Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 89

< Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Guy Macon in topic Homeopathy
Archive 85←Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90Archive 91→Archive 95

Whoniverse

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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 article Whoniverse was until recently a huge sprawling mess of OR and POV. User:GraemeLeggett and I have spent long hours trying to clean it up, as well as having many discussions on the discussion page. However, a persistent editor called User:G S Palmer refuses to acknowledge Wikipedia Policy. He/she insist on reverting the article to its previous unsourced OR/POV/SYNTHESIS mess. I have left many messages pointing this out, as well as creating several discussion page topics asking to resolve the issue through discussion and consensus. However he/she insists that "consensus" has been reached(which means his/her POV). He/she has also removed RS that User:GraemeLeggett and I added to the article, and refuses to engage in a constructive discussion, instead simply blanket-reverting and stating that his/her version is the "consensus" one, despite all evidence to the contrary. He/she even reported me for being the disruptive one, which can be found here: [1] and here [2]. User:GraemeLeggett and I have made significant improvements to the article, though obviously there are still more improvements that need to be made. however, this is impossible when User:G S Palmer persists in constantly reverting all the edits we've made(including removing newly added RS), and refuses to engage in a proper civilised discussion, instead simply claiming an imaginary "consensus", and that the new version is somehow the POV one.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Numerous attempts to bring up the problems on the discussion page.[3], Leaving messages on his/her discussion page [4](and not his/her response about WP:RS!), attempting to contact and Admin once involved with the article...got a resply but not what I was looking for [5]

How do you think we can help?

Please just look into the various edits on the article Whoniverse(all the 41's are me, my IP changes), noting what the article was like a few weeks ago, what it is like now etc. Please read the numerous attempts to discuss this civilly(all of which have been dismissed by User:G S Palmer). Whatever the decision, at least it will hopefully end this nastiness. Thank you.

Summary of dispute by G S Palmer

This user makes no mention of the fact that User:Mezigue, who has been an established Wikipedian since 2007, has also reverted them multiple times. After making a bold change, this user violated both Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and WP:3RR by changing it back multiple times when reverted by more than one editor. This user has a long history of being irascible, such as this series of grudge reverts against Mezigue; 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. G S Palmer (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, as a side note, this user seems to have targeted me specifically instead of any other users taking place in the debate. As an example of their usual style of discourse, see these three sections on Talk:Master (Doctor Who): Talk:Master (Doctor Who)#Possible merger(s), Talk:Master (Doctor Who)#Target novels section and Talk:Master (Doctor Who)#"The Doctor's Moriarty". G S Palmer (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoniverse discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sandy Point, New South Wales

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Why did you delete my changes? I added historical and factual information about the suburb in Sydney - Sandy Point NSW. It is all true information, and a lot of other suburbs have so much history on all their pages, and no one ever fixes the Sandy point page, so I did, and I spent ages doing it.. Why did you delete it??? you said it wasn't relevant! but plenty of other suburbs have information on their pages!??? please let me know ASAP

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to reply, but it wouldn't let me, I pressed on the message when I got it in the talk section but it wasn't working ! it's very difficult to get a proper answer out of someone!

How do you think we can help?

Um, don't delete my changes?! put them back up! I spent ages doing that and every other suburb in Sydney has a detailed page with lots of information on the types of residents living there, the different groups and the history of the page etc etc, no one had done sandy point yet so I did it and put very relevant and factual information there! I had only just submitted it when your people took it down, how could they have possibly read it in that short amount of time?? and how could they know?

Summary of dispute by Wikipelli

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Sandy Point, New South Wales discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hybrid airship

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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 new user account is unwilling to engage in proper discussion but prefers incivility and warring. You can see much of it at Talk:Hybrid airship. I have tried to use WP:BRD over a section title to draw them into sensible discussion but the user has ignored BRD and continued warring. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I posted on their talk page, started two discussions[7][8], invited other editors to contribute[9][10] and explained about BRD and warring[11][12].

How do you think we can help?

By providing an independent voice with some perceived authority to make the editor aware that their own behaviour has been unacceptable.

Summary of dispute by Cronkurleigh

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

A old user account repeatedly deleted my contributions without discussion, repeatedly edited them to suit his perspective wihout discussion, and only engaged in discussion after multiple deletions of my contributions. The page had two notifications from Wikipedia for out of date "current" information and "citation" problems. I have endeavoured to clean all this up, correct historical inaccuracies with referenced material, and in general bring an unattended page up to date and more engaging information. The complaintant has taken unintended offense to comments in response to his belated efforts at discussion - which consisted soley of protocol and methodology instead of discussing information relevant to the page itself.

I encourage those in dispute resolution to review the page before my contributions, and the improved result. I would also point out that I have encouraged the conplaintant to engage in bringing the page up to date and increase its factual relevance, and his first response is to come complain to you after being hostile from the start to any contribution I have made, the delete key being his primary weapon. Cronkurleigh (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hybrid airship discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pakistan International Airlines

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

For Pakistan international airlines article, there is a banner saying uncited info will be challenged and removed. So I've been providing sources for PIA fleet section. Unfortunately, user Naved245 keeps changing article. He does not offer edit summary. He does not add sources. I tried to search online to see if he was right and give sources for his edits. Unfortunately, his sources is the fan page of PIA. There, numerous users post images on A380 in PIA livery or recycle info (I.e., quote articles from news that are old and change the dates). Regardless, I suppose wiki does not allow sources to be unofficial facebook page. My sources have been directly the companies website and contempory news articles.

I tried to add dispute banner as I asked user to discuss the edits with me numerous time in edit summary. He won't message me. He also removes dispute banner. I asked an admin, jim1138. He reverted back the article. Naveed245 changed the article again to very old format. Jim1138 then gave him warning on his page and I also left message on his page but he won't respond back.

If I go and edit the PIA fleet section, he'll undo changes quickly. Moreover, he edits page over 3 times which makes it harder for me to undo his mistakes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to use dispute banner. Asked a moderator for help. Left message on his talk page. He won't reply.

How do you think we can help?

Ban the user for a week. When I change the article with actual sources, he will try to change it again. After seeing the ban message, he will go to his talk page perhaps and perhaps settle the dispute with me. I, and a moderator, tried to get him to settle dispute but he removes banned and is not offering communication.

Summary of dispute by Naveed245

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Pakistan International Airlines discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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 piece is a POV entry that I am attempting to make more NPOV and consistent with sources and WP Policy. I am not up to speed on many policies and more experienced editors are removing my edits for apparently illegitimate reasons an reintroducing material that is un-sourced, POV, or abuses sources. I know I'm "right" but this is getting me into trouble that where I don't fully understand or appreciate the nuances of policy or when they should or should not be ignored. Consensus has not been reached in many areas as there are opinions unsupported by sources than there are editors looking at the source. I feel that I am improving this entry and the reversions that introduce POV poorly sourced material by more experienced editors are affecting the quality of Wikipedia. I have made many mistake in this process and I take ownership of those mistakes.

@Mark Miller, Forgive me if I have opened an incorrect dispute resolution method. I believed this was the appropriate next step in resolving our disagreements. If another resolution method is appropriate, Please direct me to it. Thank you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

positive: Talk page discussions and messages (entry and user), logic as persuasion, multiple sources, impeccable sources, examples negative: getting in trouble with Policy, over-reacting.

How do you think we can help?

Please decide opinion from sourced fact and entry compliance with WP policy. Decide whether consensus can be reached to introduce ideas not conveyed in sources or to violate policy. Decide whether reversion edits can be made with out legitimate reason based in policy (can edits be reverted because they are not liked or did get prior consensus.

Summary of dispute by Second Quantization

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Considering they haven't opened a clear thread on this topic on the talk page, DR is premature, Second Quantization (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by TheWizardOfAhz

Subject has totally jumped the gun here: DR isn't warranted at this time, as the talk page (and reverted edits) clearly show that he is attempting to add material to a known fantasy conspiracy theory, and thus imply that said conspiracy has actual merit. He makes extremely wordy entries on the page's Talk, and is now attempting to use a single entry in the OED as backing for all of this.

Summary of dispute by Dbrodbeck

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Acroterion

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

DR is premature. Talkpage discussions attempted by Johnvr4 are rambling, oblique references to the Oxford English Dictionary, radar-masking chaff and other tangents, and responses from Johnvr4 to inquiries have been vague at best, and clearly unsuccessful at gaining a consensus. The complainant appears to be trying to push the article into granting credence to a fringe subject using his personal interpretation/synthesis of tangential souces. He has been advised of potential fringe science sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: There hasn't been a full discussion because I'm damned if I understand where Johnvr4 is going on the talkpage, and he's not responded coherently when questioned. On the article side, he's trying to present a fringe conspiracy theory as fact. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TenOfAllTrades

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Agree with Acroterion; this seems premature and unnecessary. A couple of days ago, I asked Johnvr4 to specifically describe the edits he thought should be made to the article, and to identify the specific sources he wished to cite in support of his proposals: [13]. I specifically noted – in both the body and the edit summary of that post – that the purpose of my request was to focus the talk page discussion on article editing (by implication, to reduce the use of the talk page for general chat and bickering about the topic). Johnvr4's immediate and direct response was make no edit proposals, but instead to demand a source supporting a talk page comment I had made back in January.

Opening a full case here would just invite Johnvr4 to (continue to) waste the time of additional editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Chemtrail conspiracy theory discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hello participants and welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I see an extensive discussion that began on Feb 20 with the OP posting a detailed comment that was about their concern of policy and then posted a number of sources and was met with an accusation of using the talk page as a message board. I feel this filing has sufficient discussion. I am not opening the filing. I am just pointing out that discussion does not appear to be an issue. If another volunteer disagrees I will not object to their closing. [Manual signing to avoid early opening-Mark Miller 00:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)]

Hi User:Mark Miller, I agree that the talk page discussion has been sufficient to warrant a DRN filing. I also think a moderated discussion would be helpful in this situation. However, today the filing party has been blocked for one week, so on that basis I would recommend that this case be closed allowing the editor to refile, if they so choose, at the end of their block.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Florida's 13th congressional district special election, 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

I tried editing a sentence in the article that was unbalanced, due to notable sources (political scientists representing political science) having more nuanced and skeptical takes, and due weight required allowing me to reference these RS.

Collect wants only: "Some political experts viewed this election as a possible bellwether for the fall 2014 elections." He has an unnecessarily large and redundant amount of sources, and I disagree with the 'political experts' since he only references journalists (none of whom seem to have the relevant qualifications). I prefer "Given this, some journalists called the election a bellwether for the 2014 midterm elections. Political scientists cautioned against overinterpreting the results, as with any special election." I reduced the number of his references and added my own to support my edit. This is different to my original edit as I was trying to find something that could satisfy both of us. (Originally it had, roughly: "Thus given the district's very evenly divided nature, some pundits believe this election will be a bellwether for the 2014 elections. However, professional election analysts warn against reading into the results of this special election, as with any special election.")

In the talk page he has constantly been rude and uncooperative, dismissing my suggestions, implying my edits are "meaningless drivel" and driven by bad faith. In addition he posted on RS/N (without notifying me); he didn't bring up the disagreement, and then claimed (despite RfC and the talk page) that it gave him a consensus for his edit.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I was the one who brought the issue up on the talk page. I've shown a willingness to refine the edit to try and accommodate the points he's raised, whereas he has ignored and exacerbated my concerns. At his request I conducted a RfC, all of which were sympathetic to my edit. I have kept civil and notified him of my actions. He has not extended the same courtesy.

How do you think we can help?

Given his uncooperativeness (not open to suggestion, not looking for a way to make the edit satisfy both of us), and the fact I think I'm right on the political science substance/notability, at this point I think this will only be resolved with a consensus on the talk page in favor of my edit - by hearing from you, in conjunction with the RfC comments (none of which excluded my edit, calling it reasonable to include both views). Thank you

Summary of dispute by Collect

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

This is a content dispute. No one at RS/N disputed that the sources used are 1. reliable per WP:RS and 2. Support that claim that

Some political experts called the election a possible bellwether

This board is ill-suited to tendentious claims that the people are not "political experts because they do not have advanced degrees in "Political Science" and I fear I demur on rehashing the walls of text from the article talk page.

The IP ,meanwhile is tendentiously edit warring for his own version -- which attributes the views to "some journalists" and then says the experts say we can not call anything a "possible bellwether" because you do not know for sure whether it is or not. The journalists and non-journalists cited include some of the highest ranked political experts in the country. This has been rehashed quite sufficiently, and his edit was not the long-standing version of the article, but was his "bold edit" on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florida%27s_13th_congressional_district_special_election,_2014&diff=599255756&oldid=599231676] 12 march which made the change he insists was the status quo ante. The "some" language was there until 12 March [14] and had been in the article since [15] November 2013.

Meanwhile the RfC is open, as is the RS/N discussion, and opening a "third front" is simply forumshopping. I decline the invitation to continue the discourse. Cheers Collect (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Florida's 13th congressional district special election, 2014 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odesza

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

On the article "Odesza", which I created, I had a bit of information has to how the duo got their name. The user RuhiAndre deleted it. I undid his edit, explaining that I had listed a source for the information, and unless he had a counter-source the info should stay. He has ignored me and gone on to delete the info 3 times. I also have my suspicions that he is close to the subject, as his only contributions to this site were trying to get the article "Odesza" created for nearly a year at this point. His requests had been denied repeatedly, but he kept trying religiously. Now, after the article has been created (by me), he claims to know things only someone close to the subject would know, as he made the claim that the info was wrong, but could not prove it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

On the edit history page I specifically outlined why the bit of information could not be removed, as the information had a source and he had no counter-source except for his own word. I also posted on his talk page days ago my suspicions of him being close to subject, but I have apparently been ignored. He has been extremely unresponsive.

How do you think we can help?

Either get him to finally respond or ban him from editing that specific article.

Summary of dispute by RuhiAndre

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Odesza discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

License to Kill

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Taking it to the talk page is a waste of time if nobody if nobody goes over there but SchroCat and I and that's what is exactly happening right this minute. SchroCat has a losing position but is hoping nobody else cares. A remote talk page is a perfect place to get that. Why else would he turn down DRN?...William 14:17, 23 March 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

The article says in its synopsis section that the character Della was raped and killed. Della was killed. Her death happened off screen. On screen her body was shown with blood on her chest. The words rape or sexual assault are never used in the film. I tried removing the word rape but my edits were reverted.

This dispute was discussed on the talk page [16] of the editor who reverted my edits. (That thread has since been deleted) I asked him to tell me where in a scene rape was mentioned. He provided no such answer, just added a reference to the article. The reference is a book where an author gave his opinion and opinion isn't the movie. I said this to the reverting editor. The reverting editor then said my removal of the word rape was opinion. I then said it was fact, because of the film's non mention of rape or sexual editor. That editor then deleted that comment and eventually the whole thread. Here is the last version of the thread before his deletions

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Mentioned above.

How do you think we can help?

The synopsis needs to have the word rape deleted. It didn't happen on screen and is never said(Or similar such words) in the film. An academic source is an opinion of what may or may not intended or implied but facts are facts. Rape never took place in the film and shouldn't therefore be mentioned in the synopsis.

Summary of dispute by SchroCat

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

License to Kill discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I found the talk page discussion of the disputed issue. Although it is brief, I don't foresee a continued discussion in a non-moderated setting as being productive. Therefore, if User:SchroCat is willing to participate in a moderated discussion here, then I am willing to accept this case. We'll wait and see if SchroCat gives a summary of his/her version of the dispute.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sevastopol

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Sevastopol is a city currently in territorial dispute by Ukraine and Russia. Because of this, several editors have tried to reflect this change on the Sevastopol article. However, every time a user attempts to include such changes, @Jojhutton keeps reverting every single change claiming they violate WP:UNDUE.

I attempted to bring the issue to WP:ANI but no admin wants to get involved. I cannot bring the issue to WP:RFCU because that requires two users to contact the individual on his talk page.

I'm left without options. The individual has effectively seized control over the article through WP:OWN.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I attempted to reason with the person in his talk page, as he requested, but he then closed the discussion. I opened a discussion on the talk page but the reverts continue. We showed him reliable sources backing up these changes but the reverts continue.

