Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 83
 | This is an archive of past discussions on 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 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | → | Archive 90 |
First Indochina War
 | Closed after 5 days with no discussion by the involved parties. An WP:RfC has been recommended as a possible next step if ongoing talk page discussions do not result in a resolution or consensus. Closing as unresolved.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
 – General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Mztourist on 11:50, 22 November 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 Previous consensus was that the outcome in the Infobox should not state that the result was a Viet Minh victory as the war took place in three countries: Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and the outcome decided at the Geneva Conference saw the partition of Vietnam, the independence of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and the departure of the French. It is simplistic to describe it as a Viet Minh victory, particularly as the Viet Minh were forced to settle for control of only North Vietnam. Recently some Users have changed the infobox to Viet Minh victory and they seek to support this change with a variety of POV or otherwise non-reliable sources, including out of context or shorthhand quotes (lacking any quality analysis) from authors who are not scholars of the First Indochina War. There are a limited number of reliable sources for the outcome of the First Indochina War and the majority do not say that it was a Viet Minh victory. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on the Talk Page How do you think we can help? Independent evaluation of quotes and RS Summary of dispute by Darkness ShinesViet Minh won, sources say they won, the sources are reliable. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TheTimesAreAChangingDarkness Shines was certainly right to revert this edit, in which Mztourist alters sourced material simply because he disagrees with it. The facts are not in dispute: The Viet Minh achieved military victory but suffered political defeat. After looking at this a bit more closely, I can understand why Mztourist would want to omit the "victory" label altogether in favor of a more nuanced description, but misrepresenting sources (changing the source's "Viet Minh victory" to "French defeat") is not an ideal solution. I don't have much experience working on comparable infoboxes, but I would like to know how other war articles handle this type of problem. Is "victory" commonly used to summarize results? Does the failure of the victorious party to achieve all of their war aims impact the results summary?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC) First Indochina War discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer (and the current coordinator) here. I'd like to say a few words before this kicks off because I see a procedural snag. Mztourist claims that there was a prior consensus which established the version of the results box before this edit by Darkness Shines which attempts to introduce the Viet Minh victory. There was, indeed, a substantial prior discussion here which resulted in that version, which has been in the article for several months. That discussion included the Viet Minh victory question. Here's the problem from DRN's point of view: Under this section of the Consensus policy, if there was a prior consensus — and I believe that there was, especially since there were other editors (AustralianRupert and Anotherclown) who supported Mztourist's position there — then the only way the article text can be changed in a way contrary to that prior consensus is by the formation of a new consensus. That means that this DRN discussion can only be productive if, given the current participants, Mztourist can be convinced to change his mind, perhaps with a DRN volunteer's assistance though it is also possible that the volunteer will remain neutral or, of course, side with Mztourist. If Darkness Shines and TheTimesAreAChanging do not feel that to be likely, then their only practical choices are to either drop the effort to include the text or to file a RFC at the article talk page to try to bring other editors from the community into the discussion, in which case this DRN listing will be closed. On the other hand, we can move forward with discussion here if they think that they can change Mztourist's mind. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Involuntary Celibacy article
| | Closed - there seems to be little to no discussion regarding the dispute on a talk. It is advised to continue discussion there. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 21:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by 99.245.191.227 on 18:58, 7 December 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 User Alchewizzard is reverting the page "Involuntary celibacy" back to its July 2013 version, undoing 6 months of edits that have been discussed on the talk page. The first time the article was rewritten, it was reverted by a different user. Since then, the article has been systematically and slowly improved, with sources and discussion on the talk page, however all that work is being undone by Alchewizzard. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The first time the article was reverted, I undid the edit and explained myself. He then reverted the edit with a pseduo-threatening "WARN TO TROLLS AND VANDALS." How do you think we can help? Can you determine whether the edits since July (and more recently since the November revert) really do represent trolling as Alchewizzard claims? Summary of dispute by AlchewizzardPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 99.245.191.227Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Involuntary Celibacy article discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Karna's talk page
| | Closed as failed - no consensus; parties came to a stalemate. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
 – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Pinkfloyd11 on 20:58, 22 November 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 Basically, there is disagreement over the length and sourcing of the Karna article. While I think we all agree that the article can be shortened by changing prose, the primary disagreement is over content. One side is contending that the article is too boring, too long, and is violating wikipedia policy by including primary sources. The other side is contending that while the prose could be bettered to deviate from in-universe view, the article may be required to be long to fit wikipedia guidelines on building a fictional character biography. Also, that primary sources can be used in an article to describe "plot" of a story, and just not in analysis or interpretation. @Dharma:
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've posted to the talk page per BRD, referencing specific examples and referencing wikipedia guidelines. Some of my contentions really haven't been answered. The editors in questioned have expressed their frustration at the length of my posts. They've gone ahead and done some very massive edits without discussion. They've suggested I go to this board. I've wanted to avoid it, but they aren't leaving me much choice. Of course this is only "my" side. How do you think we can help? Maybe clarify the wikipedia guidelines relevant to this dispute? Help judge what kind of plot content is relevant to the analysis? Answer the question if articles like the one in type have a set length limit? Fundamentally, I want them to engage in conversation with me. A lot of what I am hearing is "primary sources are bad because they are bad" or "delete content because it should be deleted". They want me to refute their specific points while not expecting the same of themselves.... Summary of dispute by Abecedare
The article is about a character from the Indian epis Mahabharata and the dispute as I see it is regarding how much space should be devoted to simple character bio based on (translations or paraphrases of) the primary source (ie, the Mahabharata) versus what secondary sources have said on the subject. For future reference, the starting point for discussion was this version of the article.
