at-risk.html?_r=1&ref=israelthe New York Times (a reliable media outlet), for some context or explanation as well here.
Now, surely that should give more reasonable doubt as to why we shouldn't fall head over knees in regards to what one official said, no matter whether they're the domestic country, and simply report what they said, but not to disregard what others have said as well, including those officials published in internationally read media outlets like The New York Times. I myself have added passages about officials who said this isn't true, or who said not to jump to conclusions. I have nothing against it - this is factual information, and that's what Wikipedia is for. I will happily add such information if I know about it and have a reliable reference to it. [Now, on the side, I'd like to remind Somedifferentstuff that he added the POV tag specifically in regards to a passage at the end of the article. He wrote in the summary box that he added the tag because this was an opinion piece. I held a lengthy discussion with him on his talk page already about it. This is what the passage said.
Does it violate POV? As far as I can tell, it properly attributes an editorial read by thousands and thousands of people to the appropriate media outlet, just like it is written over 10 times in, for example, Public image of Barrack Obama. But now he's trying to distract from that towards another issue, that he feels it's unfair for certain comments by top officials to be mentioned alongside those of other officials, and his personal opinion of who counts more should be taken by us?? I think we need to make a great effort towards staying on topic - what I filed this dispute resolution about. Somedifferentstuff, so far you haven't answered anything that I've posed at you. Everything you've said has already been discussed before, and I'm happy to discuss it again, but right now I filed a dispute resolution for one specific reason, and you aren't answering it. Now I'm fine with that, but then the redundant passage should be removed. Thanks.--Activism1234 13:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC) To make it easier for review, I will copy and paste the two passages I am referring to here. Passage 1, July 20 reference:Passage 2, July 21 (adding to the issue, the reference is to an article from July 22, when in reality it should be the article on July 21 written by the same article which reports what the interior minister said):
What I've been saying summary - the article written on July 21 was likely just repeating what was said on July 20. This can be for a variety of reasons - either the timezone published it on July 21 rather than July 20, or it wasn't published in time to meet the stamp of July 20, or the author was repeating what was said on July 20 for context. The two articles are very similar in regards to the statement, and essentially conclude the same thing. There isn't proof it was repeated again on July 21, and also, the passages are so similar that there isn't really a point in repeating it twice. Hope it helps. I'm not in any rush here, I understand some editors may not be as heavy on Wikipedia, and while I usually have a heavy presence, I may find myself largely absent from Friday-Saturday, but I would appreciate discussion here when possible. Thanks.
--Activism1234 22:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
|
Joseph de Maistre
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Perceived behavioral issues getting in the way, and we're going in circles. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User ERIDU-DREAMING has for some time been making edits to this page which I personally feel tend to make it less, rather than more informative. His response to my comments and interventions have been less than polite. Most recently, he has insisted in removing properly-cited and longstanding material (originally added by editors other than me), about Maistre's influence on early sociologists and on Utopian socialists. When I reverted this and asked him to first discuss his concerns in the talk page, he simply ignored me and removed the material again. I then started a thread in the talk page and asked him to air his concerns, but his response was simply to suggest that I should improve my reading skills and remove the material again. I don't want to start an edit war. I think it would be very useful if other editors were to step in. Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
I have asked ERIDU-DREAMING to discuss his concerns in the talk page first, and I have started a thread on the subject in the article's talk page.
