Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 61
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 55 | ← | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
Too many
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Unsuitable for this venue (Primarily a conduct dispute, also perhaps about very general content issues better suited to, e.g. WP:RFC). CarrieVS (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:X-inefficiency
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Duplicates recent previosly closed DR (above); unsuitable for dispute resolution as a conduct dispute and very general content dispute (in which case see WP:RFC). —Theopolisme (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Museum of Government Waste
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Duplicates recent previosly closed DR (above); unsuitable for dispute resolution as a conduct dispute and very general content dispute (in which case see WP:RFC). —Theopolisme (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, WP:ORN, WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, User talk:Arzel,User talk:Casprings
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Current discussions on other noticeboards. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
User talk:Dapi89, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Archie_McKellar
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Conduct dispute. This noticeboard is not for disputes which are primarily conduct disputes. Please use WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI instead. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Golden Ratio
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.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
A short Structural Dynamics section added to Golden Ratio describes the appearance of this number in a the time domain. The section was rewritten to satisfy a couple objections. The objectors persist in deleting the section for vague reasons, i.e., "inappropriate", "the book is worthless", "As for the building as an example of this equation, it's not a good one." or for punctuation, or the font in which the section appears. A second attacker did not leave anything on the talk page, just deleted the section and commented "consensus on talk (and reading the proposed section) shows the material MAY be suitable after reworking, but has nothing useful now)." The vague ad hominem attacks lead me to doubt the motives for the repeated deletion of the content. Specific criticisms could be addressed in a rewrite. Why is the building not a good example? It just isn't? So you will delete the entire section? Vibration of buildings is an oft-occurring design problem, certainly in the realm of structural dynamics, and one in which the golden ratio appears. Any constructive edits to punctuation, wording or formatting would be welcome.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Rewrote section. Obtained a writeup from the author of one of the references.
How do you think we can help?
Require specific rational reasons for objections, rather than vague value judgements.
Opening comments by dicklyon
Tibbits does not seem to have put much effort into following up on the discussion at Talk:Golden ratio#Structural dynamics. The Golden ratio article is a magnet for trivial, biased, tangential, and unprofessional content, so a number of us are more protective there than we might be at other articles. The standards for getting new stuff into it are perhaps higher than a new editor expects. But we've talked to him about how to get there, and he hasn't done much. His assertion that the GR appears in "Vibration of buildings" is patently absurd; it appears in the solution of certain quadratic equations that are special cases of those that show up in just about every field; this is relevant to GR only if those special cases can be shown to have special significance. Dicklyon (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Johnuniq
As Dicklyon explains above, the article requires more care than most other technical topics. As well as the five editors who have not supported the proposed text, there are numerous others who watch the article and who would have joined the discussion if they felt the matter needed further attention. The best thing would be for anyone wanting the addition to study the points made at Talk:Golden ratio#Structural dynamics, then rework the text and ask questions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Golden Ratio discussion
I'm Go Phightins!, a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I've read through the discussion on the talk page, read through the page history, and read the section of the article that was added via the page history as well as your opening statements. Is there anything else any of you feel I should read that is relevant to this dispute? Please bear in mind that I am not a mathematics expert, especially in the area we're talking about here. If we need a mediator who is receptive in that area, it'll have to be someone other than me. I am, however, happy to guide a compromise discussion. Nevertheless, back to my original question, other than those items, what else do any of you feel I should read? Please limit your response to that, for now, prior to spilling the discussion here. Thank you very much. Go Phightins! 02:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
A cursory look at the table of contents of the book by Morin cited in the Structural Dynamics section will reveal that it is not a "bunch of problems cooked up that happen to involve golden ratio". It is a college text on mechanics. The book can be searched on Amazon.Tibbits (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
A look at the text Random Vibrations: Theory and Practice (Dover Books on Physics) by Paul H. Wirsching, Thomas L Paez, Keith Ortiz and Physics(May 12, 2006) will give an idea of huge number of engineering problems to which structural dynamics applies. Design of buildings to withstand earthquake vibration requires understanding their natural frequencies, for example.Tibbits (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Re-reading the talk page will also reveal that not every editor who commented is opposed to the inclusion of the section. "I think an illustration and brief comment is worthwhile, at least if it's done properly. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)"Tibbits (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to me like this dispute centres around whether or not the sources for the section are reliable to prove this is a documented effect rather than an unusual quirk when in the right situation. If this is a common issue then there should be no issue finding further sources, per WP:BURDEN it's on User:Tibbits to provide these sources as, currently, it would seem consensus is against him. I would suggest, perhaps, inviting the members of Wikiproject Mathematics into the discussion as they may be able to provide an insight into the reliability of the sources. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 14:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Our volunteer asked for documents, rather than discussion. (1)The book Design and Nature, searchable in Google Books has an extensive section on φ in dynamic systems. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9hOaEMFchvMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA153&ots=j-HZEA4Jw4&sig=KTEFUZKuql6_ef4834fFGptTEW8#v=onepage&q&f=false (2) An article, Turning points of the spherical pendulum and the golden ratio, available at cost, documents another manifestation of φ in a dynamic system. European Journal of Physics Volume 30 Number 2, Hanno Essén and Nicholas Apazidis 2009 Eur. J. Phys. 30 427 doi:10.1088/0143-0807/30/2/021 (3) Manifestations of φ in fluid mechanics and chaos theory have been deliberately omitted , although these both reside in the general area of dynamics. (4) Works related to the controversial and suspect El Naschie and his journal Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals have been ignored. Tibbits (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I tend to agree with Cabe that, at the moment, consensus is against Tibbits. That said, I would also agree with his suggestion that maybe inviting some members of WP:WPMATH to comment would be good. Go Phightins! 18:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of posting a message in WP:WPMATH inviting some of their editors in to discuss. Additionally, I'd like to hear more from User:dicklyon and User:Johnuniq as I notice they haven't contributed to the discussion as of yet. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 08:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- My opening comments above are accurate—there is only one editor at the article talk who favors the material in its proposed form, while five do not (plus others who would have seen the text and the discussion, and who were happy with the consensus). I appreciate the efforts made by volunteers here, but can this case be described as a dispute? No one has objected in principle to a mention of the topic if it can be shown to be WP:DUE, preferably with a WP:SECONDARY source. The main problem is that the proposed text is simply unhelpful for a reader in a crowded article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is best to focus on the reliability of the sources, and on the quotes from the sources. The fact that there is a 5-to-1 opinion on the Talk page is not too relevant: lots of times there is a minority voice that has a valid point. Also, the article does not appear to be too large yet: it is only 5K words. Granted, it is a very important article, and trivia or fringe views should not be included. But the way to exclude trivia/fringe material is to look at the quotes from the sources and go from there. --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- My opening comments above are accurate—there is only one editor at the article talk who favors the material in its proposed form, while five do not (plus others who would have seen the text and the discussion, and who were happy with the consensus). I appreciate the efforts made by volunteers here, but can this case be described as a dispute? No one has objected in principle to a mention of the topic if it can be shown to be WP:DUE, preferably with a WP:SECONDARY source. The main problem is that the proposed text is simply unhelpful for a reader in a crowded article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Such essay-like stuff as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_ratio&diff=533038680 can be marginally tolerable in obscure articles where an expert's edit is a rare event, but not in such developed article as "Golden ratio" is. I advice Tibbits to go to talk:Golden ratio and explain what these cited works actually say. His essay is not intelligible enough to remain in an encyclopedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
For reference, here is a version of the text that is under discussion:
Attaching two identical harmonic oscillators in series creates a two degree of freedom (2DOF) system having two modes of vibration. The ratio of the frequencies of the two modes is the square of the golden ratio φ.[1][2] The quantities φ and -1/φ also appear in the mode shapes.