Essentially copying from my post on the article talk page:
Here is a sample list of high quality secondary sources on the subject that can used to improve the article by any interested editor. I may give it a try, but will probably not get to it till December.
I think WP:ADOPT or WP:30 would be better avenues for resolving the issues, but have no objection if DRN is preferred by Pinkfloyd11, since an "outside opinion" can often be helpful. Note though that there have been two previous such attempts:
Lets hope, the third time is a charm! :-) Summary of dispute by DharmadhyakshaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
@Pinkfloyd11: I had left the article to allow you to do whatever pleased you. You said we should have consensus and do nothing without that. Two more editors, and the only two present there beside you and me, are okay with the way i am going towards cleaning this article. Thats WP:CONSENSUS dear. In fact, they both suggested that the article should be deleted and started from stub again which i felt unnecessary. Further to that, on 22nd Nov i asked you to stay out of the business for a week (that's generally 7 days on Earth). There is no dispute at all to run to the DRN; at least yet. Come back after 7 days when the article is ready. And remember WP:WALL. No one reads all this mumbo jumbo. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Karna discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Closing noticeThis dispute has been here for 15 days with little participation; it also has been stale for two days. I will close the dispute in around 12 hours if nothing relevant can be brought to it. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 04:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Talk:Shusha
| | Closed as stale - there seems to be an ongoing discussion at the article talk page (however it is slowing down) and there has been no discussion here by involved parties for a week. An RfC is recommended if a consensus cannot be reached there. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 20:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Grandmaster on 23:16, 21 November 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 A detailed explanation was provided here by another user. In short, there's a long running dispute at talk of the article with regard to the foundation of the town. While it is generally accepted (including by major encyclopedias) that the town was founded in 1752, there are also a few primary sources of questionable reliability that may suggest otherwise. In my opinion, presenting the early foundation as a fact despite this view being in minority and contrary to the generally accepted view being the mid-18th century foundation is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. The issue requiring a resolution is how to present the conflicting views on the foundation of the town in accordance with the wiki rules. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The issue was reported by one of the involved editors to WP:FTN, but it did not generate any outcome. How do you think we can help? An outside view and an active involvement of the wider wiki community would be very helpful. Responding briefly to Hablabar, if pre-1752 foundation is a widely accepted opinion in the international scholarly community, you should have no problems finding a bunch of third party secondary sources supporting this viewpoint. So far you only refer to primary sources, reliability of some of which is highly questionable. But as Brandmeister convincingly demonstrated, all the major encyclopedias and other third party secondary sources point to 1752 foundation by Panah Ali khan. Now if there are different views on the subject of foundation, then according to WP:Weight all notable viewpoints need to be presented in accordance to their weight. As for the "composite timeline" mentioned by Hablabar, it is nothing but WP:OR and WP:Synth, where he merged two mutually exclusive views to present as a fact the existence of the town in medieval times, while this view is clearly not shared by most of the sources. Grandmaster 21:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by HablabarPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The dispute arises from User:Grandmaster mischaracterizes the situation as an issue of WP:Weight in order to avoid the creative handling of timeline. He says that ostensibly the majority of sources say that Shusha was established in 1752. However, the credibility of primary sources making such statements is dubious, as demonstrated on talk pages in Shusha. Also, spinning the discussion around the majority or minority of sources can be viewed as WP:OR, unless there is a secondary source discussing the majority or minority issue in explicit terms. As it was demonstrated, mentioning the alleged establishment of Shusha in the 18th century does not override the evidence that an earlier town and fort existed long before the upgrade of Shusha into an urban settlement in the 18th century. WP:Weight, WP:FRINGE do not support the apportion of sources into "majority" and "minority," and WP:BALANCE and WP:OR invalidate this apportioning. If all mentioned sources supporting the notion of an earlier creation of the city are counted, the view about the 18th century establishment can be well a minority view, if one follows the logic of the Grandmaster/Brandmesiter duo. I suggest to return to the previous version where a composite timeline is put in place, and discrepancies are explained on the side. Hablabar (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BrandmeisterPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I agree with the above that the issue at stake is how to present the conflicting pre-1750s version in the article and whether that version should be treated in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Personally I found it difficult to find any mention of Shusha before the 1750s in reliable sources, including all encyclopedias which tackle this issue. According to some sources from the opposing camp's version, there was already a fortress in Shusha before 1750s and it was ceded to Panah Ali Khan, but it contradicts the 1750s version, which says that the town's only fortress was built by Panah Ali Khan. This latter version is confirmed particularly by the inscription on the wall of the town's mosque and some primary sources, quoted in the article. Brandmeistertalk 12:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Roses&gunsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ZimmarodPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I think Proudbolsahye's suggestion expressed here [1] is reasonable and we can modify the text per his suggestion. At the same time, Grandmaster's refusal to cooperate and his attitude "My way or no way" should be be taken note of by administrators. Zimmarod (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Alborz FallahAs my native language is Persian and Persian sources are of major importance in chronography of that region , I can say all Persian sources support 1752 foundation . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Talk:Shusha discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