How do you think we can help?

User must understand that his personal opinion must be put aside when it's refuted by reliable sources.

Summary of dispute by Ezhiki

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.


Summary of dispute by Jack Bornholm

The above statement is true. Many solutions to how we should best show the current disputed status have been suggested and also implemented in the article. But it seems that @Jojhutton feels that he knows best. And therefore there is no reason to reach and consensus on the talkpage. Jack Bornholm (talk)


Summary of dispute by Jojhutton

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.


Summary of dispute by Kudzu1

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.


Summary of dispute by QuickClown

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.


Summary of dispute by 88.96.14.189

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.


Sevastopol discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer.

The ANI discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive832#Reverts performed on Sevastopol article without explanation. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I just checked to see why nobody has commented, and discovered that our robot didn't send out any announcements. :( Sorry for the delay; I am sending them out manually now. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I am still waiting for comments. In 24 hours, if there aren't any that disagree with the two already posted, I am going to close this as failed and advise the participants regarding what the next step should be. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. Issue is now solved. Content was incorporated into the article. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kava

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

I noticed, a few days ago, that the section within the subject "Kava" under section- "Strains and Origins" has a note saying-" please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources" . When I looked in History I saw that someone had added a link to the referenced book which is the basis for the information within the section specifically about Hawai'i kava. Someone deleted the entry. I do not understand the rationale he/she uses. Even though it is coded and discussed there. It is over my head. You can you follow the thread within 'History'/kava/strains and origins' and help me understand the problem. Thanks if you can help

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked another editor but no reply

How do you think we can help?

By just explaining the rationale as to why that link/citation cannot be used. Explain it in language for someone who is not computer literate, me.

Summary of dispute by RedPen

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Kava

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mitsuo Fuchida

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

I am the author of a major work on the life of the historical figure of Mitsuo Fuchida, the pilot who led the attack on Pearl Harbor. The book is entitled "Wounded Tiger" and is endorsed by the world's leading historian on both Fuchida and Peral Harbor, professor Donald Goldstein, author of many WWII books. Editors Binksternet and Jonathan Parshall have been engaged in an ongoing attack based on conjecture to belittle Mr. Fuchida, which I've not been able to resolve as I'm outnumbered.

But this is not the immediate issue. When I listed my book in the Bibliography, Binksternet immediately deleted it (as is has been his habit for many edits on this page, even though I've spent a great portion of my life on this one story and am highly qualified) on the basis of conflict of interest. This seems outside the genuine realm of COI as it would only force me to have someone else place the book back into the Bibliography as it is a legitimate historical work.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have exhausted myself earlier this year trying to make the article objective to no avail. The Binksternet/Parshall POV is beyond my ability to correct. I have not tried to fix this edit as I'm outnumbered.

How do you think we can help?

Undo the deletion and warn Binksternet against further deletions and POV pushing.

Summary of dispute by Binksternet/DYK

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Mitsuo Fuchida discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Water fluoridation controversy

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

I requested 3 additions to be made to the list of 'Statements against water fluoridation' in the locked article of 'Water fluoridation controversy'. All i get was endless requests to fulfill wikipedia guidelines (which i have), every time i address the request, the goal post are moved. it has become clear to me that this is just a tactic to prevent addition of legitimate material to that article by 1-2 self appointed gate keepers of the article. the same thing is being repeated with my two new requests.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

none

How do you think we can help?

You need is read the talk page. and see that what these two editors are doing ,it is not real discussion , but a way of preventing addition to the section of 'Statements against water fluoridation'. i would like for these additions to be put in the locked article. Thank you

Summary of dispute by Daffydavid

The IP hopping editor is upset that his material has not been posted to the article page. As discussed at the talk page, I have concerns with WP:Notability among other issues. The statement in question is a 7 year old blog post with inaccurate material in it. I have requested a newer reference from the IP editor that covers the material in question from a WP:RS, but instead he has taken the conversation here. I have taken no ownership over the article and any other editor can approve his edit if they see fit to do so. His second and third requests are new and while I have commented, I haven't set the flag to answered because the IP editor just resets it EVERY time. The IP hopping editor has been invited to create an account several times. The user appears to be both a WP:SPA and a WP:SOCK and really needs to read WP:NPA

Summary of dispute by HiLo48

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

While this issue "has" been discussed on the Talk page, it hasn't been for very long - just over a day between the first request and bringing this here. Wikipedia has no deadline, and it would be wise for this editor to stop demanding the virtually instant posting of their fairly dramatic change to the POV of the article. Other views back at the article Talk page could be obtained over the next several days or weeks. Patience is the answer here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Water fluoridation controversy discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assassination threats against Barack Obama

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

I have been attempting to show an editor that facts about Obama's racial identity on a scientifically factual level are purposely being repressed in the aforementioned article. He arrogantly informed me that my last request was rejected, but, no one had the decency to inform me. I don't appreciate it, and, if no one contacts me on this attempt, I will edit as I see fit and take this a step higher. Wikipedia should address this, because Scjessey is attempting to repress facts, citing Wikipedia's protocol as the reason.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have talked about this at length, and Scjessey feels as if he is correct no matter what. He appears to only be be concerned with protocol, and not the facts.

How do you think we can help?

CONTACT ME with your decision on my talk page. It is not my intention to be rude, and I do not feel that I have to win; the facts are the facts, and they are being repressed in this situation. If the reason I cannot edit with facts (which Wikipedia claims is what I am allowed to do), then please let me know why I cannot edit this page.

Summary of dispute by Scjessey

68.53.216.160 wants to change the description of Barack Obama from "African American" to "biracial". While this is technically true, by longstanding convention (following numerous consensus-forming discussions) the project always uses "African American" when referring to Barack Obama, consistent with Wikipedia's polices and guidelines on weight, sourcing and verifiability. This is because of a preponderance of reliable sources doing the same thing and the fact that Obama self-identifies in this way. This was explained at considerable length, despite having to first endure a personal attack. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Assassination threats against Barack Obama discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

DRN coordinator's note: I'm afraid that the listing party may have some unrealistic expectations about what can happen here and how this forum works. I'm going to leave a note on his user talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK)

I'll take this case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Keithbob. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Core of the dispute

Let's first establish the core of the dispute. My understanding is that the core of the dispute involves this edit. Is that correct?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Technically, you are indeed correct. One could argue that the dispute did not in fact begin until I reverted that edit. My reason for doing so is essentially summed up in Q2 of the FAQs for the parent article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, what I should have said was: The core of the dispute involves the content contained in that edit, as DRN is not a forum for the discussion of behavior ie reverts, incivility etc. I just want to clarify what content is being disputed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't object to the content itself. It is factually accurate and I have no disagreement with the filing party on that; however, the term does not enjoy the same support in reliable sources as "African American" does (by at least an order of magnitude). Also relevant is that this article exists because of a decision to make Barack Obama a summary style article, so conventions and consensus adopted in the parent article naturally propagate to daughter articles like this one. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So the dispute is over the use of the term African American vs. biracial in the sentence

  • Security was increased early for Barack Obama due to fears of possible assassination attempts by white supremacist or other racist groups or individuals against the first biracial major party presidential nominee.

User:68.53.216.160 do you agree that this is the core of the dispute? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any point to this?

I don't think this is going anywhere. The filing party has made no attempt to discuss this matter since raising it here, apart from this unhelpful comment on their talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I will give it a few more hours, then close it. A request for comments may be the best way forward after this showing.... --Mdann52talk to me! 08:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christ myth theory

Latest comment: 10 years ago31 comments10 people in discussion
  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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 is a content dispute, involving the very definition of the topic. The topic is complex, but a group of editors is determined to avoid acknowledging the complexity and persists in trying to define the topic in a misleading manner. Despite long discussions and many attempts at compromise, the matter is deadlocked, and now those editors are trying to shift the discussion away from content and make it out to be a conduct issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed extensively at the talk page, but remains deadlocked.

How do you think we can help?

The sources are clear and obvious. However one editor is now trying to convert this into a conduct issue to avoid discussing the sources. I hope an independent person or persons could help to refocus the discussion on the main issue.

Summary of dispute by Akhilleus

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Atethnekos

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The dispute is about how to define mythicism. One side thinks that it is acceptable to include in the definition the view that "The Jesus of the gospels did not exist" and that it is unacceptable to define it merely as something like "That the historical Jesus did not exist". Another side thinks the opposite, that it is acceptable to define it merely as something like "That the historical Jesus did not exist" and that is is unacceptable to include in the definition the view that "The Jesus of the gospels did not exist". Attempts at reaching a compromise between the two positions that is acceptable to everyone has not been entirely successful, as can be seen in this table of positions. There has been more conversation on the talk page however, and maybe views have changed.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bill the Cat 7

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I agree with Ckruschke and Smeat75. The CMT has just one meaning. If it didn't, there would be no use for this article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by bloodofox

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I wonder where this article ends and where (the unfortunate rather poor) Jesus Christ in comparative mythology begins. I'm not sure if this article is necessary to begin with. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ckruschke

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Seems to be kind of early to open a dispute resolution. This page has many editors with clear POV's and has a long history of contentious discussions - I'm not sure that this most recent one is worse than any of the others. After a month or so of very polite Talk dialogue and concensus building, this current issue has been going on for about a week over many many threads and IMO patience is wearing thin and tempers are flaring. From This Talk thread, it appears that there is a majority concensus for one version of the Christ Myth Theory definition (version 9h) which the originator of this thread is the only notable opposition that I know of. My suggestion would be to either adopt v9h or keep the current lede followed by closing all discussion on the CMT definition for the time being. Ckruschke (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Summary of dispute by Mmeijeri

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I think it is too early for a resolution procedure. As far as I'm concerned the process of deliberation is still in progress. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Paul Barlow

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Radath

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Smeat75

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Wdford says in his statement "The topic is complex, but a group of editors is determined to avoid acknowledging the complexity and persists in trying to define the topic in a misleading manner." By "a group of editors", he means everyone but him. He admits he finds the subject confusing [17] but insists on inserting a definition of the Christ Myth Theory that only he supports.

Long discussions, input from other editors, negotiated compromises, achieve nothing as he repeatedly reverts to his preferred version, ignoring everything that has been said by anyone else and then repeatedly puts a neutrality tag on the article until his version is accepted, which is not going to happen. Every other editor currently working on the article is willing to discuss, compromise and work towards consensus, which has nearly been reached over the last few days, but he will veto any definition except for his preferred one because he says that any other is "false".

That is why I think this has now moved from a content dispute to WP:NOTGETTINGIT:In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

I suggested taking this dispute, when I still thought it was a content dispute, to this noticeboard a couple of days ago, but no one gave me any feedback about it so I did not pursue the idea. Maybe an outside opinion would help, but I think anyone who attempts to resolve this dispute should be neutral,if possible,on the subject matter, which is contentious.Just reading through the current talk page, though, is likely to be a daunting prospect for anyone not already interested in the subject.Smeat75 (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Christ myth theory discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I took the liberty of dropping a notice on everyone's talk page. You can ignore it if you have already commented. After 24 hours I am going to open this up for discussion even if some people have not commented. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, I am opening this up for discussion. The first question is this; some here think this is premature. Agree? Disagree? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Disagree: I don't know if we are going to get anywhere further on the talk page. From my side the sources are clear, and the definition of mythicism has been misrepresented completely in the current version. The lead was stable for a long time on a definition that was acceptable, although not perfect. Then an attempt was made to improve it but made it worse, and now a totally POV definition stands in the lead. The main supporter of that POV has made it clear on the talk page that she will not accept any definition which clarifies that the myth theory is referring to the Jesus of the gospels, so I don't think waiting will solve anything. Wdford (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is that since this process has begun we might as well continue it in the hope that it will achieve something. From "my side" the sources are also very clear. When the above post refers to "the main supporter of that POV", I am undoubtedly the person that is meant, however just because I have been the most active in posting to the talk page from that standpoint over the last week or so I don't think that makes me the "main" supporter, there are several others, none more important than the rest.Smeat75 (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The statement was made on this page by an editor that "The CMT has just one meaning. If it didn't, there would be no use for this article." Actually this is not at all true. The reliable sources clearly show that there are two versions of the Christ Myth Theory, as well as a third (false) version dreamed up by the critics of the CMT. The main definition – articulated by Doherty and approved by Ehrman the critic – is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." Ehrman then acknowledges that another group of mythicists "present a slightly different view", namely that "there was indeed a historical Jesus but that he was not the founder of Christianity, a religion rooted in the mythical Christ-figure invented by its original adherents." Both groups of proponents clearly accept that there may have been a historical person or persons underlying the gospel stories, but both groups make it clear that he/they were not the "gospel Jesus". All I have been asking for is that this reality is acknowledged in the definition as per the first sentence - the CMT does NOT say "there was no Jesus at all", it says "there was no Jesus as described in the gospels." If the POV editors cannot accept this wording, which stood for a long time while the lead was stable - then we need to use the full definitions and let the readers decide for themselves. However we cannot upload a misleading definition parroted by the critics of the CMT, which defines and then criticizes a theory which the proponents of the CMT do not espouse to begin with. Wdford (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought the only question for discussion here at the moment was "is it premature for this to be at DRN?"Smeat75 (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
In general, I like to keep the discussion structured everyone focused on the question at hand, on the principle that freeform commenting didn't work on the article talk page and thus is unlikely to work here. On the other hand, some amount of good-faith changing the subject is normal human behavior, and anyone can write anything they please as long as it isn't total gibberish, or actually harmful (See WP:TPOC. I am going to ask Wdford to hang on to those arguments. We will have a section for them soon.
Off topic soapboxing.