A variety of physical embodiments of such a 2DOF system are possible, and a number of them appear in the text by Morin.[3] Another example is two pendula of equal length and mass connected in series. This system points up the division of intervals of time, rather than distance, by the coupled oscillators, whose periods also have the ratio φ squared. An application in engineering consists of a three story building whose second and third floors have equal masses, and are supported on columns of equal stiffness.
The occurrence of φ in the time/frequency domain extends into the quantum realm. Certain quasi-particles in the electronic environment of a solid state lattice exhibit phenomena in which the golden ratio appears as the ratio of the first and second energy peaks.[4] The quasi-particles consist of vibrations, or oscillations, and because the energy varies as the square of the frequency, the frequencies associated with the first and second peaks are in the ratio φ squared.
I think it is appropriate to ask for the editor that wants to include this material, per WP:BURDEN to supply specific quotes from the sources, so others can validate that the sources are indeed focusing on the golden ratio. If the four sources are talking about the golden ratio, and if all four are talking about it in the context of "structural dynamics" then the material should be okay for the article ... although perhaps in more condensed form. --Noleander (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The impression given by deleting the section in its entirety is that the section is not wanted on the Golden Ratio page. If the subject matter is acceptable, then the question is not one of content, but of whether constructive suggestions will be made rather than inflammatory off-the-cuff comments. I am willing to consider any suggested wording, but unwilling to feed the trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibbits (talk • contribs) 21:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- All right, let's please remember to assume good faith; comments such as the one you posted are not helpful to solving the dispute and I would recommend you retract that statement. Go Phightins! 23:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- These are trolls who start a flamewar over a piece of substandard article content instead of making and improving something really useful, who blatantly ignore content and conduct guidelines. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
For some encyclopedia topics, the amount of relevant material on those topics is small enough that we can include essentially anything that is reliably sourced. Golden ratio is not one of those topics. It has such a huge literature (and one that, frankly, is filled with so much credulous nonsense) that we need to carefully pick and choose what we include in our article, so that we cover the significant topics without undue weight being given to topics that are not particularly important. In particular I believe that Tibbits' request for "specific rational reasons for objections, rather than vague value judgements" is wrongheaded — value judgements are exactly what we need. My own judgement about the particular topic in question is that it is certainly not nonsense, and is reliably sourced, but its significance has not been made clear, especially given the length and level of detail in Tibbits' preferred version of the text. So, if he is to change the minds of the multiple editors opposed to this material, what Tibbits needs is not reliable sourcing for the truth of this material, but for its significance as an important part of the golden ratio topic: for instance, does the connection he describes inform other applications of the golden ratio? Is it fundamental to all mechanical systems of this type, or is it just an algebraic coincidence caused by the fact that these systems are described by low-degree polynomials with integer coefficients, some of which have the golden ratio as root and others of which don't? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't regularly edit WP:Mathematics, I am however a Mathematician. The Golden ratio has been the subject of several monographs and has been mentioned in almost any disciplines spanning science and art and the appearance of the golden ratio in dynamical systems may like other universals from Chaos theory (Feigenbaum constants) illuminate why the ratio is so pervasive. I think that that User:Tibbits has more than demonstrated the factual basis for including a new section on dynamics into the article. I say this because as an independent observer I find his sources of a fine pedigree and indicative that WP:Due weight is in excess of a number of exiting section (e.g. book design). Having looked over the talk page and I find that the comments have shied away from the facts and from actual policy and have have centered on whether the material is worthy of inclusion. While this is a pragmatic concern it does not merit deleting the section outright as this goes against the collaborative spirit of editing wikipedia. WP:DUE is quite clear that the length of the section should reflect its significance in line with available citations. If the section becomes too long or technical it can be moved to a sub article (which its sources could support) - and have a brief mention in the main article. Accordingly I recommend the following courses of action:
- To restore the section to the best version produced by User:Tibbits.
- To help trim it down to a size commensurate with the number of citations he has provided with the understanding that if the section becomes too long it will be forked to a new article keeping only a minimally technical extract from the lead section in the main article.
- To the existing editors:
- Avoid such vague langue like the word (obscure) when discussing mathematics (particularly when considering a system mechanically equivalent to ... a compound pendulum).
- Complexity is not grounds for outright deletion of material. In Mathematical articles complexity is an indicator of quality per "no royal road to mathematics" - it is your mission should you choose to accept it to make mathematical material more accessible.
- Ganging up on one editor is not in line with WP:Civility and creates a situation where he cannot respond to your claims. Better let just the first one or two editors handle new comers.
- Requiring quotes from reputable sources is somewhat pointy - a full citation is sufficient for academics - so it should be good enough for us.