24 hour closing notice-- Attn: User:TransporterMan and others. I note that discussion is ongoing at the article talk page and that there has been no discussion here by involved parties for more than a week. User:Grandmaster has said he would like more community opinion. An RfC would be best for this as moderators here at DRN attempt to be neutral and generally do not offer opinions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Trail of Tears Classic
| | Closed as inappropriate for DRN - WABACmachTheine, you should discuss this dispute on a talk page (it needs to be extensively discussed on a talk page before reaching the dispute resolution stage). Also, DRN is for content disputes between two or more editors, not just content that may be incorrect. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 21:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by TheWABACmachine on 20:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Page describes a college sports rivalry that is not accurate. While the two teams play each other, they do not label this rivalry, nor do they use the ethnically insensitive term. As the marketing and communications director of Arkansas State, I can speak directly to this. The article has been cited by on-line media as proof of a ethic insensitivity by A-State toward the Native American community. If individuals use the term, it is not sanctioned by A-State, and we would appreciate deleting the article as it is inaccurate. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Made the edit to remove, it was reinstated How do you think we can help? First time for me on this, so I hope I am following the correct procedures. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Trail of Tears Classic discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
SpeedFan
| | Closed - there seems to be little to no discussion regarding the dispute on a talk (no posts by the two IPs either). It is advised to continue discussion there. If the problem cannot be resolved there after a discussion, you are welcome to come back to DRN. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 17:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by D0s4d1 on 10:00, 9 December 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 Hi, and thank you for your time with this. Someone seems to be running the Speed Fan page, but they have no account on Wiki and are issuing proclamations from unregistered IP addresses. I think it might be the programmer. Since Wiki seeks to include all opinions, I feel both their and my point of view should be represented. I welcome any suggestions of neutral wording. The section in question: RisksSpeedFan crashes some systems when it is launched, possibly causing registry corruption or loss of recent changes to the registry. This can cause recently-installed programs to disappear from Add/Remove Programs, programs to no longer function correctly, or loss of operating-system stability.[1][2][3][4] What I wrote was factual. That software and any like it hook so deep into the operating system that there is some risk of trashing your OS. On a Windows PC, this is not a surprise, and many programs (antivirus, device drivers, etc) have the same risk. That risk should be stated so the casual computer user understands the risks before proceeding. I was prepared to deal with the fallout of a system crash, but many people I know are not. Can you help form neutral language and, if necessary, lock the page from drive-by editing or SpeedFan's organized in-house press? Thank you again for your time. D0s4d1 (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to start a discussion on the talk page, and restored the text. After my text was deleted again, I tried to start a discussion again with this anonymous troll. How do you think we can help? Suggest neutral language, mediate, or lock the page except to people with usernames, if necessary. Summary of dispute by 71.196.246.113Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 109.154.160.28Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
SpeedFan discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Millet (Ottoman Empire)
| | According to the DRN guidelines at top of this page: "The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before requesting help at DRN." Since there has been no discussion of this issue on the talk page I have no choice but to close this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Jingiby on 11:31, 9 December 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 A statement of Ethnic Macedonians being one of the Orthodox different ethnic groups in the Ottoman Empire, has been recently added by an IP. However. during the early 20th century, i.e. at the eve of the end of the Ottoman rule on the Balkans, the international community viewed the Macedonian Slavs predominantly as regional variety of Bulgarians. This was also the time of the first expressions of Macedonian nationalism only by a handsome of intellectuals outside the region of Macedonia. Meanwhile in the 19th century the classic Ottoman millet system began to degrade then with the continuous identification of the religious creed with ethnic identity. Most of Macedonian Slavs then joined the new Bulgarian Millet, and some joined the Greek or the Serbian millets. Generally, till the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century there were recognized 17 separate millets, i.e. nations. Macedonian Millet or separate ethnic community was never recognized or claimed. Macedonist ideas increased only in 1930s and were supported by the Comintern. During the Second World War these ideas were further developed by the Yugoslav Communist Partisans, but some researchers doubt that even at that time the Macedonian Slavs considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians. In this way the crucial point for the Macedonian ethnogenessis was the creation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia in 1944. The IP provided a single primary source by Georgi Pulevski and added the Ethnic Macedonians as a separate entity in the article. However, Pulevski viewed the Macedonian identity as being a regional phenomenon. Once he was calling himself a "Serbian patriot", another time a "Bulgarian". His numerous identifications actually reveals the absence of a clear ethnic sense in a part of the local Slavic population in Macedonia then and that is confirmed by a secondary sources. The IP rejected all provided academic sources and didn't discuss on article's talk page, making blind reverts, insisting of the presence of any imaginery Ethnic Macedonian community during Ottoman times. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to discuss the issue on IP's talk page and also proposed the article for semi-protection. How do you think we can help? On the base of provided lots academic sources. Summary of dispute by 46.193.1.177 (talk · contribs)Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Millet (Ottoman Empire) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
novocure