Hi, I'm "Jesus" I can't help but think this is important, I'm the "Lost Dauphin" if that helps, but I [Prince du sang] give full rights of the "Liberal" party to have editing power over the "Conservative" party" within this dispute...Signed 14th descendent of Francis II, Duke of Lorraine P.S. "I keep getting stuck here all the time" Wnicholas70 (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason to close this as premature, so on the the next question. I would like everyone's brief take on what the core dispute here is and how much support each position has right now. One sentence is ideal, two are OK. Something like "the dispute is over Ginger vs. Mary Ann. four editors prefer Mary Ann, Two prefer Ginger, and one prefers The Professor." You will have ample opportunity to argue why your position is right later. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The dispute is over whether to define the Christ myth theory as "the position that the Jesus of the gospels" did not exist. After many long discussions, and an editor going to the trouble of creating a table to indicate editors' positions, seven people,everyone except one editor, have agreed on a definition that does not include the phrase "the Jesus of the gospels", as you can see here [18](v9h).Smeat75 (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I was going to say that I thought it was premature and gave an extended reason, but I guess we were editting simultaneously...
I think we had narrowed down our possibilities for an acceptable version before the topic was somewhat derailed because, IMO, Wdford refused to accept the version that (as far as I know) all the other editors on the page seemed ok with (see the table showing who agreed to what version on the Talk page). Soon after Wdford and Smeat75 somewhat "got into it" and the Wdford opened this DRN thread. So when you are on the verge of an agreement and the only holdout opens a DRN, seems like this is a breakdown in and/or a refusal to bide by the concensus. Ckruschke (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
As a general comment, not about the specifics of this case, when you have a "one against many", the reason is often because the one isn't willing to follow consensus. Often, but not always. Sometimes a bunch of editors with a certain POV take over a page. Sometimes the one is trying to point out that the many are violating a policy and just isn't very good at communicating. In those cases I recommend an RfC to get the consensus of the wider community. Those kind of things do happen, and DRN is a good place to take it if they do, but as I said, the usual case is one editor disagreeing about something that is a normal editorial decision that should be settled by consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
We managed to reach a consensus on a new definition, so the lede was changed. Wdford didn't like the new definition, and made a BOLD new edit, which I REVERTed because I felt it needed to be DISCUSSed first. A new section was created and we had some discussion. Someone created a table of options, which has now been mostly filled out. Then Wdford brought up a new piece of information that suggests different scholars have proposed different definitions, including one by Ehrman which Wdford argues is much broader than the ones we had previously seen. This has made me move to the undecided column until I've read the sources myself and we've had the opportunity to discuss this further. As far as I'm concerned, this is the Talk page process working as it should. Then Smeat75 and Wdford got into a fight and the thing ended up here. I don't think that was necessary, and I hope it won't stifle discussion. But as long as we're here, we might as well try to take advantage of a fresh outside perspective. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, the version currently in the lead is not something *anyone's* agreed to, actually. There's an "or" instead of "and" in a crucial spot. The definition which won consensus on the talk page is based on Ehrman, but Wdford seems to think that Ehrman's definition isn't adequate to cover the material he discusses in his book. This attempt to use a source against itself doesn't seem like a good procedure to me. Of all the options discussed recently, I prefer the version 9c, which is supposed to be live in the article: "The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory or Jesus mythicism) is the proposition that it is highly unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." Though honestly, I would prefer to remove "highly unlikely" from that sentence. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed that 9h is basically what I prefer. So here's my one-sentence statement of the dispute: seven editors have agreed that the first sentence of the article could read "The Christ Myth Theory...is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels", and one editor does not agree to this. (But I should note that other wordings of the first sentence have been acceptable to different numbers of editors.) --Akhilleus (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I am waiting for Wdford to post his/her brief take on what the core dispute here is and how much support each position has, and then he can follow that with a short summary of his single best argument for why he should prevail over what appears to be a strong consensus. Everyone should keep in mind that if Wdford can show that everyone else is violating a policy such as WP:V or make a convincing argument that if we go to an RfC a bunch of editors will support his view, either of those will override a local consensus or at least bump it up for an RfC to decide. Wdford should keep in mind that if he fails to do this, consensus wins. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the current procedure, but I'm hoping it doesn't end in a ruling, but is more of a coaching /shepherding thing to speed the process along. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
This is not a simplistic topic – there are multiple views and definitions of the Christ Myth Theory. This variety of positions is not adequately reflected in the definition in the lead of the article, which is currently using a one-dimensional definition that excludes and conflicts with the positions of several major proponents, and this is contrary to both WP:V and WP:NPOV.
Per Bart Ehrman, a leading scholar in the field and a critic of the CMT, an "exhaustive elaboration of the position" is presented by Earl Doherty, whom Ehrman describes as "one of the leading proponents of Jesus Mythicism". Per Doherty the CMT is "the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." Ehrman later notes that another group of mythicists "present a slightly different view." The leading proponent of this camp, per Ehrman, is GA Wells, whom Ehrman describes as "the best known mythicist of modern times." Wells is adamant that a historical Jesus existed, and he states inter alia that: "My concern has been to counter the widespread belief that these non-Christian references establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a Jesus who lived and died as in the gospels …." Both of these groups thus accept the existence of a historical person/s underlying the myth, but they both reject the Jesus as described in the gospels. All I want is for the article to reflect this reality correctly, as it did until recently.
I would be happy to accept Proposal v9h as mentioned above, provided it is worded slightly differently to reflect the reality that many leading mythicists do in fact accept a historical Jesus-person, but that they reject the Jesus of the gospels. Wdford (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Section Break 01

OK, I have read all of the above, some of the talk page comments, and examined some of the recent edits to the article. Here is the situation as I see it, and my suggestions for what to do next.

This is a classic one-against-many content dispute. As I mentioned before, when I see a OAMCD, I look for certain things. Here is what I am seeing so far:

I see no evidence that either side is breaking any Wikipedia policy. If either side was violating something like WP:OR or WP:BLP, that would be our answer, but nobody is.

I see no evidence that the editing of this article is dominated by editors with a particular religious point of view, or that the wider Wikipedia community would overrule the local consensus if asked. Of course that is a judgement call,, and I could be wrong.

There has been plenty of discussion, with ample opportunities to find a compromise that everyone can live with. More of the same is unlikely to change the situation.

This leaves the person with the minority view the following options:

  • Find some new argument or new evidence that will convince someone to agree with your preferred content.
  • If you think that posting an RfC will result in a majority of outside editors agreeing with you, do that. I don't think it will work, but I could be wrong.
  • Accept the consensus and move on to other pages. There are some choice opportunities available; for instance Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman) is just a stub. Fill it out with a well-sourced article that properly describes Ehrman's arguments. I don't see any pages for any of Earl J. Doherty's works. Create one.

Finally, some advice for the majority. Be very careful that you aren't throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In these situations, the person in the minority often makes some valid points that get ignored while his other arguments are being rejected. Try really hard to find those valid points.

I am now going to throw this open for totally unstructured comments. Say anything you want about the article content, sources, etc. You might want to avoid repeating arguments that have already been posted on the article talk page, but you are not required to do so. Especially valuable: anything that starts with "Guy, you are wrong." (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I really hope that "the person with the minority view" will, as you say, now accept the consensus. The discussion on this board has been a perfect demonstration of the way discussions have gone on the talk page for a week or so. A group of editors point out that to define the CMT as the position that "the Jesus of the gospels" didn't exist" is unacceptable (we think it is inaccurate and misleading and directly contrary to many many reliable sources). Another group of editors, who aren't really bothered about the phrase "the Jesus of the gospels", nevertheless listen to what the first group has said and we work together to compromise and achieve a definition we can all agree on. Then "the person with the minority view" comes along at the end of this process and says "Fine, we can have that definition as long as it is changed to say that the CMT is the position that "the Jesus of the gospels" didn't exist", which is exactly 100% the whole thing that there was a problem with in the first place, and puts a neutrality tag on the article until it is changed to say that. Since the "person with the minority view" opened the discussion on this board I really hope he will accept the independent review that has been given and accept the advice.Smeat75 (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Very well then. It amazes me that prominent proponents of a theory can be ignored in the very definition of their own theory without it constituting a contravention of WP:V or WP:NPOV, but so be it. I will accept v9h, and will bide my time until some independent editors come along. Wdford (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I want to emphasize the fact that if you really believe that independent editors will agree with you. you don't have bide your time until they come along. You can post an RfC (See WP:RfC for details), and if the consensus goes your way, the other editors must accept that consensus. I want to make sure that I am being completely fair to you, and I wouldn't want my comments to discourage you from posting an RfC. As I said before, I could very well be wrong about your chances. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@Guy: In my experience an Rfc almost always attracts third parties who are anxious to help, but who have no knowledge of the particular topic and who largely back the majority on the basis of process rather than content. In this case two different major groupings of CMT proponents clearly state their positions, and per WP:NPOV and WP:V these proponents are supposed to be given due weight, but that is not being allowed to happen here. If you can see no problem with that then an Rfc is unlikely to help, as you correctly point out. What is needed here are independent editors who understand the topic. All POV’s are over-ruled eventually, it’s just a matter of time. Thank you for your efforts. Wdford (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

This article lacks a neutral point of view, I have already made my case to the neutral point of view noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_45#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article) but after waiting for 2 and a half months it only stated the below stated cite error. I think article being biased should be more important to us. Some unknown IP adressed users are attacking the article using my edits, I know it is not the right way to do things but the reason for that is they finally found a voice in wikipedia. You can see all the reasons for my edits from one of the inolved users talk page;(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LardoBalsamico#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article) which really sumarizes my siutation.- Even though I wrote paragraphs of my reasons the user only answered with one sentence and didn't give any ground for discussing this issue- I can understand the users attacking but don't accept their ways. As you can see from here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:93.115.94.149#About_2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article) I have did the best I can to calm the situation. This article clearly is biased.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have made my case to the articles talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal#A_bit_biased.3F) and also to mentioned users talk pages; (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article), (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LardoBalsamico#2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal_article) I have been patiently waiting for a peacefull solution.

How do you think we can help?

By finalizing this situation and making the article neutral rather then accusatory for one football club. Please take your time to look at my edits and LardoBalsamico's edits. You will clearly see the situation.


Summary of dispute by LardoBalsamico

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

DRN coordinator's note: I am neither taking nor opening this case for discussion at this time. I'd ordinarily close this case for insufficient talk page discussion, but due to its involved procedural history (it was previously listed here in February and closed due to the pending NPOVN listing), I'd like to recommend to the DRN community that we wait to see if the opposing editors, especially LardoBalsamico, weigh in with summaries. (Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has not edited Wikipedia in over a month and may no longer be a variable in this equation.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A question: What will happen if the other users don't participate? The article clearly lacks a neutral point of view, if you read the article you will clealry see it. Meanwhile neither the NPOV board or here is offering me a solution. What should I do next? I am concerned because my request at the NPOV board stayed there for 2 and a half months and the user LardoBalsamico didn't write any respond to there even though he was making edits on wikipedia. I might be wrong this time but I would like to know my options before this case closes.Rivaner (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It really needs more discussion. Wikipedia is built around the notion that matters in dispute should really be worked out between the parties in dispute via discussion at the article talk page and there has been very little there. Even venues like this depend on the parties being willing to engage in discussion and participation here is always voluntary. On the other hand, there are administrators who consider continuing to revert without showing a good faith effort to engage in discussion to be disruptive and subject to blocking or banning. I've described here one way of dealing with someone who will not engage in discussion. Another method is to file a request for comments at the article talk page and invite additional editors into the discussion. If LardoBalsamico doesn't show up before this DRN listing is closed, I'd start by asking him at the article talk page to discuss the matter and putting a cordial note on his user talk page asking him to do so. If he doesn't respond, or does so but does not continue to engage, I'd use one of those two techniques. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lipoic acid

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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 edits to the effects of Lipoic Acid have been consistently reverted. The problem is over the use of sources and the specific wording.

Issue one: A Cochrane Review that states that there are no studies using Lipoic Acid for dementia sufferers is being used to state that Lipoic Acid is not efficacious. My issue is that there are now trials using Lipoic Acid for dementia sufferers. The Conchrane Review is outdated.

Issue two: Alexbrn is using information from a separate review of an sourced article and misattributing it to the original article. My attempts at correcting this were reverted.

Issue three: Attempts at using quantifying findings outside of subjective language were ignored or reverted.

Issue in general: There has been a consistent use of selective sourcing in general in the MEDRS community. I've had long arguments with DocJames over this in the Hypertension page. Extensive editors of articles are effectively given carte blanche ability to reject or support any addition. Any sources that meet even the gold standard heralded by MEDRS is dismissed if the "owner" of an article disapproves of it. It feels as if the rules are just vague enough to allow the insular members to shout "follow MEDRS this post is reverted" whenever they please.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've addressed each member personally. I've made a fairly extensive post on the MEDRS talk page listing my issues. All attempts were either ignored, or misinterpreted. Jytdog has even accused me of having an ax to grind.

How do you think we can help?

Ideally, some person(s) outside of the general dealings could take a look at my objections. Are my objections truly outside of the realm of reasonably? Am I just an idiot having these issue. I'm not selling anything. I'm not a member of any organization. I'm a transhumanist health nut who enjoys reading pubmed. I am the kind of person who will actually read the sources when I read a Wikipedia article. It feels that I'm punished for this. I thought MEDRS was simply a guideline. Not an absolute.

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Yobol

Not nearly ripe for DRN, as the discussion on the talk page just started a few hours ago. Yobol (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Have barely begun to talk. Premature - I barely understand where OP is coming from and do not know why this is so urgent.Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Lipoic acid discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Venus

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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 climate change denier who claims a background in physics and climatology is attempting to dispute the scientifically established position that Venus's high temperature is the result of greenhouse gases. Others have countered that he cannot cite fringe theories, so he has challenged the validity of the sources used and has selectively employed sources already in the article to modify the article itself.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I personally have not been involved in this dispute, as I lack the necessary scientific knowledge

How do you think we can help?

The intervention of someone with the proper scientific background to respond to his criticisms would be best.

Summary of dispute by Douglas Cotton

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.


Fact 1: The temperature of the Venus surface (and its troposphere) rise by about 5 degrees (from 732K to 737K) during the course of its four-month-long day. There is cooling of about 5 degrees at night, so Venus could easily have cooled right down but for new energy that must be coming from the Sun.

Fact 2: As determined from measurements made by Russian probes dropped to the surface of Venus, the mean incident solar radiation reaching the surface is less than 20 watts per square meter, because the CO2 absorbs most incident solar radiation and radiates energy back to space.

Fact 3: If one applies Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for 732K and 737K the difference is about 450 watts per square meter, and so it cannot be direct solar radiation or radiation from the colder atmosphere which is supplying the extra energy into the surface that would be required to raise the surface temperature by 5 degrees.

Hence there is no radiative greenhouse effect on Venus which can be explained with any valid energy budget and corresponding Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. (There is a totally different and valid explanation based on standard physics and supported by evidence such as in the Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube but this is not the issue in this dispute.)

For more detail please see "OFFICIAL COMPLAINT about INCORRECT SCIENCE and ASSERTIVE CLAIMS in this VENUS ARTICLE" in the Venus talk page.

I contend that all reference to "greenhouse effect" and associated citations should be removed from this article in a manner in which I edited the article last week, so that it contains just factual information about Venus and no unnecessary discussion of other planets or contentious greenhouse claims which are discussed in other Wikipedia articles anyway.

Douglas Cotton (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the item "Official complaint about incorrect science and assertive claims in this Venus article" has been removed from the talk page, as well as my responses there to the other parties to this dispute.

I will however watch here for any attempted rebuttal of my points above by anyone with comparable understanding of the physics of radiative heat transfer and thermodynamics.

Douglas Cotton (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cadiomals

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Sailsbystars

This essay summarizes the dispute nicely. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Venus discussion

Hi all. As topics that are broadly related to climate change (and this has become one) is under discretionary sanctions, I have notified Douglas on his talk page that these discretionary sanctions are in place. If this continues, please do seek assistance at ANI or Arbitration Enforcement, as needed. There's no valid dispute here. Closing out the thread. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No-communication theorem

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Disagreement with whether the "Opposing Viewpoints" section should be included. Multiple users have identified issues with it and attempted to remove it, but other users keep reverting it.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page

How do you think we can help?


Summary of dispute by UChr

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I argue that the proof is wrong. I was asked several sources - and I have so gradually added multiple links. In addition, I be criticized that only a minority believe that the sentence is wrong,but that's irrelevant, because my criticism concerns the proof. It would be nice if there were some factual arguments against the criticisms of the proof - for example from professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UChr (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AvalonXQ

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Somephysicist

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

No-communication theorem discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Linux Mint

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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 is a statement about the DistroWatch statistics on the article that an SPA, JohnGoodName and another editor, CodeCat, wants to remove (though reliable sources comment quite heavily on it) or that it needs to be qualified with an WP:UNDUE disclaimer that (1) might not even be factually accurate since it's making assumptions that the reliable sources don't clarify, (2) isn't something that the text even suggests, since xubuntu, kubuntu and others are completely different projects than ubuntu with different entries on DistroWatch and (3) the "dlsclaimer" which is completely unsourced, is far longer than the sourced statement itself. This isn't the first time dispute resolution has been used, and though nothing has changed, JohnGoodName is trying to push the edit once again and is persistently pushing the edit in the article itself using the same convoluted and misleading edit summaries he did last time.

The disclaimer being added is misleading, since it gives the impression that this wouldn't be true if the numbers for any official Ubuntu variants were added together; looking at the numbers for 2012 (the year given) and adding Ubuntu, Lubuntu, Kubuntu, xubuntu, and ubuntu studio together, those numbers still don't equal the number given for Linux Mint, and that is even more true for the 2013 numbers (though 2012 is the number cited in the article). So not only is it WP:UNDUE to make such a disclaimer, it's also completely inaccurate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Besides the prior WP:3O, there has been an WP:AN/I discussion, a WP:AN3 report, and a second WP:3O, all opened by CodeCat, all of which were declined as inappropriate at those forums.

How do you think we can help?

I believe more opinion on this would help, since I can't seem to explain to these two editors why an unsourced, WP:UNDUE, cherry-picking disclaimer doesn't belong on a statement that they'd rather remove but can't.