- Comment: What worries me about Golden Ratio is that the current version of the article has vague statements and even peacock terms like "...deviations from the truly beautiful page proportions ..." and relies excessively on text from popular literature all indicative that you have been driving out more professional editors whom are necessary to further improve the article's quality. BO | Talk 14:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts and for the manner in which you presented them; constructive discussion is most helpful. Thoughts on this anyone? Go Phightins! 03:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
BO's program sounds promising. Is anyone willing to begin by restoring the Structural Dynamics section? Tibbits (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the way to proceed is to make a draft of a new section somewhere, like a user subpage, or on the article's talk page. If you and BO start, I'll help. Then, when it looks sensible and we get agreement, we can move it into the article. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Jared Diamond
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Holy moly WikiBatMan! There's talk and then there's TALK. Please try to hash out at least a reasonable attempt and not giant reams of WP:TLDR content prior to coming here Hasteur (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
User talk:Wonchop
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Conduct, not content, dispute. This noticeboard is only for content disputes. Consider WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI for conduct disputes, but — I am not implying anything, just giving general advice here — beware of WP:BOOMERANG when doing so. Feel free to refile here or pursue other content dispute resolution if you care to focus on specific content issues instead of conduct. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
John Lurie
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.| | The sentence is badly written and makes claims about the artwork that cannot be referenced by a non expert. Tastes of the work itself, or comparisons to the artist's other work do not stand up to the notablitiy of the work itself or mention of the piece in the lead, just not with the mention being used now. Consensus is to re-word the mention of "Bear Surprise" by John Lurie" in the lead without mentioning the Russian internet meme or the opinion of the journalist describing the work as "Primitivism". Amadscientist (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Huey P. Newton, Talk:Huey P. Newton
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.| | The filing editor added information from a source that has since been deemed to be minority opinion and should be excluded from the article per BLP policy: WP:BDP for the recently dead. "Contentious or questionable material that affects living people or about the recently dead should be treated in the same way as material about living people." The consensus from the discussion is to exclude the material. Amadscientist (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Medical uses_of_silver
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Ryanspir (talk · contribs)
- Zad68 (talk · contribs)
- Doc James (talk · contribs)
- Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
1) Using quackwatch as a reliable source for a biomedical claim. 2) Using old statement from quackwatch site from 2005 as a source for biomedical claim.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussing on the talk page
How do you think we can help?
By advising editors to follow wp:medrs policy according to which such source fails wp:medrs on two counts: the website which is used as a source is not falling in any category of reliable sources mentioned on wp:medrs, and 2) the source is older than 2-3 or 5 years as specified in medrs.
Opening comments by Zad68
1) Quackwatch has been discussed on RSN several times and has been found useful in alt-med cases where Quackwatch is in line with mainstream scientific consensus, as is true in this case. The trouble with ingested colloidal silver is that it's considered fringe and not investigated by mainstream science, see for example that pretty much nothing relevant to ingesting colloidal silver comes up in a secondary source search of Trip Database. Like NCCAM, Quackwatch is useful for this purpose. 2) As Ryan brings up, the 2005 Quackwatch entry is suboptimal per WP:MEDRS's timeframe of 2-3 maybe 5 years but we can solve that easily, let's just use this other Quackwatch article, last updated January 20, 2013, which states "However, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating people with Lyme disease (or anything else)." Zad68 00:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Doc James
A great deal has been written on Wikipedia about the use of Quackwatch for discussing alt med content. Generally it has been deemed to be okay in some situations decided on a case by case basis on the talk page.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Usage_of_Quackwatch_as_RS_in_medical_quackery IMO unless a high quality source refutes it than it is okay to use. If one looks for medical review articles in the last 5 years on colloidal silver you find one and it deals with its side effects. So I ask does anyone have any decent evidence that shows benefit from "colloidal silver". We have this review from 2009 that discusses risk [4] and there is definitely some of that. I guess we could replace it with this 2007 review [5] which states "Some health food and nutraceutical manufacturers are promoting ineffective colloidal silver-based products as treatments for major illnesses" but no one is studying CS so one does not really expect recent evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by Alexbrn
I have taken the liberty of adding myself here as an involved editor – it was I who recently added the QuackWatch material. So far as I know, QuackWatch has repeatedly been discussed in relation to altmed topics, and is established RS on matters of quackery provided nothing authoritative contradicts it, and that it is used with care and attributed. I don't believe the five-year rule of thumb applies, unless of course there is indication QW's views are outdated or the scientific/medical consensus has changed.
However, since from the above it seems there is more recent content from QuackWatch that can be used, the dating issue can be addressed by using that. Then, would any wind be left in this dispute's sails? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Medical uses_of_silver discussion
not relevant to discussion
|
|---|
|
user:Zad does not appear to exist. Certainly, that user has no contributions so can't be involved in this dispute. There is a Zad68 who appears to have been involved, and I've changed 'users involved' appropriately. Zad68 has been notified. CarrieVS (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks for commenting, all of you.
As I understand it, the dispute is about whether a particular source is reliable, and there's no disagreement about including the content - I assume this relates to the sentence 'Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as "risk without benefit".' - provided the source is agreed to be reliable. Is that right?
I've read the RSN discussion about Quackwatch, and the two Quackwatch articles that have been proposed as sources.
What I understand from the RSN discussion is that there is a consensus that it can be used as a reliable source, but should be judged on a case by case basis. So the question isn't whether Quackwatch is a reliable source, but whether this particular Quackwatch article is a reliable source.
It also seems to me that we have a general consensus that it is, so if any user believes it isn't, I would say it's up to them to provide a convincing argument why that is so. CarrieVS (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Secondary reasoning
|
|---|
|
According to:
Quackwatch is considered as provocative and containing of self-published articles. Here I'll provide reliable primary and secondary available sources:
p.s. Here are some more sources: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/CS/C2CS35289C - Controlled synthesis of colloidal silver nanoparticles in organic solutions: empirical rules for nucleation engineering . http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn301724z?mi=z48nb4&af=R&pageSize=20&searchText=aging - Formation Mechanism of Colloidal Silver Nanoparticles: Analogies and Differences to the Growth of Gold Nanoparticles. http://iopscience.iop.org/2043-6262/3/4/045007 - Powerful colloidal silver nanoparticles for the prevention of gastrointestinal bacterial infections http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956566312002412 - Robust one pot synthesis of colloidal silver nanoparticles by simple redox method and absorbance recovered sensing
If that is ok with you, there is no need to use quackwatch (or NCCAM for this matter). Ryanspir (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC) As an aside, there's no need to keep adding to the thread on your talk page. I'm watching this page so I'll know when you reply. I only posted my last reply there so that the others would see it.