| | I'm closing this case as the filing party has received an indefinite block.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by 1zeroate on 19:32, 16 December 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 zad68,alexbrn these two are following me around or we are bumping heads alot. They are insisting on removing most anything I put forth. Some of the citations they insist upon require credit cards to be read. They have a severe dislike/bias against novocure and modalities like it I can appreciate not giving undue weight to that which is unproven. However , Novocure is proven. I made a few edits on zad68 and then this novocure page I made was put up for articles of deletion. I feel this was done in retaliation. Mastcell was quick to support him after blanking my talk pages on the Royal Rife page speaking about novocure. This is a clicque. A club. A gang of individuals working their best to control the medical pages from a Cynical skeptic point of view. And thats fine till their bias targets individuals. I am sick and tired of being at the short end of the barrel. Can I get some assistence in resolving our disputes? Things like references that are free instead of ME having to buy access. Not having the majority of my edits targeted for rollback by these people on this page and other pages. The assumption that everything I do is in bad faith wears me down. And they recurit. Their is a salm somthing. He was on another delete page supporting a delete and asking for a merge. I opposed the merge because of the shady timing. Now he is on the novocure page supporting alexbrn and zad68 and asking for delete. And this is with that clique. Clique group editing is not gonna advance humanity for the best. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talking, comprimise. I am down for comprimise. I asked for a RfC with mast cell after blanking. but I have years of experience with Mastcell and his babysitting of the defunt royal rife smear page. That page is not a BIO. Biographys are about people. That Rife page is about his machine and how dangerous machines attributed to him are. It is that bias mentality that is following me and insisting that my edits be edited out. How do you think we can help? I have no clue. I am at my witts end. I try to come back on occasion... I was watching the Anthony Holland (composer) page from back in the day when He was the only Anthony Holland here. As soon as i added that bit about his work with frequency devices it did not take long to be put up for deletion by the clique. It would be nice if those of the clique would raise the bar, talk more before editing, assume good faith, double check ref links. Summary of dispute by zad68The editor who started this DR, 1zeroate, has just been indef-blocked. It's unlikely anything further will happen with this DR. Summary of dispute by alexbrnPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MastCellPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
novocure discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Deobandi
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | No substantial talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard and all other mediated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia. If other editor will not discuss, consider my recommendations made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Macedonians (ethnic group)
| | A compromise was reached on the article talk page and both parties have indicated in comments below that they see no need to proceed with this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Jingiby on 06:53, 14 December 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 In the section describing the Macedonian identity is a statement during the Middle Ages, there was no distinct Macedonian identity, however the designation Macedonian referred to any person who lived in Macedonia. I tried to clarify with properly soursed sentence that Medieval, i.e. Byzantine Macedonia was an area outside the borders of the region known in antiquity and modern times with this name and it even disappeared after the Ottoman conquest in 14th century, restored only in the 19th century as geographical term. However another user fiercely prevents those objective circumstances to be described in the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I wrote on a talk page of an admin: Future Perfect at Sunrise. How do you think we can help? On the base of a common sense, compromise and provided reliable academic sources. Summary of dispute by Slovenski VolkJingiby is a well-meaning editor, and i consider him a (cyber) friend. However, on this occasion he appears to be rather confused. There difference between my version of the discussion of "Identities" and his later additions are visible here [2] Several errors are evident is in his additions (1) he claims "The term was used rarely in a geographical or administrative aspect" Quoting J V A Fine here [3] which says nothing of the sort. So he has misrepresented the source. (2) He then claims "This designation began circulating on the Balkans in Western-influenced cultural contexts since the 16th century again, however the idea of Macedonian identity arose outside the region during the 17th century, involving the local Slavic population hardly in the second half of the 19th century" Aside from the poor English, it is out of context. The paragraph he has added it in is dealing with the medieval time-frame. He is jumping to a discussion on the modern period, surrounding issues of modern Romantic Nationalism etc which are already discussed subsequently in greater detail in an additional 3 chapters (!) His addition is thus redundant, and one is forced to conclude that it serves no purpose apart from ramming down his personal POV. (3) He appears to be confused by the notion of Macedonia (region) and Macedonia (theme). The Macedonian region had been established since Phillip and Alexander annexed Pelanognia and Paeonia to Macedonia propper, and this remained so through Roman times and into Late Antiquity and the early medieval period; when Slavic tribes settled there. Whilst its expanse varied and was subject to change, a vague notion of "Macedonia" as a region always remained. Scholars of antiquity and Middle Ages have no confusion where Macedonia lies [4][5] - as they clearly discuss Macedonia in a wider, regional perspective, and when talking about the specific theme of Macedonia, they clearly distinguish. Eg Curta talks of "another Byzantine raid into Macedonia in 991. .. with a shift in centre of Power.. to Prespa" (pg 242). whilst the Companion the "bishop of Stobi, the capital City of Macedonia Secunda" (pg 559). When referring to the theme they illustrate clearly eg "Bulgarian troops raided the theme of Macedonia"(Curta pg 227). There is no "rarity", and the only confusion is with Jingiby. As an aside, and an explanation, Byzantine naming conventions were haphazard, tempered as they were on the chronolgy and extent of what land they actually controlled/ recovered. They could not call historic Macedonia the theme of Macedonia becuase they had simply not conquered it ! As a cross -example, the theme of Serbia was not actually in Serbia, but in what is now Montegenro. Serbia itself actually lay in the 'theme of Sirmium'. The theme of Bulgaria lay far to the east of original Bulgaria, and where Bulgaria is today. The Byzantine theme of Hellas did not correspond to ancient Greece, nor modern Greece , etc, etc (4) In any case, Jingiby can confabulate ad nauseum about where he thinks Macedonia should lie, however, the reference is clear. "Most references to Macedonians in Byzantine texts are in (both) a geographical or administrative and not an ethnic sense".[6]. So it was used both as a general geographic identifier as well as the specific administrative theme. QED Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC) List of sources for discussionSince the topic seems to be complicated for the volunteers and no comments were posted, I would like to present a lot of specialized sources and corresponding links on their attention, aiming to to help them. I will avoid any personal comments on the topic.