At this stage, I think that input from other editors would be quite useful. Eb.hoop (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Joseph de Maistre discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Hi, I am a dispute resolution volunteer. I would like to await an opening statement by ERIDU-DREAMING before we open the discussion. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC) What disingenuous nonsense from start to finish. I made some minor changes (mainly to the flow of the article) and every single one of which was always blanket reverted by Eb.hoop. When I pointed out to him that reverting every single minor change in one go suggests ownership issues he stopped (temporarily), but evidently he is strongly motivated to continue. He is obsessed with a minor and not very well argued point about a possible link between De Maistre and some later French sociologists. I have retained this material since Eb.hoop for some reason feels it is of great importance. Unfortunately (for reasons only known to himself) he keeps claiming that the material has been removed. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC) All right, I'm opening the discussion. Before I say anything, I want to remind both of you that this venue is for content disputes only. While content disputes and conduct disputes often go hand-in-hand, I'd like to keep any user conduct issues out of this forum as much as possible. To that end, I or another DRN volunteer may remove any comments that focus exclusively on the behavior of an editor. Looking over the revision history of the page, it does appear that most of User:ERIDU-DREAMING's edits were minor. It is this series [78][79][80][81] that seems to be of any major substance. Looking at this, it seems that there are currently only cosmetic changes between the article before ERIDU-DREAMING began editing it and now; the one exception is the passage that was moved from the "Political and moral philosophy" section to the "Repute and influence" section. All things considered, this seems to be the passage under dispute. So I have the following questions to start things off:
I hope we can resolve this amicably. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, completely untrue. I did several minor edits (including moving a couple of sentences to a new place) and THEN you reverted. You say I have consistently edited the article to play down or remove references to Maistre's arguments about the need for hierarchical authority, as opposed to the mere invocation of a "divine right of kings." Again this is untrue. You seem to be having an argument with somebody else. The only thing I can extract from your statement which bears any resemblance to the facts is the removal of one sentence - of which you seem to be very fond. If you are so fond of it put it back into the article! I personally do not think it is a very helpful sentence. It is so vague it is useless. But spare us the garbage that you are only objecting to every minor change because I am seeking to change the meaning of the article. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I, like Jorgath, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. This is looking more and more like a conduct dispute, rather than a content dispute. This noticeboard is only for content disputes. Please stop discussing one another and one another's alleged COI, motivations, attitudes, and the like. If there are any particular edits which you would like to hash out, please identify them and a volunteer will probably be willing to discuss them with you, but if you wish to complain about or discuss one another's conduct please limit that discussion to one another's user talk pages or to WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, or some other forum which deals with conduct. Discuss only edits here, not editors. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Do both of you accept this re-write as a potential resolution to the dispute at hand, then? Obviously a re-write may lead to future content disagreements, but if you're willing to work with each other to improve the article by re-writing it, then I'd like to declare this resolved. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I am told I must get back to the discussion! I am glad that Ed.hoop is happy with the text which he wrote, but the phrase "based on compelling but non-rational grounds" is unclear. Who or what is compelling, and why is it compelling? The statement "What was novel in Maistre's writings was not his enthusiastic defense of monarchical and religious authority per se, but rather his arguments concerning the need for an ultimate source of political authority" is simply a point of view. It is not even a well grounded point of view - since it is pretty obvious that arguments about what grounds political authority [including Popes and Kings] are as old as political philosophy. The phrase "embodied in an individual, and about the social foundations of that authority's legitimacy" is extremely clumsy. The words which De Maistre addressed to a group of aristocratic French emigrés, "you ought to know how to be royalists. Before, this was an instinct, but today it is a science. You must love the sovereign as you love order, with all the forces of intelligence" is simply De Maistre asserting that defenders of the Kings/Popes should have an adequate political theory, he is not saying (or intending to say) that he is the first to make that claim! Eb.hoop is obsessed with one point he wants to convey, and it is more dominant than ever in the article in its present form. It is entirely possible that De Maistre did influence Comte and Saint-Simon, but it is not of central importance, and should therefore be in the influences section. As I say En.hoop reverts every single change I make (the vast majority of which are extremely minor) because he has it in his head that I am pushing something (he is not clear what but he seems to be convinced it is something) yet it is evident that the exact opposite is the case. I am only interested in it being a reasonably lucid and accurate account of the basic facts about De Maistre. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