Another aside: from some of the things you've said, I'm concerned that you might be under the impression that I have a position of authority or would be able to overrule the other editors. That is not the case: volunteers have no special powers or privileges, and we can only try to help you come to an agreement with the other editors. If you're hoping for me to issue some sort of ruling in the face of consensus, we might as well close this now. CarrieVS (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC) |
- I'll change the course of my reasoning per your permission and save the extensive reasoning referencing.
- 1) Right from the opening comments we have got a consensus that the particular article mentioned won't be used because it's too old.
- "So the question isn't whether Quackwatch is a reliable source, but whether this particular Quackwatch article is a reliable source." - Two editors out of three has conceded in their opening comments that this article in question isn't reliable one. Adding me, that is 3 against 1.
- 2) So we won't consider that article anymore, but instead concentrate on the Lyme article which was proposed to be used instead.
Ryanspir (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
(Sorry, I think I edited to fix the collapsing before you'd finished. Hope it didn't confuse you. CarrieVS (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC))
- Not really. :) Ryanspir (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, great start. So, what do you think about the Lyme article: if better sources can't be found, would you agree to use it? CarrieVS (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The relevant quote
|
|---|
|
The relevant quote is: "Colloidal Silver
|
- The statement in question was: "risk without benefit" (with attribution "Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as).
- I chose not to answer to your hyphothetic question because I feel it's asked prematurely. If that's ok.
"Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch" and "We must stay mindful when using Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as sources, paying special attention when they are overused by true believers of Quackwatch. ;-)" by -- Levine2112 discuss 02:01 from the RSN discussion.
- I believe this is the case. Per WP:MEDRS FDA advisory is an ideal source and shall be used at this time instead of Quackwatch - which is a really controversial source and considered speculative according to RSN discussion.
- If this reasoning will not suffice I'll be glad to provide further reasoning, but I have just tried to make it as simple as possible and to the point, per wiki policies and the RSN discussion's consensus.
Ryanspir (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. What content do you want to put in with that source? Obviously the 'Quackwatch characterises..' line will have to be changed. Could you tell me the wording you want to use? CarrieVS (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Something along the line "Silver has some appropriate medical uses, such as medicines, bandages, and dressings used to treat burns, skin wounds, or skin infections, and as medicines used to prevent the eye condition called conjunctivitis in newborn infants. However, there are no legally marketed prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) drugs containing silver that are taken by mouth." It should made clear that currently Colloidal Silver or any kind of silver is considered as an alternative medicine and cannot have legal claims (not necessarily ineffective) when is ingested by mouth and it should be balanced that currently there is a lot of ongoing research into Silver Nanoparticles for medicinal uses with positive results. Ryanspir (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't agree to QW being replaced (though have no objection to it being augmented). The fact that QW has an opinion on colloidal silver is notable (it's a quack remedy) and needs to be in the article, in my view. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Could you please clarify. Are you saying cs is a quack remedy for all applications including external application for wounds treatment or only in relation to ingestion by mouth? Ryanspir (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, here's what I think about that. It's all good information, but it's not appropriate for that section. We're talking about the alternative medicine section, and so far the only alternative medicine use we have in the article is consuming colloidal silver. So the information in that section needs to stick to being about that. You could probably use the FDA source (if you can agree a suitable wording with the other editors) to say that there's no legally-marketed drugs containing silver to be taken by mouth, and/or that it's not legal to market colloidal silver to be taken by mouth with claims that it is effective in treating anything.
- Information about the appropriate, non-alternative uses of silver should go in the relevant sections if it isn't there already, and again, if you can agree on it. CarrieVS (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. However, I would like it to be removed first, as it is already agreed that it fails wp:medrs. Ryanspir (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Can we stick to the current bit of discussion for now. Jumping about all over the thread makes it hard to follow. CarrieVS (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Quackwatch as reliable source for expert opinion relevant to this topic
I saw what I view as a few attempts to cherry-pick individual statements from the RSN archives in an attempt to discredit Quackwatch generally. This needs to be addressed. Here's some support for the use of Quackwatch for exactly the kind of use found in the article, from the RSN archives, a relevant ARBCOM case, and also very reputable medical organizations:
- From RSN archive 32:
- "This question [of whether Quackwatch is a reliable source] has been brought to this noticeboard before at least once, and IIRC the consensus was in general yes, it is a RS about things such as medical fraud, quackery and such (it's not named HealWatch, after all), but that the attribution needs to be explicit."
- "I agree that Quackwatch is generally a RS about alternative medicine, and like all sources each use should be judged on merit."
- "On the other hand, for low-profile, obscure alternative approaches or out-and-out health fraud which are below the horizon of the medical literature, Quackwatch can be a useful source - sometimes, the only useful source."
- From RSN archive 118: "Quackwatch is generally considered reliable for discussion of alt med topics."
- From this arbitration case discussion: "The type of content that Quackwatch has gives it a slant and makes lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources, but is not an unreliable source and to characterize it as such is wrong." -- the way Wikipedia articles handles opinionated sources is to attribute in-line, exactly as the article currently does
- This article in the extremely highly-respected Journal of the American Medical Association specifically lists Quackwatch under "SUGGESTED SITES: Following are select sites that provide reliable health information and resources"
- This and this American Cancer Society articles list Quackwatch as a reference they trusted enough to use.
I feel this should put an end to the discussion of whether Quackwatch is generally reliable and useful for the statement under discussion. Zad68 14:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Kindly let me use the very quote Zad has provided: "On the other hand, for low-profile, obscure alternative approaches or out-and-out health fraud which are below the horizon of the medical literature, Quackwatch can be a useful source - sometimes, the only useful source." The above section introduces extensive research being done into cs. I'm referring to provided links with "Colloidal silver nano silver". Search on Google with "colloidal silver nano silver" produces 224,000 results. So that would invalidate that cs is a low profile or obscure alternative approach in my opinion.
- Anyway, I will take a liberty to remove the current reference and the statement from the article per consensus on the second count produced at the opening comments.