Macedonians (ethnic group) discussionSince no other volunteer has stepped forward, I will open this case myself. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
|
The Simpsons
| | Closing as there has been no response from parties named in the dispute and no activity at all on this filing for 6 days.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Blurred Lines on 16:36, 13 December 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
List of discussions during the dispute:
Dispute overview There has been multiple discussions, about the genre, and the links that has been inserted originally by AmericanDad86, before that was WikiAnthony, and Grapesoda22, who added the genres without sources, in which cases there has been a problem since then.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Yes, but it's not working out for me, or anyone else. The lastest RFC discussion I had on the article's (The Simpsons) talk page, only one user responded to it, as of that user is (DarthBotto), who thinks that the links that AmericanDad86 provides have good context because he claims that they are scholarly links. Later, AmericanDad86 (who was involved in the dispute) made a survey stating that it supported DB's comment, in which I disagreed everything. How do you think we can help? I don't know, this is my second request since a few weeks ago, and was never answered (in which was speedy closed by a uninvolved user). Summary of dispute by AmericanDad86Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Grapesoda22Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by WikiAnthonyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Notes from DRN coordinatorThe filing party has a Semi-Retired banner on their talk and user pages. I've inquired as to whether they will have enough time to fully participate here. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The Simpsons discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Nichiren Shōshū
| | I'm closing this filing for several reasons: 1) There is an open thread at WP:ANI concerning two of this case's involved parties. 2) There has been no activity or opening statements by any of the three named parties 3) The discussion at the talk page is still in progress and some fresh, experienced editors have joined the discussion and there appears to be progress and possible resolution there. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Daileyn on 20:45, 18 December 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 image posted on Nichiren Shoshu page is not a Nichiren Shoshu Gohonzon. The two editors who responded to me agreed this is true. It was originally posted right next to the section on DaiGohonzon. It is misleading and bad editing and visually deceptive. I uploaded an image of the temple where the DaiGohonzon resides which is a better instructional option. Catflap08 continues to delete the temple image and insert the incorrect gohonzon image with the caption "similar but not identical." Posting this incorrect image (see my "talk" statements about Turkish vs Italian lira analogy) is a false representation and harms the integrity of Wikipedia. It's just bad editing. It seems that there a political agenda at play here with Catflap08. Thank you for any assistance you can provide to resolve this issue. Nancy Dailey Have you tried to resolve this previously? I originally emailed EN-Copyvio, Robert Laculus, who removed the image but it was inserted again by several different people. How do you think we can help? I would hope that you can help to uphold the standards of practice for this article and not let it disintegrate into some political conversation. I am a big fan of Wikipedia and a donor. This experience has already shaken my confidence in it as a truth telling entity. I hope you will help get to the truth. Thank you. Summary of dispute by Catflap08Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by KiruningPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Nichiren Shōshū discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Far left politics
| | As it says at the top of this page, we cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Trfc06 - Possible "Sock" - Consistently disrupting Far-left politics & Far-right politics --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Trfc06 on 15:48, 22 December 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 My question: on the far right page it states that nazis are far right and caused genocide. Was told that this is allowed. On the far left page I wish to put similar examples such as Khmer Rouge and the Russian and chinese communist parties that caused similar bad things, even more so. But I am told that no examples are allowed. Both statements can not be true? So can I add examples to the left page of remove examples for the right page? (Trfc06 (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)) PLus every time i list the article as needing npov help as per the guidelines it is removed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? experienced editors to look at article How do you think we can help? experienced editors to look at article Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Far left politics discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Nizami Ganjavi
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.| | Resolved in favor of inclusion of the Azerbaijani version of the name. This discussion is turning into a continuation of the nationalistic/ethnic conflict on the article talk page and serves no purpose since the Wikipedia rule and the application of that rule could not be any clearer in this particular instance. I would remind the participants that every Wikipedia article stands on its own, so the fact that the outcome is clear in this case does not mean that the same outcome will result in any other article. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Chess.com
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | The consensus from this DRN discussion is that this DRN case may have been filed prematurely and further discussion is needed on the talk page to see if a consensus can be developed there. — Keithbob • Talk • 01:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Milton Berle
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.| | Issue was resolved as there was consensus to retain the disputed material and both the filing party and the editor who had raised objections agreed that the case should be closed. Thank you to everyone who participated! — Keithbob • Talk • 23:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Tin box
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