(Redacted) (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC))
Maybe you can tell me a nice way of saying that Ed.hoop is not giving an accurate account. If you cannot think of one then why bother asking me (telling me!) to come here. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You left a message on my talk page Ebe123. OK. It is not accurate to say that the claim which Ed.hoop added to the De Maistre entry has been deleted. As for the text he has now added, it is not without its problems - as I outlined above. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the policies here are on closing a request, since it's the first time that I've used this noticeboard. I think that there was (perhaps there still is) a substantive disagreement between ERIDU-DREAMING and me about the nature of Maistre's political philosophy. Since, in accordance with basic rules, I've backed up my claims with mainstream secondary sources, I think that remaining disagreements about presentation, or about the weight given to specific references, can be aired in the article's talk page. What I'm worried about is that in the past ERIDU-DREAMING has not been willing to engage in meaningful discussion in the talk page, and the article attracts few other editors who might intervene or mediate in the event of two-party disputes. For my part, I'm willing to see the request here closed and hope that remaining issues can be resolved in the normal ways. More attention to changes to the article from other editors would be very welcome. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Here we go again. An inaccurate summary, and a refusal to address any points. Why is Ed.hoop here? Because he objects to even slight changes being made to his text. There is no "substantive" difference between us, because the issue he is focusing on is not a "substantive" issue - notwithstanding the prominence he is giving it in the article. It is an opinion about De Maistre. Nor is it correct to say I am deleting his "substantive issue", the most that could be said is that I am moving it to a different location, and suggesting that his latest version (which gives his "substantive issue" even greater prominence) is making the article even more unbalanced. As I said way back: "I think that Eb.hoop is trying to re-write the article, so that it brings out more clearly the point he wishes to make. That is the best that can be hoped for in the circumstances." He evidently finds criticism hard to cope with (no matter how minor) and therefore asking him to look at his contributions more self-critically is pointless - but then I am not the one wasting your time by bringing it here. I agree with Ed.hoop that the more editors the better - I believe that Wikipedia is a great contribution to human civilization because it allows the possibility of textual evolution. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
|
Eternalism (philosophy of time), Talk:Four-dimensionalism
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Seems soved. Closed per request. 178.223.114.175 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
User:Hypnosifl added an S.M.Carroll reference to eternalism in support of the statement that "It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory". Unfortunately, he also included WP:OR in the ref: ""Eternalism, "block universe" and "block time" are understood as synonymous terms by philosophers". Later he claims that Carroll was "not good" (because "It" was in reference to a Kurt Vonnegut example). That's misleading however, because Carroll does go on to specify eternalism... While it's clearly amenable with a 4D view of time, sources offer examples of eternalism that predate a "block universe" 4D view of time, and they stop short of equating the two as "synonymous". I've asked User:Hypnosifl several times not to accommodate his additions to the lede by removing existing material. Users involved
Reviving the dead thread Talk:Four-dimensionalism#Elephant in the room - possible redundancy, User:Hypnosifl proactively set me up as an opponent to the edits he intended to make at Eternalism (philosophy of time).
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
see TL;DR at Talk:Four-dimensionalism#Elephant in the room - possible redundancy and edit summaries at Eternalism (philosophy of time) and User talk:Hypnosifl#Edit Warring.
Do you think you can help? If so, how? Machine Elf 1735 21:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Eternalism (philosophy of time), Talk:Four-dimensionalism discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
It sounds like weasel words to say 'some' and not specify who. Also sounds like WP:OR, we need names and sources. If it cannot be backed up then it should be removed. I'm not going to jump into some esoteric article and begin dictating the matter, but if you can't provide a reliable source (anyone, doesn't matter who), then I wouldn't include it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hypnosifl, I've explained more than once:
No philosopher who traces eternalism back to Parmenides would seriously claim that Minkowski "block time/block universe" originated in the 5th century BCE. Again, it's merely WP:TENDENTIOUS to repeat ad nauseum that you don't need a cite.—Machine Elf 1735 21:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Hello. I am a volunteer here at DRN. I've flagged this dispute for attention - sorry that we haven't had time to look at this yet. I ask you all to hold off on discussion until myself or another volunteer comments further. Thanks. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 13:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, calling it "my version" is a laugh, as it's merely an attempt to incorporate your cites, and where verifiable, your changes to the article text.