- I feel that using the statement from Lyme disease section would be more appropriate on Lyme disease article. But, would anyone decide to reintroduce context from quackwatch based on Lyme or other aricles I'll be making a new RSN.
- I think with that we may close the current RSN.
- p.s. I feel that the reason quackwatch was approved for some alt. med articles is following. Lets assume someone created an article on the testicles of a tiger and it's being used somewhere as an aphrodisiac so he has written about it. Lets assume for the purpose of this example that quackwatch has an article about it and states that its a fraudulent claim. Due to the absence of any credible medical research upon the topic I would agree that in this case it would be appropriate and even useful to use quackwatch. Ryanspir (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see no consensus for removal. BTW, Google hits is not a reliable indication of anything much. Search for "coffee enema" here gets me 962,000 hits! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Kindly see the opening comments regarding consensus. You are right, google results by itself don't mean much. Search for "coffee enema" didn't produce any reliable primary sources with positive results nor secondary sources with positive results. Ryanspir (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm taking the comments as a whole, not cherry-picking. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Haven't you agreed to use a new article when you have said: "However, since from the above it seems there is more recent content from QuackWatch that can be used, the dating issue can be addressed by using that." Ryanspir (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I could live with that; that's not the same as agreeing to remove the QW content entirely though (I reverted your edit of a few minutes ago doing this, BTW). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Haven't you agreed to use a new article when you have said: "However, since from the above it seems there is more recent content from QuackWatch that can be used, the dating issue can be addressed by using that." Ryanspir (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm taking the comments as a whole, not cherry-picking. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Kindly see the opening comments regarding consensus. You are right, google results by itself don't mean much. Search for "coffee enema" didn't produce any reliable primary sources with positive results nor secondary sources with positive results. Ryanspir (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see no consensus for removal. BTW, Google hits is not a reliable indication of anything much. Search for "coffee enema" here gets me 962,000 hits! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ryanspir, I think you need to understand the distinction between colloidal silver in general and taking colloidal silver by mouth as a treatment for any illness. Let me make an analogy: antibiotics are certainly not low-profile or alternative. But suppose some people were touting antibiotics as a cure/treatment for autism or something. Would that be high-profile and mainstream? Unless any of your sources are about this particular use of colloidal silver, then they don't show that this particular use of the stuff is anything other than a low-profile, obscure alternative approach.
- The upshot of the Lyme disease statement is that there are no studies showing that taking colloidal silver by mouth is an effective treatment for anything, so why shouldn't we use it here?
- If you want, we can close this thread, but consensus is still against you, so you can't go and change the article based on this and expect it not to be reverted, and if you keep trying to change it you will end up getting blocked. I don't want to see that, so I've been trying to help you organise your objection into a clear argument and a clear proposal for what you do want to put in the article, so that you can have one more shot at convincing the other editors. At present, you haven't convinced them, and consensus is still against you. It is up to the person who wants to change consensus to convince others, not up to them to prove that it should stay the same.
- That's a good example of what Quackwatch is a RS for, but not the only example. The consensus in the RSN discussion about Quackwatch was that 'quackery' wasn't restricted to fraudulent claims but included things that are obscure and have no scientific basis, even if their proponents believe in them. I would say, based on everything I've seen, that taking colloidal silver by mouth falls into this category. CarrieVS (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Don't we have a consensus per opening comments that this particular reference shall be removed because it contradicts 2-3 and 5 years frames? Ryanspir (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I believe we had a rough consensus that if it was agreed that the current one should be removed we could use the other one. I'm not sure it went as far as consensus that it should. But let's get that issue out of the way now. Everyone, what do you think about that? Should we replace that reference with the newer article? CarrieVS (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- A rough consensus, but consensus nonetheless. Alex said: "I could live with that"; I certainly agree; Zad has conceded that the current one: "is suboptimal per WP:MEDRS". Ryanspir (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, but I want to wait to hear someone else answer here before we say 'great, let's go ahead and change it'. And if we do decide to change it, it will be taking the old source out and putting the new one in. I think we will also need to alter the sentence, so that should be agreed upon as well (As a starting point, I suggest something like "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness".) CarrieVS (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- To clarify:
- There is absolutely no consensus to remove all references/uses of Quackwatch in the article and leave it like that. It was very disappointing to see Ryan jump the gun and remove it while this DRN conversation over exactly that is still active and unresolved.
- To try to better respect the WP:MEDRS timeframe, there is a proposal to replace the existing article content "Quackwatch characterizes colloidal silver as 'risk without benefit'." sourced to the Quackwatch Colloidal silver article last updated 200
85 with something like "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness." sourced to the Quackwatch Lyme disease article. Note this is just a proposal, we haven't worked out an exact agreement on it. - If we can't come to an agreement on this replacement proposal, there is no agreement or consensus to remove the existing Quackwatch-sourced content, for the reasons Doc James and others have already stated.
- Finally, I really wish Ryan would stop conflating important content ideas (external vs. ingested) and mischaracterizing the statements of the other DRN participants (I didn't 'concede' anything) or the status of any consensus.
Zad6814:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- To clarify:
- Ok, but I want to wait to hear someone else answer here before we say 'great, let's go ahead and change it'. And if we do decide to change it, it will be taking the old source out and putting the new one in. I think we will also need to alter the sentence, so that should be agreed upon as well (As a starting point, I suggest something like "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness".) CarrieVS (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
We seem to be going over old ground a bit.
This is what we have consensus on:
- We are going to include one of the Quackwatch articles.
- Ingesting colloidal silver is an alternative treatment without scientific evidence of benefit.
The main thing we have to decide on is whether or not to replace the existing content sourced to the older Colloidal Silver Quackwatch article with something sourced to the newer Lyme Disease one. Now,
- without editing the article until and unless we've finished discussing and explicitly agreed to do so,
- without making interpretations of anyone else's comments or claiming we've reached consensus on things other than those listed above,
can you say whether you agree to make the change, or disagree and want to keep the current content and source. Keep arguments and explanations very brief for now; when we have an idea who objects to what, then we can start trying to persuade each other, if we need to. CarrieVS (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree to the change, although I would not mind if the existing content were to stay as-is either.