Summary of dispute by JohnGoodName

I don't think the DistroWatch statement belongs in the article at all. Including it with qualification was only done in a failed attempt to compromise with Aoidh. JohnGoodName (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by CodeCat

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Comment by uninvolved party, User:Codename Lisa

I just saw the discussion and out of curiosity, inspected the talk page and the conflict background. I am afraid this sentence does not fit the bill for inclusion in Wikipedia at all, because at best, it is trivia without context and at worst, it weasel wording.

As for being trivia, the only connection of this sentence to the subject of the article is the word "Linux Mint"; yet the fact is that subject of the article is an operating system called Linux Mint while the subject of the sentence is the website of an operating system called Linux Mint, not the OS itself. But why must one editor include this sentence at all? To imply that Linux Mint has some sort of superiority over Ubuntu? Now that is pure weasel wording. For all that matters, not all the visits can mean unique human visits; not all of the latter lead to download or support; and not all downloads can mean adoption and userbase.

But no matter how one look at it, this sentence has no place on Wikipedia. Mention of things like reliability of source is irrelevant; they are required, but not enough.

Linux Mint discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
(Comment from dispute resolution volunteer) Alas, I must recuse myself from this case because I have had previous involvement with one of the editors who posted a comment, but I encourage one of the other volunteers to take this case. --Guy Macon 16:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blue Army (Poland)

Latest comment: 10 years ago40 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

I would like to address the re-occurring issues of neutrality in the BA article. These problems are related to two separate texts; the Into paragraph, and the Controversies section. They include the following issues: article structure, POV, stating contested assertions as undisputed facts, disputed text length (undue weight), and use of judgmental language. I would like to re-start with the Controversies section first and continue form the last unfinished discussion on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard.

I would recommend that the first paragraph in the Controversies section be removed: "Although Poles hold the Blue Army in high regard for its successful effort in stopping the Bolshevik advance into Central Europe and securing Poland's unstable eastern border, many ethnic Ukrainians and Jews generally see its conduct during the war in a negative light." This appears to be an opinion narrative, and also redundant in its message; as in the very next paragraph we have a similar statement: "As a result, Jews perceived Haller's Army as particularly harmful to their interests." This item also strikes the issue of undue length of text in this section.

The following text should be removed as it's language is questionable: "In cases when Polish sources couldn't deny the existence of anti-Jewish violence, the authorities alluded that Jews charged too much for food during food shortages, or claimed that the violence was a result of food riots rather than pogroms, and blamed German agents for inciting the violence." The use of the word "riot" seems suspect in referring to an army unit, most likely is a reference to civilian lawlessness, and casts doubt if the statement is referring to the BA specifically. Also, it tried to unfairly and with a potential bias discredit the preceding statement; thus again, creating neutrality issues within the text.

The third paragraph in the Intro section should be removed. It is a reference to events that are still controversial in their scope and accuracy, thus carrying undue weight,. Also, the events in question were strongly condemned by the army leadership, and did not include the majority of troops in the 68,000 strong army. These events were mostly due to a lack of discipline, and individual prejudices, not official policy. Also, many reports were exaggerated and false; purposely inflated by German and Russian government sources. In the end the BA was not sent to the east to pogrom; yet user Faustian has made every effort in the past to demonize the BA, and portray them in a similar role to the Waffen-SS.

Finally, use of words and statements like "among the worst offenders" or "the latter act was referred to by Haller's soldiers as "civilizing" the Jews" is an example of unencyclopedic and/or judgmental language; that disproportionately tries to load the section with trivial information, and thus in the process expanding the length of text that can be perceived as judgmental, and creating issues of undue weight.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed the issues on the article's Talk Page, and opened an earlier Dispute Resolution request, that was closed prematurely due to a lack of participation on the part of user Faustian, who was the dissenting voice in the dispute.

How do you think we can help?

Please review the disputed text in the Controversies section, and the Into paragraph.

Summary of dispute by Faustian

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The other user is a single-issue account largely dedicated to removing negative information about the Blue Army. In this case he is attempting to remove or minimize information about the numerous anti-Jewish violence this infamous military organization was involved with. All information is referenced to reliable sources and the section is not that large - 26 lines of text. If the other user is really concerned about undue weight rather than removing negative information, he should better spend his time expanding other sections rather than trying to remove information. The solution to having more referenced, reliably sourced info in one section than in others isn't to throw away information. The solution is to build up the other sections.

Also, the "controversy" section ought to be renamed in order to reflect what this section is about - antisemitism, or anti-Jewish violence. The word "controversy" seems to be a whitewashing or avoiding the term. Faustian (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

To add to my comment: all wordings that User:COD T 3 are taken from reliably sourced information. An example: Alexander Victor Prusin (2005). Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, pg. 103. "Two Polish units - Poznań regiments and General Jozef Haller's Army - especially earned the reputation as notorious Jew baiters and staged brutal pogroms in Sambor, the Lwow district, and Grodek Jagiellonski."

I would also draw attention to three sourced, relevant, referenced encyclopedic statements removed by User:COD T 3:

  • A statement and prediction by Poland's leader about the Blue Army: "Indeed, Polish leader Józef Piłsudski predicted that the arrival of the Blue Army would "make life miserable for the Jews." Source: Carole Finke. (2006). Defending the Rights of Others The Great Powers, the Jews, and International Minority Protection, 1878–1938. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pg. 230

Frankly, I find it shocking that an editor is allowed to hold an article hostage by censoring relevant, reliably sourced information that he doesn't like.Faustian (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Another editor agrees with my position. He wrote:

"One could argue that the controversy section is too large relative to the article as a whole but that's more of an issue of expanding the rest of the article.VolunteerMarek 06:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)"
And "In my opinion the neutrality tag can be removed. As I stated above, if someone feels that the negative stuff takes up too much space, then what needs to be done is an expansion of the other parts of the article."16:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It really is this one disruptive editor, User:COD T 3, removing info he doesn't like from an article.Faustian (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Blue Army (Poland) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

This case is now open for discussion:

  • I've moved Faustian's post about comments from other editors to his section on the summary of the dispute.
  • User:Faustian, you have personalized your entire opening statement. We are hear to discuss content not allegations of mis-behavior. Further attacks on participants in this DRN discussion will not be tolerated.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Part I of the dispute

COD T 3 Would like to remove this text (see below) from the article but Faustian objects to this removal. Is that correct? Are there sources for these sentences?

  • "Although Poles hold the Blue Army in high regard for its successful effort in stopping the Bolshevik advance into Central Europe and securing Poland's unstable eastern border, many ethnic Ukrainians and Jews generally see its conduct during the war in a negative light."............. "As a result, Jews perceived Haller's Army as particularly harmful to their interests." -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Source for first statement: Antony Polonsky. (1990). My brother's keeper?: recent Polish debates on the Holocaust. Institute for Polish-Jewish Studies: Oxford, England. pg. 100. Three sources back up the other statement: Pavel Korzec. (1993). Polish-Jewish Relations During World War I. In Hostages of modernization: studies on modern antisemitism, 1870-1933/39, Volume 2 Herbert Strauss, Ed. Walter de Gruyter: pp.1034-1035. And Heiko Haumann. (2002). A history of East European Jews Central European University Press, pg. 215. And Justyna Wozniakowska. (2002). Master's Thesis, Central European University Nationalism Studios Program CONFRONTING HISTORY, RESHAPING MEMORY: THE DEBATE ABOUT JEDWABNE IN THE POLISH PRESS pg. 22. Faustian (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I recommend that the statement should be removed to adjust the length of the section from its disproportionately long critique of the BA, which only focuses on Jewish casualties, and thus creates issues of neutrality, undue weight, and POV. To support my claim I would like to put the issue into perspective, something that was never properly illustrated regarding this dispute:
  • During the course of the 2 year conflict, with an army of over 68,000 troops, moving back and forth with the frontline, only about 400-500 Jews were killed as a direct result of the actions committed by the BA. These 400-500 casualties lay in contrast to the total population of 900,000 Jews living in Galicia at the time of the conflict; which accounts for about 0.05% of the population. In fact, it can be argued that the Ukrainians sufferd greater civilian loses as a result of the BA than the Jews; and the British historian Norman Davis (who is a respected expert on the history of Poland) stated that Jewish casualties were "minimal" during the war, especially in contrast to Poles, and Ukrainians, and questioned whether some of the events can be called "pogroms" in the first place. This is why, I strongly argue that the Controversies section creates bias, through its length, and overloaded content; a reader gets an unfair impression that the BA was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews, tens-of-thousands more injured, and pogroming was the only thing they really did. Sources: Dreamland: Europeans and Jews in the Aftermath of the Great War; page 25; Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces; page 43 --COD T 3 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both for your civil responses and for limiting you comment to concerns about content.
  • Regarding this sentence: Although Poles hold the Blue Army in high regard for its successful effort in stopping the Bolshevik advance into Central Europe and securing Poland's unstable eastern border, many ethnic Ukrainians and Jews generally see its conduct during the war in a negative light.
  • And its source: Antony Polonsky. (1990). My brother's keeper?: recent Polish debates on the Holocaust. Institute for Polish-Jewish Studies: Oxford, England. pg. 100. [[20]
While I don't find COD T3's death toll argument to be a compelling reason to remove the sentence (because it's subjective and has a flavor of WP:OR) I do find the cited source to be invalid for such a negative and sweeping statement. The source is an interview and therefore the opinion of one person (Stanislaw Krajewski) who is not a historian and his view is biased because he is, according to WP, a "Jewish minority activist". His opinion is not attributed in the sentence and the sentence overstates what appears to me to be a passing comment made by him in an interview: "General Haller's army, so highly regarded by the Poles. In the collective memory of Jews, Haller's soldiers are remembered as people who went about shaving off Jewish beards." Unless there are better sources, the request to remove the sentence is reasonable.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
That statement is also supported by these sources: Alexander Victor Prusin (2005). Nationalizing a Borderland: War, Ethnicity, and Anti-Jewish Violence in East Galicia, 1914-1920. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, pg. 103. "Two Polish units - Poznań regiments and General Jozef Haller's Army - especially earned the reputation as notorious Jew baiters and staged brutal pogroms in Sambor, the Lwow district, and Grodek Jagiellonski." Pavel Korzec. (1993). Polish-Jewish Relations During World War I. In Hostages of modernization: studies on modern antisemitism, 1870-1933/39, Volume 2 Herbert Strauss, Ed. Walter de Gruyter: pp.1034-1035 "In the martyrology of the Jews during the years 1918-1920, the 'Haller's Boys' (Hallerczycy) won sad repute as the worst torturers of the Jews.'" I think it is reasonable to conclude that the Blue Army was seen in a negative light based on that.Faustian (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Moroever, Stanislaw Krajewski as an important Jewish community leader is a reliable source in terms of what the Jewish community thinks (remember, he is used simply in order to describe Jewish opinion, not to describe historical facts about events that occurred). His opinion was good enough to be included in the work published by Oxford, it ought to be good enough here also.Faustian (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for you thoughts and the additional sources. I'll wait till we hear from CODT3 before I comment further.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
As noted earlier, in my Dispute Overview statement, I commented that the paragraph was a opinion based narrative and thus should be removed, and still recommend the option to take out the text. Also, I question the reasoning behind this statement "he [Stanislaw Krajewski] is used simply in order to describe Jewish opinion, not to describe historical facts about events that occurred". In this case, I don't agree that opinions should be used to expand the text. The article should focus on factual events. Also, regarding the Korzec quote, the use of the term "worst torturers" can be considered puffery, and POV as it lacks any context. As for the casualty number count; point noted that in this case the issue might not have been particularly relevant. --COD T 3 (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Attitudes towards the Blue Army by the Jewish community are notable and factual. I also propose adding reliably sourced information from Jewish newspapers about Jewish protests against Haller, due to the behavior of the Blue Army. This would be appropriate for the article.Faustian (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunatley, the opinions of some individuals in the Jewish community are just that, an opinion; and not at all factual, in many cases. In the article titled Protest Against Reception to General Haller in Boston that was used by you to support your side of the argument, the following comment is made about Gen. Haller who commanded the BA: "General Haller was guilty of perpetrating excesses upon Jews". This statement is an outright misrepresentation of facts. Gen. Hallers was disturbed by the outbreak of anti-jewish incidents among some troops within the army's ranks. Complained about the issue to the US envoy, sent a decree demanding that the abuses stop, and soldiers accused of harassment were court-martialed. These claims are supported by the source references in the actual BA article. So, again I do question to inclusion of opinion narratives in this article. --COD T 3 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The article from the Jewish newspaper is used not as a source of facts abut Haller's army (it is not a reliable source for this, of course) but as a source of facts about the Jewish community, its behavior and its attitudes.Faustian (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, I would like to highlight the fact that this article is about the BA, what it did or did not do. It is not about the Jewish community, and it's sentiments. I am not making this statement to be dismissive, but the article needs focus.--COD T 3 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The impact of the BA on communities and how they viewed the BA is relevant to an article about the BA. And we are not talking abut a lot of info about this impact - only a reliably sourced sentence or two.Faustian (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The WP article under discussion covers events that took place almost 100 years ago and is historical. Per WP:RS we should use the highest quality secondary sources available. In this case it means academic sources written by historians, not magazine articles, news articles and interviews with non-historians. Therefore, the opinion of a modern day activist has no place in the WP article and the citation for page 100 of the book by Antony Polonsky (1990) My brother should be removed. However..... the other two sources cited by Faustian, seem to fit the criteria I've outlined and those writings could be carefully summarized and included in the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
But [21] states ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." Jewish protests are facts reported by newspapers. Stating that Jewish groups protested Haller is a fact, sourced to a newspaper reporting that fact. I agree that it should be limited to that and not to historical events such as what happened in Poland or Ukraine. But a protest sourced to a newspaper article describing it seems to be reliably sourced. Jewish Telegraphic Agency is a reliable news organization.Faustian (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to stress that we already have a statement in the article that notes Jewish assessment of the BA: "As a result, Jews perceived Haller's Army as particularly harmful to their interests." and it is backed up be a source listed above by user Faustian. At this point can we go ahead and remove the debated paragraph, that as noted is a opinion based statement, and is also redundant in relation to the other statement that also notes Jewish disapproval of the BA?
Also, I would like to challenge the other two sources that were cited by user Faustian. In Particular the fact that one of the sources uses a highly controversial term "worst torturers". Worst torturers based on what? In Dreamland: Europeans and Jews in the Aftermath of the Great War on page 25 we can find this statement: "their ordeal [Jews] could not be equated with the raw genocide committed by Petliura's and Denikin's armies in the eastern "integral" Ukraine". I believe that this assessment raises a legitimate issue of POV with the other two sources used to justify user Faustian's arguments. --COD T 3 (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
OR about a reliable source.Faustian (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:RS describes many types of secondary sources which are reliable. But we use appropriate and best quality sources according to the topic. Newspapers are not acceptable for health claims instead WP:MEDRS requires published studies or research reviews. Likewise modern day news reports are not appropriate as citations for an event that took place almost 100 years ago and for which there publications by historical experts, academics etc.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The news reports used as references were from the 1920s. They described the protests. I certainly agree that a modern newspaper article describing eventss from 100 years ago would not be appropriate - a peer-reviewed historical source would be necessary for that. But a newspaper article from a legitimate news source from 1923 describing a protest in 1923 would be appropriate reference for a statement that a protest occurred in 1923. An example here: [22].Faustian (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes I was referring mainly to modern news sources, so I'm glad we agree on that point. Historical news reports could in theory be used but one would need to be very careful not to give them undue weight. In general, academic sources by historians, who summarize this three year event, would be greatly preferred however I would not rule out the proper use of some historical news sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I think a single sentence stating the protests occurred, sourced to a newspaper article from the year of the protests describing that they occurred, would not be excessive or inappropriate.Faustian (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I would again recommend to remove the first paragraph, and if possible start to address other issues with the text. I would like to say that we should not allow a filibuster to take place, where the dispute resolution is stalled by delayed a series of prolonged counter statements. I would like to express my deep concern regarding this issue, as the first Dispute Resolution board that was mediated by User:TransporterMan, had to close prematurely because of non-participation by other parties involved in the dispute.--COD T 3 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
At this point I will go ahead and remove the first paragraph in the Controversies section, as approved by the mediator; since user Faustian was unable to justify the inclusion of the text using acceptable sources. --COD T 3 (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
To summarize: we are discussing a single sentence: [Although Poles hold the Blue Army in high regard for its successful effort in stopping the Bolshevik advance into Central Europe and securing Poland's unstable eastern border, many ethnic Ukrainians and Jews generally see its conduct during the war in a negative light.] The current source is an excerpt from an interview in the book My Brothers Keeper. That source is clearly not acceptable it is biased and does not support the content in that sentence. Therefore the source should be removed. However, I believe there may be other acceptable sources that would support some or all of the content in that sentence. Faustian has proposed two of them and we are discussing them.
The broader issue of NPOV
I'm also getting the sense that this dispute is really about the neutrality of the article as a whole not just about a specific sentence or source. In my reading of the article I would tend to agree that there are some sentences or sections that give undue weight and create POV but I'm not sure that my reasons or problematic sections would match with what CODT3 thinks are problematic. However, my main point here is that, an analysis of the entire article or even the controversies section, line by line, would take weeks and DRN is not the place for such complex and extensive ongoing analysis. So I'm beginning to think that the broadness of this dispute would be better served by a filing for a formal mediation. Any thoughts on this?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The dispute is more encompassing (and I'll try to say this without personalizing too much) and can be boiled down to: is 26 lines of text (I would add about 3-4 lines of more info) describing the Blue Army's antisemitic violence excessive and lead to undue weight issues? Is the way to do this, to remove reliably sourced information from the article or it is rather better to simply add more info to other sections. The user who initiated this DRN feels the info should be removed. I feel it ought to be retained and if the % of the article devoted to this issue is excessive, build up other sections. I have an aversion to removing sourced info that I took the time to find and add.Faustian (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
And I note that another user has added additional background information which further fleshed out parts of the article not involving the violence, thus relieving potential weight: [23].Faustian (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the underlying issue is the neutrality of the section, I do get the impression that the article is being loaded with anything negative about the BA, and tries to exploit several cases of anti-semitism with which the user tries to portray the entire army as being anti-jewish, and clearly the reality on the ground is much different that the over the top demonization of all the troops, and thus the proportionality of the section should reflect that, instead of just writing ad nauseum about this one POV. --COD T 3 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Please provide information from reliable sources that the "reality on the ground" is what you personally claim it was, and we will include it in the article. Also, if you feel the article is "loaded" with negative information, please find positive information and include it in the article for balance, rather than remove information that you do not like. Faustian (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Faustian please note the two below sources, noting the actual scale of the issue:
  • In Dreamland: Europeans and Jews in the Aftermath of the Great War on page 25 we can find this statement: "their ordeal [Jewish casualties caused by BA] could not be equated with the raw genocide committed by Petliura's and Denikin's armies in the eastern "integral" Ukraine".
  • In Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces; page 43 historian Norman Davies is quoted, that Jewish casualties were "minimal" during the war, and a figure of 400-500 actual casualties is provided, in contrast to the 25,000 to 50,000 jewish casualties caused by the Ukrainian army commanded by Symon Petliura.