It's "your version" with respect to the one issue that is the source of this entire dispute--namely, the fact that you continually reverted my edits saying that eternalism is "also known as" block time (even though two of the sources I posted used near-identical wording), changing it to "sometimes known as", apparently because of your belief (which you have never provided a single source to confirm) that they can only be equated "sometimes" because block time is also "sometimes" defined to mean something a bit different than eternalism, with the block time definition supposedly involving 20th century conceptions of "spacetime" while the eternalism definition does not (as seen in your comment above, I'm not disputing that some, (∃, as opposed to all, ∀), philosophers see the two as largely similar or even synonymous. Those philosophers would not allude to any historical "eternalism" that predates the concept of spacetime, for example, but others do.) If you could provide a source for this claim, this whole dispute could be easily resolved, as my opinion on this issue could be easily changed with an example of a single professional philosopher specifying that he/she uses the terms to mean different things. — Hypnosifl (07:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)
Until the dispute is resolved, though, it seems unfair to say that the version left on the page should be the one that is "yours" with respect to the central issue being disputed here. That's why I suggested the temporary solution of reverting to the earlier version of the lede that neither of us had written while we waited for the dispute to be resolved; the first of the three edits of mine you mentioned above was doing this, I'd hardly call it "edit warring" to revert to a neutral version of the lede, especially since I had proposed this on the talk page a little more than 22 hours earlier. But then after I made some other changes to the rest of the article (unrelated to our dispute, and not changes that you have raised any specific objections to) you reverted all of the changes including the change to a more neutral lede, so my second edit was restoring the neutral lede and explaining what I had done in the edit note, as well as pointing out that the other changes I made were unrelated to our dispute so there seemed no good reason for you to revert them. Again I don't see this as edit warring, because I thought there was a decent chance you had misunderstood the changes I had made, not realizing that my change to the lede and my changes to the rest of the article were completely neutral with regard to the subject of our dispute. — Hypnosifl (07:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)
Then you reverted the whole thing again, in spite of the fact that you had said on the talk page "I don't have a problem with rolling back the lede to the point just prior to your first edit if there's a consensus for it". Based on that, I figured that when your two edit notes said "please do not make a series of extensive changes to the article while dispute resolution is pending" and "please do *not* make changes while the dispute resolution has been put on hold", the "extensive changes" you talked about referred to the additional new paragraphs I had added to the rest of the article, not the reversion of the lede to a pre-dispute version which you claimed to have no problem with. Since I didn't think those edit notes were referring to the lede, that's why I said you had provided "no justification" for reverting my change to the lede. And that's why I made that third edit where I restored the pre-dispute lede but didn't attempt to restore my additions to the rest of the article until a decision was reached about blocking all further changes to the article (in spite of the fact that my additions were unrelated to the dispute, and you provided no link to any wiki rules saying that editors involved in a dispute should avoid making edits to the rest of the article that don't involve the subject of their dispute, and if such a rule existed you would have been violating it anyway--your comment above that you added the Popper material prior to my posting in the dispute resolution thread myself doesn't really explain how this isn't a double standard, given that you had already started the dispute resolution process yourself at that point). If you want to say that your edit notes requesting I not make any changes were meant to include reverting the lede to the pre-dispute version, hopefully you can at least see how I might be genuinely confused (rather than being intentionally "misleading") given your comment on the talk page about having "no problem" with temporarily reverting the lede in this way. — Hypnosifl (07:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)), — (continues after insertion below.)
Again, I'm really not surprised you want to remove your cites, as they don't support your position. This is the second time you've suggested that I wanted to revert to the pre-dispute lede because I secretly realized the sources supported your position, despite the fact that I have already denied that this is the reason and explained my specific objections to your arguments for saying the sources support your position (objections which you said you won't respond to on the talk page while the dispute resolution process is on hold), seems rather like a rather disrespectful speculation about my personal motives, and perhaps represents an attempt to taunt or bait me. Please keep in mind Wikipedia:Civility, in which the following types of behaviors are strongly discouraged: "personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours—when such behavior disrupts the project and leads to unproductive stressors and conflict." And of course, if you think I have been personally disrespectful towards you in some way (as opposed to just disagreeing with you about editing issues), please say something. Hypnosifl (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am another dispute resolution volunteer. Ebe123 has already volunteered to take a look at this dispute, but can you guys please hold off on further discussion here until they (or another one of us) has done so? If you're only talking with each other, you might as well do it on the article talk page. If you're making the same arguments without convincing each other, then yes, that's part of what DRN is for, but it serves no purpose to keep talking past each other here without anyone else's input, except to glaze over the eyes of the volunteers with TL;DR syndrome. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Comments by Writ KeeperHey, guys, I'm (yet another) volunteer. With Ebe123's permission, I'll hijack it, if I may. So, let me give the briefest of summaries, just to check my understanding of the situation: at the start, everyone is happy with the wording of the lede, where it says that eternalism is sometimes equated with block time and/or block universe. Hypnosifl adds a reference with some commentary in it that basically contradicts the "sometimes" bit; while the actual text in the lede is still not in dispute, one of the footnotes says, in Wikipedia's voice, that the consensus of philosophers think of eternalism and the other two terms as synonymous. MachineElf objects to this on grounds of verifiability, as only one of the sources supports that it is a generally-held view, and adds quotes from the sources for context. Hypnosifl says that the quotes don't mean what you think they mean, and we're off to the races, with the dispute spilling out into the text of the lede itself and picking up other elements as well, like the whole relativity/Minkowski part. But the fundamental positions, as it were, seem to be that MachineElf says that "eternalism is sometimes considered the same as block universe" and Hypnosifl says that "eternalism is always considered the same as block universe". So, if I got that right (and please tell me if I don't!), here's my suggestion, for which I'd be interested on hearing your feedback. First, I'd say we revert the wording of the lede itself back to what's used before this fracas started, so that we don't have to worry about the whole relativity/Minkowski diagram bit. That may be an issue that needs to be discussed, but it's a separate issue, so let's deal with the one at hand first. It also has the advantage (IMO) of getting rid of some of the qualifications and limited definitions and so on that got introduced over the debate, which look like they're more confusing than helpful to the casual reader. So, the question becomes this: Hypnosifl, are you solid enough in that position that you want to remove the word "sometimes" from the text of the lede itself? You didn't remove it from the lede when you first started, and that's what confused me at first. If you don't want to remove it, then the issue can probably be fixed just by removing the additional text in the footnote, so that it doesn't contradict the sentence it's supposed to support, and letting the refs stand on their own (probably in separate ref tags, but that's just stylistic). If you do want to remove the word from the lede, then we have a bit more to discuss. What do y'all think? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Eternalism: Proposed resolutionI've read through the above discussion. It is clear that Eternalism and Block Universe/Time are very closely related concepts. As with many philosophical concepts, their definitions are a bit vague, and perhaps vary from author to author. Some authors define them as identical, some define them in peculiar ways. But all interpretations are very, very similar. My suggestion is this:
In other words: in topics like this, it is best to just present the various viewpoints of the sources, in a very factual, objective way; and let the readers draw their own conclusions. Does that sound like a good idea? --Noleander (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with: "five professional philosophers defining them in an interchangeable way", "also called", "or" or "known as"; but step away from the "etc." How many[citation needed] do I think? "interchangeably" means synonymous... It appears on this page eight times: =1= =2= =3= =4= =5= =6= =7= =8= and none of them are anywhere near Writ Keeper. You did manage to persuade him/her that they're synonymous, but I was under the impression you're willing to agree that's too simplistic? "Broad views", Dowden... e.g. p.116 "meaning is up for grabs in the struggle to resolve the conflicts among metaphysical assumptions, intuitions, meanings, and scientific knowledge. A delicate balancing act..." He isn't using them "interchangeably": he is shifting back and forth from "eternalism" to "block universe theory" conversationally, as the dialogue flows from argument to argument... Naomi is certainly an eternalist, which is to say a block universe theory proponent... just bear in mind that he uses the former in the context of time travel, special relativity, relativity of simultaneity, and the ontology itself; while he uses the latter in the context of Minkowski diagrams, reality of past and future, fixed determinism (if not "causal" determinism), endure-perdure, temporal stages and the 2-D/3-D/4-D geometric utility of the "metaphor" (p.104) itself. I'd recommend Dowden p.103–116 as a reader-friendly overview, (search inside). The prolix speculation goes off the rails after the questions, somewhere around sourcing for "block universe" as "all times are equally real" TL;DR. All this is about the word "sometimes"... and there is a two-to-one consensus among editors of the article to keep it. I decline entertaining the notion of a sprawling subtext in the footnotes in lieu of simply suggesting a different word. Please note that the entire lede does not need to be rewritten in order to modify that.—Machine Elf 1735 01:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, I am yet another volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It looks like Noleander's proposed resolution is a good one, and I see Hypnosifl is in favour. Machine Elf, does this general solution sound acceptable for you? If you find the general solution here acceptable, then I think the best thing to do here would be to go back to the article talk page and work out the specifics of the solution between you. If you have more problems after trying to work through things on the talk page, I recommend requesting formal mediation. What would you both say to this? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
|