| | I'm closing this case as discussion sputtered and stalled without any consensus and there have no been comments for almost two days. — Keithbob • Talk • 23:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Smoke testing
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.| | Resolved as an agreement was reached between two main parties while one party refused to participate and objected to the DRN process. The agreement between the two primary parties seems to have formed a strong basis for further discussion and renewed consensus on the talk page. — Keithbob • Talk • 23:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Lycos
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Conduct dispute. DRN is only for content disputes. Conduct disputes should be referred to AN, ANI, RFC/U, or ARBCOM, as appropriate. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Black people
| | Resolved - A consensus was formed on the article's talk page around Wdford's proposal (here). The DR/N did seem premature; any other disputes or any talk about his proposal should be discussed again on the talk page before coming back here. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 15:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Andajara120000 on 12:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Editing US-Centric nature of article. Want lead to just give overview of blackness and limit definitions to each section. As of now the US definition is given undue emphasis. Other editor says that is okay and refuses to let other perspectives in. That seems against Wikipedia policy of trying to avoid a US-centric article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have requested discussion but the user is stalling edits by claiming the need for consensus without actually addressing any of the points in question or attempting to reach consensus. The user is giving the impression that they control the article. How do you think we can help? Force the user to specifically answer the questions posed that is blocking any real improvement of the article. Give input on whether keeping US-centric angle is actually preferred on Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by TobusThis dispute has been resolved in the article talk page (see [17]) and can be closed with no further action. Summary of dispute by WdfordI am not involved in this dispute, and don't really understand what is being disputed yet. I noted that the lead section of the article was heavily US-centric, and attempted to correct this. I achieved the bulk of what I wanted to do relatively quickly and painlessly, and in my brief involvement here I have not noted any ownership problems so far. Editing seems to be progressing as normal, but I stress that I don't yet know the history of the dispute. Wdford (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Black people discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Closing noticeI'm going to go ahead and close this dispute as resolved in a few hours as a consensus seems to have been reached with Wdford's compromise on the talk page (here). If the involved editors or any other editors have an objection, speak now or forever hold your peace! --MrScorch6200 (t c) 04:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Talk:Tony Santiago
| | Closed as premature - This dispute needs to be discussed on the article talk page in-depth. As a note, there is also a closed discussion that formed a consensus on the talk also under the same header as this dispute. However, I am not entirely sure if it pertains to this specific dispute. Regardless, please continue discussion on the talk page and if a resolution is not reached there then please come back. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 19:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Ahnoneemoos on 19:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Disagreement on wether the sentence: "Santiago is considered an authority on Puerto Rico's military history based on his extensive coverage of the subject on various media, including Wikipedia." is in violation of WP:BLP by being referenced by:
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussing the topic on the article's talk page. How do you think we can help? Explain to the user that the references provided serve as a reliable source to claim that the subject of the article is a "historian" and that through said reliable sources the subject of the article "is considered an authority on Puerto Rico's military history." Summary of dispute by Future Perfect at SunrisePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Tony Santiago discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
_Speech.jpg){kind=link}
Santa Claus
| | Closed as stale - There is an ongoing discussion on the article talk. Please continue discussion there; if a resolution cannot be reached, you may come back but an RfC may be better in this case. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Felt friend on 04:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Earlier this month an anonymous editor posted a concern to the talk page in question that the associated article was, to a degree, biased in its reflection of the existence of the Santa Claus figure. The initial post primarily urged discussion for alterations to the adjective used in the opening sentence (the majority of those involved have primarily argued in favor of either "fictitious", "mythical", "fantasy", or some combination of these). Other editors quickly guided the debate into how the article should address the reality of Santa Claus as a whole. The debate is currently close to being equally tied between those for and against, here are their respective arguments: For: 1. There is no reason to explicitly deny the existence of Santa Claus as some editors are concerned for young children who may come across this information. 2. Santa Claus is based upon a handful of real people and thus isn't entirely "fictional". 3. Articles pertaining to religious figures neither deny or confirm the existence of their subjects as per NPOV. Against: 1. Wikipedia is not censored. 2. Many fictional characters are either based on or inspired by the actions of palpable human beings; this alone does not warrant existence. 3. Two sources that were already present in the article already state that Santa Claus does not exist. Additionally, expeditions to Earth's north pole have (obviously) revealed no presence of a Santa Claus and can thus prove him to be fictional while this cannot be done with most Gods and other deities. I have personally taken the side of those who believe that the article should explicitly deny the existence of Santa Claus as opposed to confirming it, or doing neither because I believe that disregarding the provided sources confirming Santa Claus to be non-existent for any reason, especially to protect any one person's beliefs, is a blatant violation of WP:NOTCENSORED as well as WP:NPOV. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion has been made on the talk page to no avail. I had also started a thread at AN/I requesting administrator comment, to which I was redirected here. How do you think we can help? I would like additional members of the community to help reach a consensus regarding the direction the article should take from here on out.