--COD T 3 (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Petliura's forces weren't operating in Poland, the murder of the 400-500 Jews by the Blue Army was among the worst the Jews in Poland experienced. You forgot to add what was written on page 44 of that book: Yet the deaths of fewer than one thousand Jewish civilians cannot be relegated to insignificance by comparison with the Polish losses at this time, or with events in other countries..."Faustian (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The comments from both sides are reinforcing my conclusion that we are not making much progress despite a prolonged, good faith, civil, discussion by both parties and that the issue is too broad to be addressed effectively in this forum which is designed to "resolve small content disputes." Therefore I'm going to close the case. Any final comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary: Participants have made a good faith attempt to address the dispute regarding NPOV but were unable to resolve even the first part of the disputed content after much discussion. In addition, new content has been added that may or may not affect the overall picture. Furthermore, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are complex guidelines with a lot of room for interpretation and therefoer their application can also be complex. My take on the article is that there is some undue weight and NPOV issues in the article but I think the issues would be better addressed by having an outside party summarize the Controversies section (which should be renamed "Reception" in my opinion) rather than deleting specific sentences, especially if they are reliably sourced. I would strongly encourage both sides of this dispute to give maximum respect to high quality sources and use them as the guiding principle in creating content. When deciding issues of weight: something mentioned in multiple reputable sources should receive more article coverage than something mentioned in only one source. In conclusion, I suggest trying other dispute resolution forums particularly WP:RFC or WP:Mediation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and time.Faustian (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
On to WP:Mediation, it's not that anyone is trying to remove the mention of the controversial topics in the BA article… it's how they are presented that's the issue. --COD T 3 (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Governorship of Chris Christie

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Several editors are deleting entire sections based on their assessment that these sections are not relevant to this article or by claiming it violates WP:UNDUE, bringing this article to a state that I believe contradicts WP:NPOV. Attempts to discuss have lead to a stalemate, some editors close to violating WP:3RR.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussions in talk page

How do you think we can help?

By clarifying the policy of NPOV and undue weight and help establish a consensus of what type of content should not be included in this article

Summary of dispute by Cwobeel

The content being deleted was added by a number of editors over several weeks back in Februrary. I was not involved in these edits. Then, both John2510 and CFredkin starting deleting that content in-masse claiming that it was not relevant to the article. They provided arguments for example, that the New Jersey Transit (NJT) authority is unrelated to the Governorship of New Jersey. When presented with the facts that the NJT authority's executives are appointed by the Governor, and that the Governor chairs the NJT board and has veto power, the argument was conveniently changed to WP:UNDUE, and later on to WP:BALASPS. But the fact remains that the NJT authority's actions and policies are part and parcel of the Governorship of New Jersey, and therefore such material, be that positive, negative or neutral, and provided it is supported by reliable sources (which it is), needs to be included for completeness and to comply with NPOV. Cwobeel (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

These are the deletions being discussed.

Cwobeel (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by John2510

The article topic is Chris Christie's governorship. The material in question reports on various incidents surrounding New Jersey Transit (NJT). While Christie serves on NJT's Board and appoints its members, the subject issues haven't risen to the level of being issues of the governorship, per se. More important, no source cited by Cwobeel describe them as rising to that level, nor does any other editor - that's merely his own personal conclusion.

Further, this material is apparently not important enough to warrant significant coverage in the NJT article. Hard to see how it warrants inclusion in the subject article, except as a political attack.

While I've characterized this as WP:UNDUE, it's probably more precisely WP:BALASPS. In terms of preserving WP:NPOV, I don't think we want to turn the article into a point/counterpoint of the positive and negative things NJ agenciess have done under the current administration - especially in the absence of sources that describe them as signficiant to the governorship. It seems to me that including this tenuously-related material jeopardizes WP:NPOV much more than does leaving it out. John2510 (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by CFredkin

Sorry, I didn't realize that I was gating the discussion here. I think my stance is fairly represented in the "New Republican Attack Article" and "Article is not neutral" sections at Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie. My objections are specifically related to content on Super Bowl transit issues and a so-called secret light rail station, as well as inclusion of a reference to The New Republic attack article.CFredkin (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Dear User:Cwobeel and User:John2510, It appears that User:CFredkin has not entered his summary for this case in spite of having edited WP during the past few days. I've put a note on their page but he/she may not be interested in participating. Is CFredkin critical to the process? If yes, than we may need to close the case soon. If they are not critical, would like to proceed with a discussion? Please let us know. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think (at least from my perspective), this issue has been resolved through the participation of a fourth editor. Cwobeel (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that's good news. Since one party has chosen not to participate and you, the filing party, feel that the issue is resolved. I am going to close this case. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

28 Days_Later

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

28 Days Later is classified as a zombie film even though the victims do not fall into the categories of zombies. Zombies (on Wikipedia) are defined as someone under a voodoo spell or reanimated cannibalistic corpse. 28 Days Later victims suffer from the Rage virus (human rabies) what drives them crazy, and forces them to attack/infect others. The virus does not reanimate the dead and it doesn't have anything to do with voodoo. While the plots of the films are similar, the plot does not define what person is; it just defines a series of events.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Created discussion threads about definition of a zombie, followed up by citing articles that come to the same conclusion. In those threads I have referred to Wikipedia's own definition of what a zombie is, and that seems to have no influence on the discussion. This has gone one for several years, and the calls to have it changed have been ignored/unanswered at this point.

How do you think we can help?

Create a new category for this type of film to placed into: Infection Films. Infection Films are based on living people spreading mind altering/fatal contagion. Move 28 Days Later into that category. I would be happy to help with his if needed.

Summary of dispute by Geoff B

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Melty girl

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

28 Days_Later discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wright brothers

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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 dispute is about the Wright Brothers flights in 1903-1905, mainly about some pictures and an eye witness that bring solid evidence the Wright Brothers glided down a sand dune in Dec. 1903, with the engine started, and they did not perform a true powered flight over a flat terrain. They landed at a lower altitude than the departure point.

Suddenly user Binksternet closed a few topics opened by me, all of them supported by primary sources, under the pretext that he considers I vandalized Wikipedia before, one year ago in 2013, writing from 2 other IP, which is not true. I have never made any edits in Wikipedia pages. I always started discussions in the talk page and the comments made using two IP, Binksternet is accusing me I used last year, are not made by me but by somebody else.

This is the comment of Binksternet (his accusations are wrong and not supported by evidence). "Just so we're clear on the extent of the problem, our Montreal friend has been editing disruptively for more than a year. Editing as 24.203.73.246 starting in February 2013, he was blocked once for vandalism. Then he started editing as 70.83.160.23 and was blocked twice, once for edit warring and once for personal attacks. He has been editing as 70.83.114.138 since February 2014. He is consistently interested in pushing down the achievements of the Wright brothers while repairing the reputations of Romanian aviation pioneers Traian Vuia[1] and Henri Coandă.[2] Whatever his talents, he is not here to build the encyclopedia, but to Right Great Wrongs. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)"

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There is not too much to argue with Binksternet. No matter what primary sources I cited his answers are always "Mainstream consensus contradicts you" without saying what that mainstream consensus consists of.

How do you think we can help?

Just open again the comments I made as they were before being closed by Binksternet with the unfair comment, "Closing discussion that is not about improving this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM. Please do not reply to trolling comments from the IP editor in Montreal. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)". I cited there primary sources, documents of the time, that people have to see. It is a lot of work I have done searching in old archives.

Summary of dispute by DonFB

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by TheLongTone

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

IP editor has been spamming the talk page with an incoherent series of claims that the article is biased, crediting the Wright brothers work with an importance it does not deserve. Article as it stands reflects the consensus of the vast majority of reputable aviation historians. IP (whom I suspect to be a reincarnation of Gabriel Voisin) selectively produces cites from 1900s issues of l'Aerophile: he is cherrypicking sources, evidently has little if any understanding of the technical issues, and when a statement is refuted merely skitters off at a tangent. Essentially, he is acting like a troll: Binksternets action in closing off the "discusions" was eminently sensible, since IP is incapable of rational discussion & is merely POV pushing. He also fails to understand that what he is doing is original research, and that Wikipedia reflects mainstrem academic consensusTheLongTone (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Binksternet

This IP editor from Montreal is certainly the same person as previous IP editors from Montreal who were blocked. The arguments are the same, usually original research, and the style is the same. For instance, the 24.203.xx Montreal IP started this discussion about how the strongest achievement of the Wright brothers is really the weakest. This person did not sign the entry, as is typical of him. He also put a URL inside parentheses, which is a very unusual style.[27] The very first edit of Montreal IP 70.83.160.23 was an continuing argument in the same discussion started by 24.203.xxx, an argument which also contained a URL inside parentheses. The third Montreal IP 70.83.114.138 showed his hand early in this talk page entry containing a URL inside parentheses. Clearly it's the same guy, despite his disavowal above.

DonFB characterizes this person as a "troll" pushing "imbecile rhetoric".[28] TheLongTone characterizes this person as engaging in the "insane habit" of writing "nonsense" and "ranting" in scattered threads.[29] Ckruschke joked that this person might be from another planet.[30] I agree completely with their collective dismissive tone. The guy from Montreal is trying to use his quirky and quixotic original research to change the article to say that the Wright brothers were not first to successfully fly a manned, powered aircraft. The editor should be blocked for disruption and this DRN case should be closed. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ckruschke

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Wright brothers discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Douglas Pike

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
  – 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

I have added first a single sentence about Pike's support for Khmer Rouge and when I got reverted [31] I re-added the matter with many more sources. It still gets reverted [32], [33]. The user TheTimesAreAChanging has made a long attempt at explaining his view [34] but most of it has absolutely nothing to do with the real dispute at hand, e.g. he's accusing left-wing figures of supporting themselves Khmer Rouge, however, though it's probably true, this has no bearing as to Pike's support for Pol Pot. The fact is, Douglas Pike (who just followed the Washington line of the time that Khmer Rouge were the lesser evil compared with the pro-Vietnamese government) has been criticized by numerous authors for Khmer Rouge apologies. My opponent is of the view that mention of this should be removed from the article. He claims everything to be undue, cherrypicked synthesis and apparently is of the opinion that Pike's views on Khmer Rouge may not be mentioned in the article at all.

RE:User:Steven Zhang - how is this exceptional? It's common knowledge. Pike never objected to such claims either. The source does not claim he was a cryptocommunist at heart - no, Pike just followed the Western line of the time that sought to downplay KR atrocities. Nothing exceptional here. Another example is the journalist Richard Dudman, author of the infamous piece "Pol Pot - brutal, but no mass murderer". Of course mentioned in the respective article, too. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
RE:User:TheTimesAreAChanging - how is the comparison 'ludicrous'? I don't know if Pike specifically brought up figures minimizing KR guilt (but I don't claim this in the article either), the fact is he wrote

'on a statistical basis, most of them [Khmers] . . .did not experience much in the way of brutality'.

(29 November 1979) His own words. Just like pointing out he wrote of Pol Pot as a “charismatic leader” of a “bloody but successful peasant revolution”. Citing a person's own relevant statements is making RED FLAG claims?!
It's not directly related as to the dispute at hand, but I still see my comparison with Dudman as apt. Both have been criticised for downplaying KR atrocities and it obviously is the case here. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion at talk

How do you think we can help?

A help identifying reliable sources can be offered, e.g. TheTimesAreAChanging claimed Michael Vickery is a communist unsuitable as a source (I removed Vickery but it seems he actually qualifies as RS). Some users seem to have forgotten too what WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CENSOR are about.