Zad6818:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC) - Agree using wording: "According to Quackwatch, no study has shown that colloidal silver is safe or effective for treating any illness." (would also be happy with the status quo) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why we need to say "according to Quackwatch". It's an easily verifiable matter of common scientific knowledge, not an opinion held largely or solely by Quackwatch. The U.S. National Institutes of Health says that "scientific evidence does not support the use of colloidal silver to treat any disease." Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center states that "no human clinical data support the use of oral colloidal silver." The FDA writes that it is "not aware of any substantial scientific evidence that supports the use of OTC colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts". I'm concerned that we're misleading the reader if we attribute this view to Quackwatch, when in fact Quackwatch is merely describing the modern scientific consensus about colloidal silver. MastCell Talk 18:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Understood, but: There's a point that it's helpful to the reader to know that ingesting colloidal silver is something commented on by Quackwatch - that's a piece of information that would be missing from the article if we were to use only the other sources without in-line attribution like we do when using Quackwatch generally. The solution is easy, there's no reason the article can't state both.
Zad6818:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)- Good points. Agree it is useful for the reader to know this is on QW's radar. Strongly agree with suggestion to use both QW sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Understood, but: There's a point that it's helpful to the reader to know that ingesting colloidal silver is something commented on by Quackwatch - that's a piece of information that would be missing from the article if we were to use only the other sources without in-line attribution like we do when using Quackwatch generally. The solution is easy, there's no reason the article can't state both.
- I'm not sure why we need to say "according to Quackwatch". It's an easily verifiable matter of common scientific knowledge, not an opinion held largely or solely by Quackwatch. The U.S. National Institutes of Health says that "scientific evidence does not support the use of colloidal silver to treat any disease." Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center states that "no human clinical data support the use of oral colloidal silver." The FDA writes that it is "not aware of any substantial scientific evidence that supports the use of OTC colloidal silver ingredients or silver salts". I'm concerned that we're misleading the reader if we attribute this view to Quackwatch, when in fact Quackwatch is merely describing the modern scientific consensus about colloidal silver. MastCell Talk 18:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with Alex Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Not relevant to discussion.
|
|---|
|
I see that Ryan's been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry -doesn't come as a surprise, but it is a shame as we finally seemed to be making some progress. I assume the rest of you can all agree on what to say and cite and we can wrap this thread up? CarrieVS (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
|
There has been some discussion - mainly going over old ground - on my talk page following tha last comment on this thread. No new conclusions were reached. Can we continue the discussion here, please. CarrieVS (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Medical uses of silver and Quackwatch -- are we done?
Are we done? Can this be closed? Zad68 14:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Ryan hasn't responded, or indeed made any contributions, since Wednesday. I'm not going to close it just because one side of the dispute has been away from Wikipedia for two days, since he might just not be able to get online, but I would suggest that, since the rest of you are in agreement, you go on with editing as if it was done. If Ryan has any more to say on the matter I'll either let you guys know or I'll archive this as failed, depending on whether I think there's any point continuing to discuss it - if Ryan's still going over the same ground that's he's already failed to change consensus on for the umpteenth time, there won't be. If it gets to two weeks since it was filed and no-one has said anything for (I think it's 24 hours), it'll be automatically archived. CarrieVS (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- A little late but open.Go ahead and close it after two weeks but shouldn't it be opened?24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Has anyone mentioned that indiscriminate use of colloidal silver causes human being's skin to turn blue? If the previously mentioned Quackwatch article does include that warning, I think that it would be a good source.24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'shouldn't it be opened?' I had intended to close the thread several days ago, unless Ryanspir had replied again in that time, but I've since heard from him (on my talk page) that he does intend to continue the discussion so I was leaving it until either he returned or the case is archived. Regarding silver turning you blue, there is a section about it in the article already. CarrieVS (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pardon me but I was attempting to jiggle the pink statement at the top of this DRN. I was under the impression that a volunteer could open a discussion by posting but it is still pink-my bad.Yes I did see that under side-effects ty.24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Real Housewives of XYZ
| | Consensus and policy are established on the matter. Only proponent of inclusion is moving quotes off-site. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 19:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.Filed by 24.0.133.234 on 23:05, 6 February 2013 (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 The following:
Tried to discuss but talk page has been vandalized and subjected-to off-topic bureaucratic nonsense and back-slapping behavior. Tried to inform those who do not understand the topic. It is being called "quotes" but really it is reference material of signature-statements that happens to have been spoken. How do you think we can help? We need a safe place to discuss the issue without heavy-handed war-type behavior. Opening comments by Jac16888Content like ""I give people enough rope to hang themselves, and the smart people don't." (Season 1)" and ""People have a hard time saying no to me, and that's just been my blessing." (Season 1)" as the opener to each character/cast members description section, over half a dozen or so different articles. Do I really need to explain why this is bad?--Jac16888 Talk 23:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by 24.0.133.234Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
To respond to the content: the content of the so-called "quotes" cannot be debated because it is factual. What I am hoping that people/editors will understand is that yes, the material is correctly surrounded by quotation marks, and could be called, "quotes", but for the purpose of what it was being used-for on Wikipedia, it is only a reference of signature-statements, "siggys", which are verbalized by each character in the opening sequence of each individual show. Usually, the "siggys"/"quotes", are changed each season to reflect changes in attitudes and circumstances of each character. Since there are a few different shows, and umpteen different characters, deleting each "quote"/"siggy"-is deleting a vast amount of painstaking editor-added material. And once-again I will mention that this issue has been debated before and the outcome was to continue to allow the material.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC) IN THE INTEREST OF CLARIFICATION HERE IS A SHORT CLIP ON YOUTUBE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSGa30PcDPE . That is what we are discussing. The part where each character makes a statement. To further explain, the content of statements is changed every season usually, the content of the openers is anticipated, and commented-on in the mainstream media and elsewhere. Wikipedia provided access to the openers without a person having to hunt and find each season/and or character's video clip, OR, (prevented) having-to wait 'till a particular episode was/is re-broadcasted. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by QwyrxianThere's nothing to discuss here. These are pull quotes. We are an encyclopedia--not a TV show, not a fan site, not a "tell all" book, and we don't do pull quotes. If any one or more of these "signatures" have been discussed in reliable secondary sources, then we need to hear what the secondary sources have to say, and we need to put the info in running text. But our primary purpose is not primary source material information. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Opening comments by Mike RosoftOriginally, I wasn't really involved in this dispute - I just removed 24.0.133.234's text dump of old discussions (which he has acknowledged was "ill-formatted and messy" [11]) and refactored the other comments in accordance with the normal Wikipedia practices - the most recent discussion goes to the bottom of the talk page, not to the top; likewise, the most recent comment goes to the bottom of the discussion or under the post it responds to. (See the talk page guidelines.) But I agree that the situation is clear - the quotes have been rejected by at least two users (three, if I am to be included), and 24.0.133.234 is revert warring to keep them in the article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Post additional comments here please:
No they are not pull-quotes. Pull-quotes are quotes that are set-apart in a different typography usually, but are always repeated in the article that they are pulled-from24.0.133.234 (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by DayewalkerAgree as above, there's nothing to be gained from adding these pull quotes to the articles. They are not notable in any way, they're just promotional material for the show. Dayewalker (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Opening comments by PinkadelicaI opened an RfC on the matter without realizing this discussion was taking place (I've since closed it). Just to reiterate what I said on the article talk page and in the RfC, this information is trivial at best and runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There's no valid reason to keep this information and I haven't seen 24.0.133.234 actually give a valid, policy based reason to retain the content (sorry, but WP:IAR and WP:PRESERVE applies to reasonable content, not trivia). Pinkadelica♣ 12:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Real Housewives of XYZ 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.