Summary of dispute by NeilNThis was the sentence prior to the changes:
Initial change per talk page request (made it consistent with Tooth fairy and Easter bunny:
My last change, after further concerns were raised:
Not using "fictitious" is not a case of censorship but simply a case of choosing a more accurate word. Mythical encompasses fictitious while also referencing "a popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence..." --NeilN talk to me 18:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 86.6.150.38My argument is simple, the word mythical (and to a lesser extent legendary), the original word used in the article was sufficient. The word added just before Christmas fictitious is a poor choice of word. The wikipedia articles on mythology and fiction in my mind make this very clear. Fiction has an author and is a form of literary work, this is not the case for Santa Claus. Instead the argument has focused on whether Santa Claus exists or not. Of course he does not physically exist, he is a myth. The King Arthur article refers to King Arthur as mythical, not fictitious. The Zeus article refers to myth, not fiction. The Dragons article refers to legend and myth. The Grim Reaper article refers to mythology not fiction. Even vampires refers to mythology and don't mention fiction for some time. Referring to Santa Claus as mythical was right in the first place and consistent with most characters he could be compared with on Wikipedia. If we find in favour of fictitious here, then all articles where we refer to myth, should also be changed to fictitious.
Summary of dispute by OtterSmithPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
"Mythical" is the correct word to describe Santa Claus. "Fictional" might be correct if Santa was created by the copyrighted stories about him; he existed long before those (or copyright) existed; those stories are a minor part of the history of Santa and a small part of the article. Han Solo is fictional; Frodo Bagginess is fictional; Dr. Peter Conway is fictional; all were created for the purpose of telling a story. Santa is used in stories, he was not created for the purpose of telling a story. Some adults (including me) believe the statement that "Santa Claus is real."; others do not, and in this case it appears one of those others is proposing a change to "Santa is fiction". I don't think that any of us (including me) have the same kind of reality in mind for Santa as they do for, say, a rock that flies through their windshield. There's a page in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather where Susan and Death discuss the reality of the Hogfather, a character like but different than Santa, and the necessity of learning to believe in abstractions. I used to have that discussion linked from my user page, but it was speedied as a copyright violation. You'll have to find a copy elsewhere. Aha -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnaQXJmpwM4 I remember the discussion as longer, but this performance is close enough. I'm not going to advocate that the page say that Santa is real, although I believe that more than I believe that justice is real. I also believe that Santa is mythical. As myths are real, Santa is real. Not real like a rock, real like mercy and forgiveness. The reality of quantum physics ... another day. htom (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Summary of dispute by InanygivenholePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 2602:306:BC58:5910:ADF4:8E86:6FDC:7099Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by WWEUndertakerfanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Cyphoidbomb
Santa Claus discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@Felt friend: Hi, you have said: I would like additional members of the community to help reach a consensus regarding the direction the article should take from here on out. The best forum for that would be a WP:RfC. Have you considered that option? What we do here is moderate discussion between involved parties and although anyone is welcome to drop by and offer their opinion or participate in the discussion, it doesn't happen often. So do you want to go for an RfC on the talk page? Or try a moderated discussion here to see if a consensus can be generated that way? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Closing notice
|
Black Egyptian Hypothesis
| | The filing party has simultaneously filed a case for mediation [19] which takes precedent over a DRN filing. — Keithbob • Talk • 19:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Andajara120000 on 05:32, 5 January 2014 (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 There seems to be gridlock in the editing, the main issues are the weight to give a 1974 UNESCO conference vote versus a 2001 Oxford Encyclopedia article in the lead. This is an ongoing dispute between all the editors. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Much discussion among all editors involved on talk page. How do you think we can help? Outside input and determination whether some editors are attempting to "control" and have assumed "ownership" of the page. Summary of dispute by AuaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by WdfordPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Dailey78Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DrLewisphdPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DougwellerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Black Egyptian Hypothesis discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Population history of Egypt
| | As it says at the top of this page, we cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. This is under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ancient Egyptian race controversy, DNA history of Egypt, Black Egyptian Hypothesis, Population history of Egypt-5 to 6 years of editor proliferation of articles, WP:Ownership and POV pushing. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC) I'd also like to add that if this does get refiled due to not being accepted at MedCom or other reasons, that the filing editor should refrain altogether from bringing up conduct issues; the patterns of behavior do not need to be highlighted here as we can do nothing about them and will not deal with them, and the place to raise those issues is at AN, ANI, or WP:RFC/U. Let me also note that the way to recruit additional editors into a dispute to add weight to consensus is RFC, not mediated dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Andajara120000 on 17:18, 5 January 2014 (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 There are four almost identical articles spun out by a small cadre of editors pushing their point of view over the past 5-6 years following disputes I believe to create a difficult time for editors making any updates to studies, as it requires lengthy talk page discussions on each page separately. Calls for merging have been ignored. This DRN regards all four articles at once:Ancient Egyptian race controversy,Black Egyptian Hypothesis, DNA history of Egypt and Population history of Egypt. The current dispute regards the inclusion of the following into all four articles:" Recent DNA Studies of Amarna and Ramesses III LineagesRecent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty and the Armana dynasty of the New Kingdom state that these dynasties carried the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup[5] and other references)E1b1a.