Summary of dispute by TheTimesAreAChanging

Vickery's POV is irrelevant to his credentials, but citing a self-published website for criticism in a biography is pretty questionable. Pike was one of the most eminent scholars of the Second Indochina War, and he wrote a great deal. Lokalkosmopolit has failed to demonstrate that these cherry-picked quotes have any notability. Show me a biography of Pike that pays any attention to this supposed "controversy". If you can provide several sources that demonstrate the significance of this "controversy" relative to the rest of Pike's work, I will concede the point. Andreopoulos quotes Pike's claim that the People's Republic of Kampuchea was dominated by ex-Khmer Rouge (which he calls a "fantasy"), and Lokalkosmopolit in turn presents a strawman version of Pike's argument as relayed by Andreopoulos without reading the very primary source he is quoting (and making no attempt at NPOV). Since Andreopoulos delegates the matter to a footnote, he doesn't establish any notability, let alone support the claim of Pike's alleged "KR sympathies". Bellamy can be cited to support the first sentence, but the rest of the paragraph is undue synthesis that should be removed immediately, and we shouldn't be too reliant on a single fallible source for a biography. Indeed, on the very same page he accuses Pike, Bellamy claims "The CIA published researched which denied that the communists had committed mass atrocities in 1977-78." Bellamy may be an academic, but anyone can check the CIA report and see for themselves that there is no such denial. In short, Lokalkosmopolit has one source (with easily checked errors) that supports his paragraph's language, which he has combined with a bunch of other quotes and personal interpretations about an alleged "controversy" of no clear significance. Moreover, he seems to have trouble letting go of his personal POV when editing the article: Consider my summary of Pike's argument ("Pike argued that a coalition government was necessary to prevent civil war") versus Lokalkosmopolit's summary ("Pike further argued a government was necessary that would be acceptable to Khmer Rouge").TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Calton

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Waste of time. I reverted on the simple grounds that it was a context-free piece of undue-weighted information, one that added no real context of its own nor explained or described anything meaningful about the subject except as a form of "gotcha". It's simple clean-up work. --Calton | Talk 01:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Douglas Pike discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Comment: (I'm not taking this case) Let's see if User:Calton makes an opening statement/summary. They made one edit on 3/24 and two edits today 3/26 but they haven't come here yet. It's possible the case could go forward anyway if users Calton and TimesAreAChanging (TAAC) would like to as TAAC appears to be the one making all the reverts.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi there. Looking over this one, it's pretty clear cut - this is a red flag. Exceptional claims require multiple, high quality sources, and should be given the amount of weight that they deserve in comparison to other coverage on the subject. I don't see either threshold met here, so I would agree that short of a major change to the circumstances, the removal should stick. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It looks like either Steve or myself are willing to moderate this case. Any comments from the participants? If we don't hear some response soon, we may need to close the case. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Lokalkosmopolit's most recent comment barely merits a response, because it does not address Wikipedia policy at all, but I will note that his comparison of Pike with Dudman is absolutely ludicrous. Dudman accompanied KR cheerleader Malcolm Caldwell on his guided tour of "Democratic Kampuchea"; decades after the fact, Dudman continued to deflate the death toll to hundreds. Pike never said or did anything even remotely comparable, and was diametrically opposed to Dudman politically. Lokalkosmopolit's comment is otherwise comprised only of unsourced assertions about "common knowledge", desperate comparisons with other Wikipedia articles, and far-out personal interpretations of Pike's own words.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Administrative note: Steven Zhang is traveling for the next 48 hrs and has no Internet access. So please be patient, he will finish moderating this discussion as soon as he is able.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimean status referendum, 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

It started by Volunteer Marek trying to remove many citations of RT and text based on it, which I reverted. It escalated to an edit war with many editors involved, see WP:3RN#User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Petr Matas (Result: Declined). Now it appears to me that it has been proved, that the initial VM's edit is at least disputed and according to WP:BRD it should be reverted until the dispute is resolved.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

How do you think we can help?

By stating which version should be kept until the dispute is over: The original, or Volunteer Marek's?

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Moscow Connection

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Number 57

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Crimean status referendum, 2014 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2014 pro-Russian_protests_in_Ukraine

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Two users - Yulia Romero and Львівське have this article totally under control. Soon after I added information from reliable sources, it was immediately removed. Here is a proof http://imgur.com/a/SL4eW

In their profiles is seen that they both are pro-ukrainian, which means they are unable to stay neutral. Because of it article full of intentional false and inaccurate information covered by many untrusted pro-goverment ukraianian media. These people do not hide their pro-Ukrainian orientation. Their edits, profiles, rejection of Russian sources and limited selective sampling of news resources in favor of pro-Ukrainian version. They added to the article unconfirmed rumors as facts. The whole article is written this way.

Such controversial theme cannot be given in hands of non-neutral authors. I suggest we should have someone who could edit from most objective point of view, considering all sources and trying to represent a real background of event without bias.

I am asking to puy attention on this issue.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to add information in article which was deleted instantly

How do you think we can help?

I would be glad if people will have opportunity to work with Wikipedia in normal way. For now it seems like this article has owners which guard it from any edits that they don't like. Thank you

Summary of dispute by

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

2014 pro-Russian_protests_in_Ukraine discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Comment: This user seems to be a single-purpose account (IMO), his first act was to come on the talk page and accuse myself and another editor of bad faith and bias. He did so again above (unable to stay neutral, deliberate factual errors, etc.) He was asked by other users on the talk to provide examples but he did not. He then posted some conspiracy blog/livejournal as s source of some kind. I'm in no way trying to WP:OWN the page, I was just trying to do a cleanup and happened to remove some content he added which was a big blockquote of clutter (that may have been a POV push). I put that content on the talk page for others to assess if it was valuable, but I figured I'd be WP:BOLD and try to clean things up since the article is ridiculously long and tedious. I'm not sure what kind of dispute resolution is needed, this all seems fairly premature.--Львівське (говорити) 06:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Answer I added two points in the article (7 and 8 April), confirmed by reliable references, and also added photos. You removed it completely within few minutes and said pictures will also be deleted. See you lie even here - my link to the blog was on talk page, not in the article, when i said to the user that I will be back later with dependable sources. So I came back but almost in the same time when i was adding the content you cleaned up everything I wrote.

I also want to note that the user Lvivske has already been accused before of bias Ukraine-related edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lvivske#User:Lvivske_breached_sanctions

Our consveration on talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_pro-Russian_protests_in_Ukraine#Biased_editors Yrisska (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pusher Love Girl

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

I added the songs about drug use category to this article as the lyrics of the song describe using drugs.

I was told to add sources when there are already sources in the article that supports this, and in the talk page there is even a fact that was mentioned on the front page that talks about the songs drugs references.

Yet everyone disagrees with this fact for some reason.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talking with the main contributors to the article. Evidence to support this category is already mentioned on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

by understanding my side and allowing the category to be added.

Summary of dispute by Hahc21

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Status

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

This is stupid. Instead of trying to discuss on a talk page, you come here? Talk about dramatics. "Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN." And over a category, really? You're just adding WP:OR to an article and have been reverted several times by several different users. The article clearly states: "Timberlake compares narcotics, such as heroin, cocaine, plum wine, MDMA and nicotine, to the love of his significant other." The song is not about drugs; it just contains drug references. — Status (talk · contribs) 11:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Might be interesting to also note when the user originally added the category (which Hahc21 reverted), they used the edit summary gosh you people are so stupid. — Status (talk · contribs) 11:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tomica

There is a difference between songs about drugs and songs that are using drugs as a reference to describe something. This song is not about a certain type of drug, it's about comparing that drug to love thus the category is useless and needless in the article. — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Pusher Love Girl discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hava Nagila

Latest comment: 10 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion
  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

After noticing the sports section of the Hava Nagila song failing to mention the use of the song surrounding sports clubs AFC Ajax and Tottenham Hotspur, I went ahead and included the two in the sports section of the main article, seeing how the usage of the song at both clubs is well known, has been featured in full length films about the subject, and has been documented in various news sources such as the New York Times and the Financial Times. After User:Galassi had reverted my changed initially, I cleaned up and improved the section offering more sources to prove that the inclusion was indeed noteworthy stemming from an 80 year old tradition at the club (Ajax). Galassi then continued to revert my changes bringing up several guidelines which are not applicable in my opinion, at which point it was suggested that we engage our discussion on the talk page. Galassi never truly offered an explanation. I strongly disagree with his decision and do not take to his constant reverting of my edits without much of an explanation. I would like to ask for any community members to please assist in finding a resolution, since it appears that User:Galassi and I cannot come to an agreement. Thank you in advance.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to improve the section of the article, in hoping that Galassi would take to an improved variation of the sub-section, after adding more sources, and offering a better explanation of the topic in the article. I have also engaged in a lengthy (one-sided) discussion on the users talk page to try and come to terms to no avail. I have also included the discussion on the talk page of the main articles in hopes of other community members joining in and reviewing our discussion.

How do you think we can help?

I hope for community members to review the sources that I have added and the expanse of the coverage of the usage of this very song by both clubs, to see that an inclusion of mention is worthy on the articles main page. If a mention of Liverpool F.C. on You'll Never Walk Alone is merited then surely AFC Ajax and Tottenham Hotspur (both clubs who have played in Jewish neighborhoods) should be permitted on the main article of Hava Nagila. I cannot think of a more prominent adoption in sports.

Summary of dispute by Galassi

1. The material in question is pure trivia, as well as falling into the WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE categories. In a nutshell: this is trivial trivia that has no bearing on the content of this article. --Galassi (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hava Nagila discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

This case is now open. Thank you for remaining civil and sticking to discussion on content only. Can someone please post the exact content (and sources) that are in dispute?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


Please find below the section of the page we are discussing:

Section copied from the article
Ajax Amsterdam

Supporters of the Dutch association football club AFC Ajax, although not an official Jewish club, commonly use Jewish imagery. A central part of Ajax fans' culture. the song Hava Nagila can often be heard sung in the Stadium by the teams supporters, and at one point ringtones of "Hava Nagila", could even be downloaded from the club's official website.[1][2][3]

Tottenham Hotspur

Supporters of the English football club Tottenham Hotspur commonly refer to themselves as Yids, and are strongly associated with Jewish symbolism and culture. The song 'Hava Nagila' has been adopted as an anthem of sorts by the club, and is one of the most frequently sung songs at White Hart Lane.[4][5]

Date Athlete Sport Event
1994   Lilia Podkopayeva   Gymnastics 1994 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships
1995-1997   Tony Yeboah Football all season long
1998-1999   Evgeni Plushenko   Figure skating all season long
1999-2000   Maurizio Margaglio   Figure skating all season long
1999-2000   Barbara Fusar-Poli   Figure skating all season long
2000   Yekaterina Lobaznyuk   Gymnastics 2000 Sydney Olympics
2000-2001   Irina Lobacheva   Figure skating all season long
2000-2001   Ilia Averbukh   Figure skating all season long
2002-2003   Alina Kabaeva Rhythmic Gymnastics all season long
2004-2005   Daisuke Murakami   Figure skating all season long
2007-2008   Wang Chen   Figure skating all season long
2007-2008   Yu Xiaoyang   Figure skating all season long
2009-2010   Roman Zaretsky   Figure skating all season long
2009-2010   Alexandra Zaretsky   Figure skating all season long
2010   Sandra Izbasa   Gymnastics all season long
2011-2012   Aly Raisman   Gymnastics 2011 CoverGirl Classic through Floor gold medal performance at 2012 London Olympics[6]
2011-2012   Israeli Team Rhythmic Gymnastics all season long
2012   Neta Rivkin Rhythmic Gymnastics all season long
  1. ^ Amsterdam Journal; A Dutch Soccer Riddle: Jewish Regalia Without Jews – New York Times, 28 March 2005
  2. ^ Hava Nagila! – Nieuw Israëlietisch Weekblad, 15 October 2013
  3. ^ 'Waar komt de geuzennaam 'Joden' toch vandaan?' – Het Parool, 1 February 2014
  4. ^ Promised Land: A Northern Love Story – Anthony Clavane, 12 February 2014
  5. ^ The Yid Army’s chants turn anti-semitism into kitsch banter – Financial Times, 20 September 2013
  6. ^ Kvelling for Aly Raisman on Salon. Retrieved 8 August 20112
Above is the section in question with the addition of association football, and the partitioning of the Olympic Sports subsection as well (which only has one reference not covering all sporting events. I have added 5 references pertaining to the adaptation of the song by both clubs) Furthermore, the inclusion of the song has been featured in two full length films as well, in both Superjews and Ajax: Hark the Herald Angel Sings. I am not objected to change the wording or balance in the statement of the inclusion if deemed necessary. I am of course open for compromise, but I do feel that the traditions of both clubs and the usage of this song is very well known and documented, and that is is in fact worthy of mention on the articles main page. Especially if you are going to dedicate a segment to sports. I can't think of any usage of this song in sports more popular then that of Ajax and Spurs. Sincerely, (Subzzee (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC))

OK, These two sentences are in dispute.

Is there any common ground? For example, if the above content was summarized and condensed would that be a possible compromise?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I am open to a change if deemed necessary, but possibly Galassi should get his turn to state his opinion as well. (Subzzee (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC))
User:Galassi Simply citing the WP:COATRACK essay and WP:UNDUE is not sufficient basis for repeated reversion of sourced content. It requires explanation and discussion. We await your participation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I just did. The triviality of the para in question is unquestionable. There isn't much to say, it is trivial and contributes nothing of value to the article.--Galassi (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion but User Subzzee disagrees. The content is notable enough to have received coverage in reliable sources. Just like this content which appears in the article:

  • Singer Harry Belafonte is known for his version of the song,[3] which was recorded for his album Belafonte at Carnegie Hall in 1959. He rarely gave a concert without singing it and stated that his two “stand out” songs are “The Banana Boat Song” and “Hava Nagila”.[5] Belafonte explained: “Life is not worthwhile without it. Most Jews in America learned that song from me.”[6] Harry Belafonte's version also sang it in a comedy scene in Tamil Movie Mozhi

Are you willing to work towards a compromise?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I am a part time volunteer on this noticeboard, and I would like to add a little to what has been said before. Its good to see that both parties Galassi and Subzzee are on the same page regarding the nature of the dispute. Based on my understanding of the comments above it is regarding the reliability of the sources quoted against and for the inclusion of the two sports clubs. If this is correct then the best place to discuss the reliability of a source is the Reliable Source Noticeboard i.e. WP:RSN. Subsequent discussions about the reliability and appropriateness of a source is best discussed on the Notice Board and on the talk page of the article. --Wikishagnik (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone, thank you for taking the time to help resolve the dispute. I don't think that the references are in question here, but rather the inclusion of the matter all together in the article. Ajax for example have played in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood in Amsterdam from 1934-1996. This is where a lot of the Jewish symbolism utilized at the club stems from. anti-Semitic chants from opponents were confronted with the club embracing the culture. Amsterdam was a Mokum city and the supporters take pride in that. Hava Nagila has such a presence in the stadium that I believe it should be mentioned on the main article of the song, just as these things are mentioned on other song articles, where the song has become such an integral part of the clubs culture, like You'll Never Walk Alone for example. Why Galassi objects to the inclusion is not really clear to me, since I feel I have explained the situation as best I could, and have improved on the entry several times over in hope he would change is mind, only to have the edits reverted repeatedly. (Subzzee (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC))

Arbitrary break 1

Hi all, although it would be tempting here to present my views about the suitability of sources in the articles, based on my understanding of the arguments presented by Galassi (talk · contribs), I felt that such arguments are more suitable for the talk page of the article and have added a section to its talk page. I invite all editors to carry forward the discussion there. I feel that sporadic deletion of content by Galassi (talk · contribs)even though well intention ed, without discussing the same on the talk page and inviting the comments of other editors, might have lead to the perception of disruptive editing. I am sure nothing of that sort was intended and we can all look beyond our differences and work together on this article. --Wikishagnik (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has already moved from User:Galassi's talk age, to the talk page of the article, to this discussion board, and now back to the talk page again? Can we please just try and find a resolution? I am open for suggestions. I think that the content is merited on the main article of the song as previously expressed. Keithbob had suggested a compromise. What would that entail if I may ask? Thanks again (Subzzee (talk))
We have a clear wikirule against trivia. Why don't you insert this passage in the respective clubs' wikiarticles, and call it a day?--Galassi (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Wikishagnik, I'm the moderator for this discussion and while I appreciate your involvement and welcome your well intended comments you are (albeit unintentionally) sidetracking this discussion. There is nothing controversial about the citations Subzee has used and Galassi has not challenged them and so a trip to WP:RS would be a waste of time. Furthermore there has already been unsuccessful discussion on the talk page and that is why the parties have come here. Now getting back to where we were..... User:Galassi has objected to the content because he/she finds them to be 'trivial'. User:Galassi please provide a link and quotation from the guideline or 'clear rule against trivia' you are referring to. Reliably sourced content cannot be deleted based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
OK Boss, read you loud and clear! But looks like User:Galassi is not buying our arguments. His initial objections were about WP:COATRACK and as a compromise to his objections he has already recommended moving the content to relevant article about the sports club because he felt this content does not belong to this article. Nobody has even begun to address this issue either in the talk pages or here. Subzzee was open to all ideas for improvement which do not include the ideas of User:Galassi. BTW Asking a user to submit linked quotation about a policy sounds a bit like WP:LAWYERING to me and may not lead to an amicable resolution of this dispute. I suggest we address issues raised by everybody before we start designing a solution --Wikishagnik (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, regarding Galassi's suggestion, the usage of this song is already mentioned on the articles of both clubs. There is however an entire subsection on the 'Hava Nagila' main article dedicated to Sports with no mention of either Ajax or Spurs. I highly doubt there are any other associations or institutions in Sports with stronger ties to this song then that of Ajax and Spurs, yet the article fails to mention either in a section dedicated to its usage in Sports. That is like dedicating a section on a page about Music to Pop culture and failing to mention Michael Jackson, Sincerely (Subzzee (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