Does anyone know how to request an additional volunteer to help with this dispute? NOW that opening statements have been made and some of the participants are at risk of posting over 2000 char. here is a spot for them to post more info. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Hi there, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I see there isn't actually an impartial DRN volunteer taking this discussion yet despite it being tagged as having one. I'm happy to open this up for discussion. I'd like all participants to direct discussion below this comment and not in the Opening Comments statements by users above from this point forward. Just from reading what's on this page it seems to me like a consensus exists against the IP editor. I have not had a chance to watch the video that individual linked yet (network restrictions) but I will endevour to do so later. I'd like to direct a question towards IP24.0, the inclusion of this information seems like it may be WP:FANCRUFT rather than encyclopaedic content, what is your argument against this? My reasons for this conclusion are that it is in-universe character information which would better suit a character article on a subject wikia. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I'm a drive by editor, just offering some input as a neutral editor (I'm also a DRN volunteer, but I'm not offering to act as a mediator in this DRN case). I concur with Dayewalker, Pinkadelic and Rosoft above: These quotes should not be included in the articles unless there is a compelling reason. An example of when quotes might be appropriate would be if some secondary source (e.g. a major critic writing a major article about the TV show) identified the quotes as important. Absent such a secondary source, the quotes should not be in the articles. --Noleander (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I just tallied-up each individual items. It comes-to 128 separate, annotated, documented, sourced, referenced, re-referenced, legitimate,"quotations", which were assembled and posted on Wikipedia by probably hundreds of editors on all of the The Real Housewives television show topic pages. I would post a link to where i have relocated the not-really -quotes, but that could cause a problem so I'll leave it at that for now.24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Template:Governance of Palestine from 1948
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
| History of Palestine |
|---|
-Temple_Mount-Dome_of_the_Rock_(SE_exposure).jpg) |
 Palestine portal |
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
User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman adds template {{Governance of Palestine from 1948}} to articles Judea, Tribe of Judah, Kingdom of Judah, Philistines.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussed on my talk page
How do you think we can help?
Tell Emmette to stop adding the template
Opening comments by Emmette Hernandez Coleman
Fist of all the template is mis-titled, there was an editor who didn't like the praise "Palestinian territories" and tried to remove the phrase throughout Wikipedia. At the time the title was given that title the template only contained what is now the "Governance (since 1948)" section, it didn't contain the "Sub-topics" section. As the creator and primary editor I assure you, from the very beginning the template was intended to be a country/territory history template for the Palestinian territories, not a specialized "Governance" template. The post-1948 part definitely needs some work to turn it into that.
Now that that's out of the way, my understanding is that Triggerhippie wants the template to only cover Arab history. This goes against the precedent of every other Arab country/territory history template, they all cover pre-Arab history ({{History of Syria}}, {{History of Iraq}}, {{History of Egypt}}, {{History of Algeria}}, {{History of Libya}}), and country/territory history templates in general which usually don't have any problem covering periods from before the president day inhabitants (Arabs in this case) arrived.
Almost all those articles are about the area which today is roughly the southern West Bank (AKA Judea). The template was in them for about ten days, until Triggerhippie removed them a few days ago (aside from two IP's with almost no edits, and one person who said "The infobox refers to a *non-existent country*. "Palestine" is not a country"). His reason is that the template is just for Arab History. There was no consensus to remove the template, or to narrow the template's scope to just Arab history.
In sort, I see nothing wrong with the template covering the ancient/pre-arab West Bank and Gaza Strip, just as the other Arab templates cover the pre-arab and ancient history. Triggerhippie does.
_showing_Israel%27s_1948_and_1967_borders.svg)
_showing_Israel%27s_1948_and_1967_borders.svg)
I think his position that the Palestinian territories template somehow duplicates the Palestine template ({{History of Palestine}}) by including non-Arab history, but this is like saying that the {{History of Jordan}} and {{History of Syria}} templates duplicate {{History of the Levant}} by including non-Arab history. Palestine is a geographic region which is far border then the Palestinian territories, just as the Levant is a geographic region which is far border then then Syria or Jordan. All those templates cover pre-Arab history as well as Arab history.
Lastly, Triggerhippie posted notices of this RM in allot of places, including Wikiprojects Palestine and Israel [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Template:Governance of Palestine discussion
Hi, I'm Theopolisme, a DRN volunteer. Triggerhippie, it would be fantastic if you expanded your statement a bit: mediation is not possible without compromise, and it will help tremendously if you could clearly express your viewpoint. Thanks. [note: thread not at the moment open for comments, still awaiting other participant] —Theopolisme (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just a point to remember, most of these articles are currently subject to active arbitration remedies, see WP:ARBPIA for more details. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 08:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's three related templates: {{History of Israel}} for Jewish history in the Land of Israel, {{Governance of Palestine from 1948}} for Arab Palestinians and {{History of Palestine}} for the area in general. Emmette adds the second one to the articles on ancient topics I pointed above.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I partly disagree, but I don't think we're supposed to be discussing this here before Theopolisme opens this for discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- On second thought he ask you to expanded your statement which I interpreted to mean modify your original opining comments, but I suppose it doesn't really matter which section you expanded your statement on. Still, this isn't open for general comments until Theopolisme says it is. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Triggerhippie, it will make this dispute resolution much easier if you state, rather than just that "Emmette is wrong", why he is wrong. I'm currently familiarizing myself with all material related to this request. —Theopolisme (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm incorrect, but if I'm not mistake, the issue here is the inclusion of {{Governance of Palestine from 1948}} in articles that deal with the history of Judea. A few notes:
- As this article is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the 1RR sanction (through WP:ARBPIA) has been violated multiple times: by Triggerhippie, again by Triggerhippie,
and then by Emmette.My mistake, dreadfully sorry. - I advise both of you to make no further edits related to this issue (addition/removal of this template and its ilk to any articles), until after the dispute resolution has been completed.