[6][7] Refusal to allow these studies to be included in these four articles has variously occurred since the studies have been released as the revision history of these pages show. Other studies showing Sub-Saharan affiliations have likewise been deleted continuously since 2008. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on the talk pages of each of the four articles by various editors: Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Talk:Population history of Egypt, Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis, Talk:DNA history of Egypt and in edit summaries by new users, dating back some time and initiated by different editors. How do you think we can help? Include new editor voices on these peer-reviewed articles. Many editors have given up over the years due to frustration and sheer lack of time to engage this small cadre of editors on four separate talk pages. Even when consensus has been met, subsequent edits by this small cadre of editors pushing their POV has led to these two studies, and others, such as the DiVincenzo study, being subsequently deleted by this small cadre of editors working in tandem to push their POV and exhaust any editor attempts at including this or other studies showing Sub-Saharan African affiliations. The creation of so many nearly identical articles is testament to this blatant attempt to exhaust the time and patience of any editors attempting to make changes-as my own revision histories on these four pages show. Once progress is made on one change on one page subsequent progress on another page is stalled. While this DRN is only in regards to including the conclusions of these two peer-reviewed studies as set out in the sentences above, I wished to highlight the patterns involved for editors so they can carefully look at the editor conduct, revision history, and proliferation of articles created by this small cadre of editors, all towards the goal of exhausting the time and patience of any and all editors who counteract their distinct and well-defined POV. The talk page of one of these editors, wdford, in fact lays out the tactics used by this small cadre of editors quite explicitly and quite well by these "brothers of the faith." Summary of dispute by wdfordPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by dougwellerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by auaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by dailey78Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by drlewisphdPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by yalensPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by eyetruthPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by dbachmannPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Population history of Egypt discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Phil Robertson
| | Closed as inappropriate- We cannot accept disputes that are in other venues such as WP:RfC and WP:NPOV/N. To the filing editor: please do not forum shop. Thanks. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 03:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Ronjohn on 00:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview As you may know Phil Robertson made some disparging comments regarding gay men and black people during the Jim Crow era. The comments regarding gays are on his wiki page, but some people are not allowing the black comments I kept trying to add. The comments can be found here: http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried edit the page with reference/citation to the article and I've tried to discuss on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Edit the page yourselves with the information or authorize me to make the edits so I won't be accused of vandalism.javascript:showStep3() Summary of dispute by MufkaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MrXPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I will be brief. The locus of the dispute is here. The content is well-sourced, having been widely reported in mainstream sources. It even elicited a letter from the Human Rights campaign and the NAACP to the president of A&E. While we need to present the content neutrally, there is no good reason to omit it, other than specious claims of WP:UNDUE. Ironically, WP:UNDUE is the strongest argument for including it, in compliance with out neutrality policy which instructs: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." - MrX 01:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by RoccodriftI concur with Collect's remarks (below). This matter has already been settled through normal channels and this DRN is simply WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I also note that the summary of the dispute is non-neutral. Roccodrift (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CollectPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is a content dispute only which falls under the requirements of WP:BLP and the WP:CONSENSUS on both BLP/N and on the BLP was the same - this is simply a try to get yet "another bite of the apple." Two tries -- and WP:CONSENSUS is not in the editor's favour in either case, so now we have DR/N. I decline to play this game. Collect (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Phil Robertson discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
- ^ "Speedfan crashes system". Retrieved 2010-07-21.
- ^ "Computer crashes when I open SpeedFan..." Retrieved 2010-07-21.
- ^ "Speedfan crashes my PC!!". Retrieved 2010-07-21.
- ^ "0000438: When launching Speedfan my computer shuts off". Retrieved 2010-07-21.
- ^ Trombetta, B.; Cruciani, F.; Sellitto, D.; Scozzari, R. (6 January 2011). MacAulay, Vincent (ed.). "A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms". PLOS ONE. 6 (1): e16073. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...616073T. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016073. PMC 3017091. PMID 21253605.
- ^ Hawass at al. 2012, Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study. BMJ2012;345doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8268 Published 17 December 2012
- ^ http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393