OK Subzzee so let me get some perspective here. Michael Jackson has been a global figure in pop culture for four decades with the Grammy Legend Award and the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award; 26 American Music Awards, more than any other artist, including the "Artist of the Century" and "Artist of the 1980s"; 13 number-one singles in the United States in his solo career, more than any other male artist in the Hot 100 era; and the estimated sale of over 400 million records worldwide. On the other hand AFC Ajax is a club founded on 18 March 1900, while the first article that you have quoted is dated March 28, 2005. The second article is dated October 15, 2013 and is actually about the movie with the same name, but granted does mention the club in it. The third article dated 2nd Jan 2014. So, as per you a club which is older than a hundred years should have a song mentioned as an integral culture because of three articles published more than a hundred and ten years after its formation say so. Even if we have nothing else in the hundred or more years of the club's history that supports this argument. Please explain your parallels between Michael Jackson and this song (or the club) or can we assume this is a typical WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. -Wikishagnik (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not looking to discuss Michael Jackson, I'm simply making a comparison that can be understood by a broader audience who might not follow sports or maybe cannot see the relation. There have been books written about Ajax and it's connection to Judaism that date back to the 60's and 70's, in which the connection to this song is mentioned. So my references are from within the last ten years. The Internet hadn't quite caught on back then. There are plenty more if you want them, but that really shouldn't be necessary, but if you need those they are available as well. The fact that there is no mention of Ajax or Spurs in the sports section of the page makes it incomplete. I honestly don't get it, there are so many single lines without any references whatsoever pointing to some obscure usage of the song somewhere which goes unchallenged, and is not labeled Trivia, however I bring up two very well known Sports clubs, whose supporters have been singing the song for over half a century, and it gets removed immediately, even though I added very reliable sources. The User:Galassi was really edit warring, not offering much of an explanation for reverting every single edit, when every edit I tried to improve on the section to make it more to his liking with him simply reverting it each time. (WP:EW), then asks me to start a discussion, and then barely partakes in it. I didn't want to bring up his behavior either, and stick to discussing the content which is what I found most important. Galassi joins in tells me to add it to the clubs page and call it a day. Seriously? That is your contribution to our discussion? You have yet to explain your actions, and I don't think this is justified. Galassi does not get to dictate user contibutions like that. Especially not when they are validated, in my humble opinion that looks more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT if you ask me. Sincerely, (Subzzee (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC))

Let's review:......We are discussing two sentences sourced to 5 reliable sources shown as the core of the dispute at the top of this discussion section. Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources. That is the foundation of this project and WP:V is a pillar of the encyclopedia. If a person repeatedly removes reliably sourced content from an article in spite of objections from other editors, they should have a good reason and it should be based in WP policy not their personal preference or personal evaluation of the content. Galassi originally cited WP:UNDUE as his/her reason. I suggested summarizing the content to avoid undue weight and Subzzee agreed. However, Galassi backtracked and insisted the content be removed anyway. When I showed Galassi other text in the article that was unsourced and had no apparent notability, Galassi indicated that Subzzee's sourced content was OK but for other articles not this one. Galassi also cited the essay WP:COATRACK as the reason for repeated deletion. However, the Coatrack essay says: It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail, even if the background has no relevance to the article's topic, as long as such information is used sparingly and does not provide any more explanation than a reasonably knowledgeable reader would require. The fact is the sourced information that's being deleted is on topic and relates to the song's usage in popular culture. So I see no basis for repeated deletion of this content on the basis of WP:COATRACK. User:Galassi any comments? or any other WP policy or guideline you'd like to cite?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that this bit of trivia adds nothing of value to the article. It is essentially irrelevant, it doesn't help understanding what this piece of folk music is. What is does: it promotes two sports clubs. Just what sports do have to do with folk music???--Galassi (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, now that we are all convinced about our positions, can I propose a compromise? If so, then please consider these options. (1) We can have a separate section called Trivia (this is allowed as per Wikipedia MOS WP:TRIVIA) and add this content there. (2) We can rename the section as Cultural Significance and explain in that section how the Football Clubs' consider this song to be a part of their culture and leave it at that. I am sure this will require significant edit effort but we can all pitch in and make the section more readable and informative. -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Gallassi, the article is not about sports nor is it about folk music. The article topic is the song Hava Nagila and there is reliably sourced content about notable instances when the song is used. I understand that you don't like it being in the article and you feel it adds nothing to the article but that feeling is not based in WP policy or guidelines. So, are you willing to discuss a compromise? Two compromises have been proposed: summarizing the content? or placing it, and other trivia (like obscure recordings and performances etc.), into a special section with a title such as: Usage in popular culture? What would you like to do?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I have left a message on Galassis talk page asking him to please respond, but I am not sure he will. Regards, (06:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC))
  • 24 hour closing notice: This case has been open for 15 days. If there is no further discussion within 24 hours I shall summarize and close the case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indian general election

Latest comment: 10 years ago29 comments8 people in discussion
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


  – General close. See comments for reasoning.


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

From the wiki page, only two leaders are highlighted for Indian Elections. The format of the page is such a way that it gives importance to certain leaders and special consideration is being given. The page should not make impression on people's mind that UPA and NDA are the main parties. Until Election is over, all parties are equally important. Highlighting only two leaders in the user box is the highest level deception by wikipedia to the readers. Wiki page has to be restructured in such a way that this mistake is corrected. There are also many other points as listed below that was suggested but not considered.

1. The photos of PM candidates of UPA and congress has to be removed or else include PM candidates of all parties 2. Remove parties from 'Other parties' in contents section ( as it lower the importance of those parties) and give equal importance as given to UPA and NDA 3. Make the character size of UPA NDA and AAM AADMI Party same ( making rest of parties loosing importance) 4 .Change the Order of Display of content- Put AAM AADMI PARTY first if it is being said that there no importance in the order in which parties are listed


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Considering the 4 points mentioned

How do you think we can help?

By changing the format of page in such a way that all political parties are given equal importance or no parties are given advantages based on any previous election results or ruling experience and such.

Hi, It was discussed to the maximum level and then Shriram finally asked to complain here if it is unjustifiable. Below are the main points that I am highlighting. Last point has been changed as per the previous discussion with Shriram ( see the last comment in the talk page. There is reference). Please help to resolve this as elections are near by and this is creating a impression that Wikipedia is biased.

1. The photos of PM candidates of UPA and congress has to be removed or else include PM candidates of all parties

2. Remove parties from 'Other parties' in contents section ( as it lower the importance of those parties) and give equal importance as given to UPA and NDA

3. Make the character size of UPA NDA and AAM AADMI Party same ( making rest of parties loosing importance)

4 .Change the Order of Display of content- Put AAM AADMI PARTY first if it is being said that there no importance in the order in which parties are listed

As I mentioned ealrier, The page should not make impression on people's mind that UPA and NDA are the main parties. Until Election is over, all parties are equally important.It should not take any past elections or alliances or any thing in to display this page content. Wiki page has to be restructured in such a way that this mistake is corrected. The Objective of the Page is to tell the people which are the parties for General Elections 2014, who are leaders, PM candidates and So on and not high light the past election victory or failures and statistics. The talk was happening here- [35] Thanks. Soorej — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soorejmg (talk • contribs) 02:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir or Keithbob,

I would say that Shriram is purposefully manipulating data when the India Elections is near by. Highlighting only 2 leader isn userBox and mentioning specific parties in 'other parties' sections , he is trying to manipulate people of India We need your intervention to check on the points concerned as soon as possible as these have a bad impact on the elections in India.

Thanks Soorej

Summary of dispute by Shriram

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

He made 4 points here.

  • In the first he asks for removal of images; as of now there are only two national alliances UPA and NDA so there are two parties in the infobox.
  • Second Remove parties from 'Other parties because it is less important; parties which have no alliance should be placed somewhere and that place is others.
  • Third, Make the character size of UPA NDA and Aam Aadmi Party same; Aam Aadmi Party is in others section so the character is different.
  • Fourth, Put Aam Aadmi Party first (In the talk page he mentioned because it has high importance); UPA has been put first because it had won maximum number of seats in 2009, NDA is second because it came second.

The last statement is biased and he has no reference to prove the claim. ShriramTalk 17:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, he has went on to blank the page and created a duplicate page and also a redirect. ShriramTalk 13:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian general_election

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I am not taking this case as I already have two other cases open but....Soorjmg, I have moved your comments to your summary section. Please do not begin discussion in this section until a volunteer has opened the case. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I am a volunteer for the DRN and I would like to thank everybody for sharing their opinion in this discussion. I look forward to your Active participation in this issue. Before I begin discussing this topic I would like to state some general guidelines for all DRN discussions (1) Lets be respectful towards all participants and their opinions. (2) DRN is suitable for discussions about inclusion or removal of content and is not a good place to discuss editorial conduct and (3) consensus means a solution that everybody can live with and not necessarily loved by everybody. If we are all OK so far then here is what I understand about this dispute. user: Soorejmg raises four points that in a summary that the current structure of the article creates the impression that (a) only two parties are the major contestants (due to the pictures in the infobox and the general structure of the article) and (b) while relegating the third party to an obscure position in the article. User: Shriram feels that the fourth point (about the significance of a party in other category) of user: Soorejmg is biased. Would that be correct or have I missed something?--Wikishagnik (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Wikishagnik ,

The 4 th point is this the one below

4 .Change the Order of Display of content- Put AAM AADMI PARTY first if it is being said that there no importance in the order in which parties are listed instead of NDA and UPA first

Thanks Soorej — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soorejmg (talk • contribs) 12:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey User:Wikishagnik, thanks for your time. I'm sorry I could not respond to you on time. You are absolutely correct. Thats what I meant to convey.
  • Regarding the only two party issue, its being discussed thoroughly enough in the article's talk page itself. I believe its going to be solved there.
  • The 4th point as I said, its biased. Seriously, reason like this: Aam aadmi party has gained high importance after delhi elections so it should be added first, I think thats biased and I also think by making such comments User:Soorejmg is trying to project that particular party, I think thats soapboxing. ShriramTalk 19:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Wikishagnik & Shriram

Shriam, Please avoid confusions. Clearly stating the 4th point below. The Point questions on why AAP is not given the first order or in other words, what is the factor that determines which party has to be mentioned first in order


4 .Change the Order of Display of content- Put AAM AADMI PARTY first if it is being said that there no importance in the order in which parties are listed instead of NDA and UPA first


Thanks Soorej Soorejmg (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wikishagnik

Adding Another 5th Point:

5. In the Campaigning_in_the_Indian_general_election,_2014 section and page, again Modi and Rahul Gandhi is being highlighted .and Arvind Kejriwal is being excluded stating a reason that AAP is a state party. I have mentioned that the criteria for including Arvind Kejriwal in the User Box should be based on the only fact that AAP is Campaigning for Loksabha elections and not on whether it is state or National Party. Shriram is changing it back again and using it as a option to showcase Rahul Gandhi and Modi.

Thanks SoorejSoorejmg (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Now there you go again. Why don't you have a look at this?. 5th point? It is just an extension of the 4th. Why just kejriwal? There are 53 state parties excluding Kejriwal's party. Surely, 54 parties can't be added. So there is a discussion going on. If aap makes a national impression, it can be added later. Just because it is participating in 350 seats doesn't mean it has won, that would be WP:Crystall ball. Besides if it had a national impression, may be the election commission of India would have would it a national party status, I don't know. And for Modi's party and R Gandhi's party, they are already national parties. And please take back your words that the Campaigning in the Indian general election, 2014 has only Modi and Gandhi as the prime focus, the national parties have been added. Any thoughts Wikishagnik? ShriramTalk 06:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Shriram, You are trying to create another page with the user info box with candidates of your preference and trying to include the link under the section Capaigning in the Indian General election 2014 . This is a clear indication of manipulation of wikipedia to infuence public interest in favour of certain parties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaigning_in_the_Indian_general_election,_2014

Hi :Wikishagnik|Wikishagnik]], Please help to take all the 5 points seriously. I think Shriram has many user rights in wikipedia which he is using in favour of many people. Also need to consider his other activities in Wikipedia for biased informations.

Thanks SOorej Soorejmg (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Shriram (talk · contribs) and Soorejmg (talk · contribs) for presenting your responses. Before we begin discussing your differences, lets understand that most of the issues discussed at the beginning of this DRN are already addressed in the article. The Info box has been changed and does not present this election as a contest between two parties. The AAM Aadmi Party has been removed from the section called other parties and is now in the list of parties. Most importantly, there is now a banner on the page which says that the article is about a future election and so, information may change in the future. At present will it be reasonable to suggest that this should be enough as we don't want this article to be a Crystal Ball about future events (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL) and its existence can be challenged on the basis of the policy that Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. The policy gives the example Tropical Storm Ana (2015) is not (suitable topic for an article), even though it is virtually certain that at least one tropical storm will occur in the North Atlantic in 2015. However, we can always argue in favor of this article that we want Wikipedia to be encyclopedic and that all information quoted in it are from reliable sources. Moreover, Soorejmg (talk · contribs) your arguments against Shriram (talk · contribs) fall more in the nature of conduct than content and are better discussed through WP:RFC as the volunteers are better experienced with conduct disputes. So in conclusion, all I want to ask both editors is, do we want to carry forward this discussion about the content of the article or can we live with the fact that this event is going to happen in the future, so the article is going to change based more on what actually happens that what we think is going to happen while we relegate conduct issues to RFC if needed? -Wikishagnik (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The infobox is being discussed, I am sure we will come to an agreement. I know its not the right place but to clarify myself, I am not using the user rights for manipulating things. I never did that and will never do that and that so called other page was not created by me. Now I am feeling that I am being targeted here, at first I thought that Soorejmg (talk · contribs) wanted to discuss and solve the differences but this platform is being used for complaining and I don't understand that. I agree with you Wikishagnik (talk · contribs) that wikipedia is not a crystal ball and thats why I didn't agree that Aam aadmi party should be added in the infobox and thats what I have so far mentioned about. But he doesn't seem to understand that. He is messing up wikipedia, man. There is no need of continuing the discussion. I don't think there is a need for discussion, based on our differences. Because there are no differences, he is not here to solve them. He deliberately wants to add those points or whatever the content related to those points. If he had any, he would have tried to solve it here, but he rather chose to complain senselessly. If there should be a discussion that should be based on his edit history. I think he needs some advice on editing. I welcome Wikishagnik (talk · contribs), if you wish to give me some advice too. Seriously don't want to waste my time on baseless allegations. ShriramTalk 12:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I think Soorejmg (talk · contribs) is trying to do this. ShriramTalk 12:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Wikishagnik, EvergreenFir or Keithbob

Now, Shriram is allowing creating a seperate Userbox in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaigning_in_the_Indian_general_election,_2014 and then including that page under 'Campaign' section in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_general_election,_2014%7CIndian_general_election,_2014 I had removed the users from that page too and instead mentioned all parties as a list which he deleted as copy paste of the Indian General Election 2014 page. When I revert it back , He placed an edit warning on my Talk Page!!!!! It is pretty clear this is showcasing of certain leaders as high priority

Thanks SoorejSoorejmg (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm done. Anyone else? I have discussed in the talk page. ShriramTalk 16:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Chiming in since I was tagged. My initial involvement was as a reviewer. I became more involved with Soorejmg's edits as they became disruptive. As mentioned earlier, Soorejmg created and recreated pages and attempted to redirect Indian general election, 2014 to them. The user was also edit warring. I chalk this up to good-faith intentions of a new user who is passionate about the subject. The user has since stopped the disruptive editing and is clearly using the proper channels to attempt to resolve their concerns. Frankly, I know next to nothing about the Indian general election and do not feel qualified to weigh in on the actual content of this DRN post. Perhaps an request for comment on the relevant page would be a more fruitful avenue if this post does not pan out. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