- As this article is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the 1RR sanction (through WP:ARBPIA) has been violated multiple times: by Triggerhippie, again by Triggerhippie,
- Triggerhippie, while I'd still very much appreciate it if you could expand upon your thoughts, I think it would be better if we moved on in the process, as your points are made clear in posts on your talk page. With that said, do either of you have any thoughts on how we could begin to resolve this issue? —Theopolisme (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm incorrect, but if I'm not mistake, the issue here is the inclusion of {{Governance of Palestine from 1948}} in articles that deal with the history of Judea. A few notes:
- Triggerhippie, it will make this dispute resolution much easier if you state, rather than just that "Emmette is wrong", why he is wrong. I'm currently familiarizing myself with all material related to this request. —Theopolisme (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how I violated 1RR, that revert was five days after my previous revert, well over 24 hours.
- I'm in two thirds agreement with Triggerhippie's statement. {{History of Palestine}} is not a country/territory history template per se, but is for the history of the geographic region of Palestine. {{History of Israel}} is not a regular county/territory history template, it deals with Jewish history in Palestine the history of the modern stare of Israel. Israel's territory consists of most of Palestine, so it simply didn't make sense for the Israel template to cover the whole history of Palestine (unlike {{History of Iraq}} which covers Iraq/Mesopotamia in general), because it would have been a duplicate of the Palestine template.
- Here's the disagreement. Triggerhippie's entire reason for removing {{History of the Palestinian territories}} (mislabeled {{Governance of Palestine from 1948}}), if I understand him correctly, is that is that the template is for Arab history in Palestine. This is clearly not the case, I've put the territories template up on the side so we can all clearly see it. It is clearly for the history of the Palestinian territories, not for the whole region of Palestine, but just the territories. It clearly covers ancient/pre-Arab history, just like every other Arab country/territory history template.
- Palestine is a much larger area then the Palestinian territories, and until the mid 20th century the Arab Palestinians have inhabited Palestine, not just the territories, so to simply say that Arabs are dealt with under the territories doesn't work. The Arab period of Palestine is dealt with under the "Islamic rule" section of {{History of Palestine}}.
- Triggerhippie may disagree with the scope, and may which to treat the territories template differently from all the other Arab history templates, but his wish does not give him the right to act as if the template's scope really were limited to just Arab history when it clearly isn't. I could wish that the Jordan template were limited to Arab history, but that wouldn't give me the right to act as if it really were limited to Arab history by removing it from articles about pre-Arab Jordanian history.
- The relationship between this template and the Palestine template is rather like the relationship between the Palestine/Syria/Jordan templates and the Levant template. One deals with a narrower area then the other. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Palestine is very small and borders within it changed constantly. Templates should be separated by nation not geography. In other Arab countries, there is no intersecting/conflicting peoples/templates.--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think that's sort of my point. A country/territory history template is usually about that country/territory (Palestinian territories in this case), not a much broader geographic region (Palestine in this case). I don't know what you mean by "intersecting/conflicting peoples/templates" but the other Arab templates cover non-Arab peoples. Look at {{History of Jordan}} for example, it has Israelites, Ammonites, Moab people, Edomites, etc; because Arab or not they all lived in what is today Jordan. The Jordan template "intersects" with {{History of the Levant}}. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I help edit Kingdom of Judah, and ancient kingdom which terminated with the invasion of Alexander the Great in 333 BCE. Without getting too far into the dispute, I was surprised to receive an invitation to this dispute on the KofJ discussion page. The template is "Governance of Palestine from 1948." IMO, this template does not belong on this article's page. I've have read some of the prior discussion between (I think) these parties before, and did not know enough to contribute. So the rest of the dispute is in your capable hands. Student7 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Talk:PS/2 connector#.22...almost_all_desktop_computers_still_have_PS.2F2_ports.....22
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.| | Participants reached agreement. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
International Organization of Legal Metrology
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | mostly-conduct request under active discussion elsewhere. If that avenue fails a new dispute can be opened focussing on specific issues. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
India
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | No evidence of discussion also filing editor is under an active topic ban on the subject after persistant disruptive editing on this subject Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Catherine of_Alexandria
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Conduct/competence dispute. Please notify 3RR violation and edit warring noticeboard if behavior continues. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Royal College, Colombo
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | No recent substantial discussion. Please reopen substantial discussion on the article talk page before bringing this dispute here or to other dispute resolution. If IP editors will not discuss, consider a request for page protection. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Kendo
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Procedural close. I'm closing this one for two reasons: First, it was somehow filed in a way that none of the other involved editors was notified by the bot. If it is refiled, please carefully list all other involved editors using the exact spelling and capitalization of their usernames. Second, the filing editor subsequently announced, before anyone else responded, that s/he will not be available for the next twelve days. There is little that can be done here until his/her return and there's no need for this request to just sit here and take up space until then, especially with no notice to the other editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows_logo_and_watermark_-_1985.svg_-_1985.svg
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
David Bergman (journalist)
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.| | Policy is clear, and alternative sources have been found. CarrieVS 02:07, 18 February 2013 |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
- ^ Daily Mail UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2195574/Three-New-Yorks-Real-Housewives-open-doors-luxurious-summer-homes-The-Hamptons.html#axzz2KJeXuMjr.
{{cite news}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2195574/Three-New-Yorks-Real-Housewives-open-doors-luxurious-summer-homes-The-Hamptons.html#axzz2KJeXuMjr~~~~