At first Soorejmg was editing as a new user with AGF. But he was told about his edit warring and after the page was unlocked he resumed doing this. It is not AGF now but disruptive as content is being discussed in accordance with the WP:BRD cycle. That is, where a change is needed and reverted the onus is then on that person to seek consensus before re-enacting the change in order to prevent such edit wars. That BRD cycle needs to be enforced. As the page is not going away anywhere, the status quo is hence a compromise pending discussion and consensus.
His demands seem to indicate a COI.
For the record, Im an involved editorLihaas (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I would like to thank everybody for participating. This discussion has largely turned to a discussion about the conduct of editors and not about the content of the article. I hate to say this but a DRN is not the best place to discuss this. We, the volunteers at DRN are neither judge nor jury. We simply try and resolve content disputes through discussion and consensus. For a discussion on conduct, I recommend WP:RFC and in worst case WP:ANI. The original issue regarding content has already been addressed to a large extent in the article by the addition of the current-election tag at the top and the restructuring of the [Parties and alliances] section and by the removal of the other section. This article is clearly a work in progress and I can see that a large number of editors are working on the article. I have good faith in community involvement in the article. I will not make any changes to this article. Would there be any content (and NOT conduct) issue that I might have missed?--Wikishagnik (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Content issue would be that of the OP wanting to have the AAP represented in the article to an UNDUE level. That is, in the infobox and on TOP of the other parties. We have explained that AAP is not the biggest party, not the most notable and is currently not even in parliament. Further, he added a whole bunch of subsections about the AAP's manifesto, etc. Instead we agree wholly that AAP should be in the article where there is sourced content (and indeed it is there). But then he wants the party's leaders mug there too. I have notified the discussion on the talk page that we cannot have the mugs of all parties as 9 is the max allowed and we rarely go beyond the 3 for the first line (ive edited a bunch of elections pages the world over). In his third point, he [very inexplicably] wants the AAP to be in the same font size as the two largest alliances and all the other parties (which are bigger and more notable) to be of "looser [sic] importance". For the infobox, see Talk:Indian_general_election,_2014#Basis_of_leaders_mentioned_in_Infobox
Note, the OP is currently blocked for 2 days for edit warring. Although point 3 throws a possible COILihaas (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Didn't you miss the 5th point that he added recently. Whether or not aap is a national party, it should be added to the infobox which is completely against the discussion that is going on in the talk page. ShriramTalk 04:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
That probably falls into COI or something. But the more prescinent issues bein g resolved so solve that tooLihaas (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
My 2 cents on this as an un-involved editor is that the editor seems to have jumped the gun or saw lot of resistance and is trying to find refuge here at WP:DRN. There is a hint of POV too as the editor is keen on asking privileges for only one party though there are many other political parties with more substantial political notability and history.  A m i t  웃   18:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I just went to the talk page of Soorejmg (talk · contribs) to ask him to reply to comments above, but I saw he is currently involved in addressing edit war issues raised against him (or her). It would be unfair to expect him to pay attention to this discussion as well that conversation with administrators. I am going to ask the DRN Coordinator for guidance regarding whether to continue this discussion or close it for now. -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If AAP and Kejriwal are mentioned, then we should also mention Mamata Banerjee and TMC and the other political people and parties involvd in the elections. RRD13 (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
RRD13 you can discuss that here. ShriramTalk 07:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing Comments: I am closing this dispute for now as the Soorejmg (talk · contribs) who started ths DRN is stuck in a larger discussion about edit warring raised against him, which seems far from over. His initial argument was about undue weight given to some parties while an important political party (according to him) was relegated to a section called other parties. He also had objections about the Infobox (which is shared by Shriram (talk · contribs)). I refrained form making any content suggestions as later edits addressed a lot of these issues. I had also advised that some issues not specifically addressed by me should be left on the talk page of the article and be decided upon by the larger Wikipedia community. Unfortunately Soorejmg (talk · contribs) at this point was unable to address this as he got involved in the edit war discussion. In the mean time this discussion is inviting a lot of comments from other editors that belong more to the talk page of the article and not here. Finally, Soorejmg (talk · contribs) is advised that discussion about the conduct of other editors (which he is using as basis for this discussion, as well as for edit warring) is best discussed through a WP:RFC and not WP:DRN. -Wikishagnik (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

God's Not Dead (film)

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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:Anupam has removed sourced information from the article without prior discussion[36], started an RfC in which he grossly misrepresented statements by me[37] added a large amount of information concerning endorsements from Christian organizations and athletes and added information about the filmmaker's religious practices.[38] Later, he or she added a suggested source (a Christian who negatively reviewed the film) by only quoting part of a single sentence which contained a jibe at liberal bloggers and academics and making a reference to splitting in the film.[39] When confronted with this apparent quote mining, he or she responded by editing the quote down further, which only served to make it's meaning in context less clear.[40] Despite a prolonged attempt at discussion on the talk page, Anupam has refused to address the majority of the issues I raised, and has instead resorted to accusations of incivility,salting his responses with inappropriate and unnecessary links to Wikipedia policy, and repeatedly attempting to speak for another editor. I have attempted to reach a compromise, but thus far, Anupam has only expressed a willingness to remove a single sentence of his extraneous material (and not the most egregious of it, at that). I find that I am loosing the ability to AGF with him or her as this issue continues, due to a large number of discrepancies between what has happend, and how Anupam characterizes it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I believe that outside opinions might be of great use in resolving this.

Summary of dispute by Anupam

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I appreciate the fact that User:MjolnirPants is attempting to resolve this issue through DRN. There are two issues that characterize this dispute between the said editor and I. The first of these is that User:MjolnirPants wishes to remove the list of organizations and individuals that have officially endorsed the article, as listed in the official website of the film, as well as mentioned in notable media sources. Both myself, as well as User:LM2000 have agreed that both of these sources are notable and can be included in the article. Despite this consensus, User:MjolnirPants insists on removing the information and when I explain the importance of keeping it, he insists that he "will simply proceed with editing the article on my own initiative" (WP:IDHT). I think the best way to solve the first issue is to start an RfC - I am confident that the Wikipedia community will support keeping the relevant endorsements, rather than censoring them. The second part of the dispute is User:MjolnirPants's use of Patheos blog websites to prove that the film's plot is based on an urban legend, something that I have left WP:RSN to resolve. Throughout the discussion on the talk page, User:MjolnirPants has been nothing but belligerent and disrespectful, a fact that other users have noted on his talk page since he began editing in late 2013.

God's Not Dead (film) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hi all, I am a volunteer for DRN. I thank both MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) and Anupam (talk · contribs) for participating. Before we begin discussing this dispute, some generic guidelines for all Disputes. (1) Lets be polite and civil (2) DRN's are best suited for discussion on content and not editorial conduct and (3) consensus means a solution we can all live with, even if we are not very happy about it. Getting to the discussion, I am a bit confused. Most of the arguments above focus on conduct of both users. There is one argument about a source which has been referred by Anupam (talk · contribs) to WP:RSN. So before going any further, to get a better understanding how this dispute can be resolved effectively, I would like to ask both users which is more important? The content of the article or the conduct of the other editor? --Wikishagnik (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Wikishagnik, I understand that as a new editor, User:MjolnirPants may be unfamiliar with Wikietiquette so although I encouraged him to read WP:CIVIL, I am more concerned with him wanting to remove several referenced sentences on the endorsements of the film. The sourced sentences read as follows:

The Alliance Defending Freedom, American Heritage Girls, Faith Driven Consumer, Denison Forum on Truth and Culture, Trevecca Nazarene University, and The Dove Foundation have also endorsed the film.17 The film has also been endorsed by several athletes, such as "Daytona 500 champ Trevor Bayne, Olympic gold medalist platform diver David Boudia, former New York Yankee pitcher Andy Pettitte, Lauryn Williams, an Olympic bobsledder and track and field sprinter, and football player Josh Brown of the New York Giants."18

I feel that they are relevant to the article and see no reason why they should be removed. User:MjolnirPants wants to remove them immediately. What do you think? I look forward to your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Wikishagnik. To answer your question, I would have to say that my complaint stems primarily from Anupam's behavior. It's true that the issue surrounds a content dispute, but I feel that a similar dispute with a more cooperative editor would have been resolved already. Anupam's modus operandi throughout this discussion has been to continuously hurl accusations of policy violation [41][42][43], while simultaneously accusing me of being uncivil any time I accused him of a policy violation.[44][45] note the first diff in the second set in particular: I will provide links to the original source and a diff of Anupam's summation in the article if you have any doubts whatsoever about whether the edit I was referring to constituted quote mining.
Anupam has grossly misrepresented the text in the article he originally objected to, not only on my talk page, but in the RfC he started.[46][47] Note that this distortion was apparent to at least one other user.[48]
In addition to that, I have repeatedly brought up the fact that he included information about the filmmaker's adherence to religious rites and endorsements from athletes, points which he has refused to address entirely. [49][50][51]
Finally, I have seem him misrepresent another user's words, not just mine.[52]
After filing this, I looked at the revision history of Anupam's extraordinarily long talk page, where he has shown little inclination towards erasing old messages. Unless, that is, they make reference to an AN/I which he filed that came back onto him and resulted in literally dozens of links illustrating instances of dishonesty on his own part, and numerous other editors describing instances where his purported civility has kept him from trouble over quote mining, plagiarizing, editing with a conservative and theistic agenda, edit warring and making false accusations.[53] Though I haven't found him particularly civil (or uncivil), the rest of that clearly lines up with what I have seen of him. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect User:MjolnirPants, I have been an editor on this encyclopedia for several years. Like many editors, I ran into some issues but for the most part have been a productive editor. It is my recommendation that we use DRN to address the content dispute rather than dwell on the past. By the way, I have not yet started an RfC. WP:RSN is a noticeboard where Wikipedia editors can ask to see if sources are reliable. As you noted in the diff above, I said that I would be happy to accept the decision the individuals made regarding your Patheos blogs. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) and Anupam (talk · contribs) for presenting your Poins of view. While I do respect both points of view, their are some basic points I would like addressed first. Please read my points completely before responding
  1. Anupam (talk · contribs), can you address why your quote from the Christianpost article and your arguments, point to the same source about the subject - the movies own website? Using a primary source as a reliable source for the content of an article is not allowed as per WP:PRIMARY. You seem to be quoting heavily from the film's own website and this puts you at risk of being accused of trying to use Wikipedia as a promotion media for the film (please refer WP:NOTPROMOTION) and jeopardizes the neutrality (WP:NPOV) of the article.
  2. MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) if you feel that issue is more about Anupam's conduct then please consider discussing your points in a RFC and not here. While we at this DRN try to resolve differences, some things are beyond our scope and cannot be addressed here to your complete satisfaction. The volunteers at WP:RFC are more experienced at handling conduct issues and editorial disputes. But please wait for Anupam to answer my query before you decide what to do next. -Wikishagnik (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Wikishagnik, the article from The Christian Post is actually a WP:SECONDARY source that reported the endorsements from the official website of the film, which had a full page on this topic. I agree that the latter source is a primary one. I felt that it was important to document these organizations and individuals that supported the film in word and/or financially in the film's article. The Christian Post, a secondary source, also felt the need to do the same thing in their article about the film. As noted on the talk page of the article itself, I have been willing to accept consensus based on what the Wikipedia community decides. If you also think that these sentences in question should be removed, I would be happy to accept that decision and you can close this discussion. User:MjolnirPants can then feel free to remove those statements if he wishes to do so. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Anupam (talk · contribs) thanks for your reply. Beginning with the primary source article, please understand that the policy about primary sources is a policy, decided by consensus in the Wikipedia community and if you have any further questions or concerns then please raise them at the talk page of the policy. Regarding the Christian Science article, yes technically it can be used as a secondary source but it might not meet the standards of a reliable and neitral secondary or tertiary source. Such sources are typically reputed entertainment Magazines, Journals and Sites. I would not be making any changes in the article per se as that is not an appropriate conduct for a DRN volunteer. Now MjolnirPants (talk · contribs), we do have a consensus with Anupam regarding the usage or Primary Source. At this point we can proceed with good faith as Anupam (talk · contribs) has already indicated that he is open to suggestions from the community. If the user displays further disruptive editing then it would have to be escalated to an WP:RFC or even WP:ANI as the DRN, as I said is not the best place to discuss conduct issues. Would that address all of your concerns?--Wikishagnik (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikishagnik (talk · contribs), Thank you for your input, you have been extremely helpful. My previous post was in direct answer to the question you asked before, and was not intended to substitute for my initial request. The dispute in question is why I came here, and I would like to ask for your input regarding some other aspects of the section Anupam (talk · contribs) added. Specifically, I have concerns about the following passages:

In the National Review Online, Hartline noted that the directors Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman "go to Mass during the week and regularly partake of the sacraments, especially confession."[20]

— God's Not Dead (film)

However, evangelical Michael Gerson noticed the phenomenon of splitting in the film, stating that in God's Not Dead, "Academics are arrogant and cruel. Liberal bloggers are preening and snarky".[24]

— God's Not Dead (film)

The first quote seems extraneous and unworthy of inclusion: The filmmaker's religious adherence doesn't change anything about the film, serving only to pad the section. The final quote is the example of quote mining I mentioned earlier. Note that this is the entire summary Anupam provided, whereas the actual source is a non-stop torrent of abuse against the film, broken only by a quick plot summary and abuse hurled at Noah. Although I believe the reasons for this content dispute are due to Anupam's behavior and biases, If we can agree to remove the first quote above and re-word the second to more accurately reflect the source in addition to the endorsements Anupam has already agreed to remove, I will be completely satisfied. I don't have a stake in any censure of other editors, only cares about the articles I help to edit.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments User:Wikishagnik and User:MjolnirPants. Just to clarify this for you User:Wikishagnik, The Christian Post and The Christian Science Monitor are two different sources. The endorsements were supported by the former. However, since both of you feel that it would be best to remove that statement, I will accept that. User:MjolnirPants, the first sentence you list was to provide some background about the writers of the film, that may have influenced their decision to make it. I am open to you keeping this statement, or discarding it, depending on what you and User:Wikishagnik conclude. As far as the second sentence about Michael Gerson, I added that based on User:LM2000's discovery of the source and wish for the article to fulfill WP:NPOV. I would not object if you reworded, kept, or removed it. User:LM2000 might be better to consult about that sentence. With that being said, I wish you and User:Wikishagnik the best of luck in bettering the God's Not Dead article. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Anupam (talk · contribs) thanks for presenting your views here and I agree that you have tried your best to improve the article by adding background information. The best place to add such information would be a seperate section such as Background or Development, but I must warn you that the size of an article is best determined by the Notability of the subject. For example articles such as Alien vs. Predator (film) and American Beauty (film) have similar sections but also note that the films themselves were quite notable so a lot could be quoted from reliable secondary and tertiary sources. On the other hand there would be lots of articles about smaller films that are doomed to stay as stubs unless academic interest develops in them for some reason. As this is a very new film, lets wait for some time. Anyways, Its not expected nor necessary to develop every article from a stub to a feature article. I am sure as you continue editing in Wikipedia you will be able to expand articles with encyclopaedic content that is not disputed by anyone. MjolnirPants (talk · contribs), at this point Anupam is willing to take inputs from other editors and I am sure with a little bit of help, combined with his passion for resarch, he will be a valuable addition to the team. As he is agreeable to the major points, I don't want to get into the nitty-grities, as I have good faith that he is open to ideas of change. Can we close this discussion on this note? -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikishagnik (talk · contribs), based on what you and Anupam have said in this discussion, I am satisfied. I will make edits in accordance with the agreements we have come to here. Thank you for your time and involvement. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Closing Comments: This discussion started off as a dispute between MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) and Anupam (talk · contribs), in which Aupam was adding content, which in good faith was an attempt to expand the article, but was not acceptable to MjolnirPants as it did not meet the standards of Wikipedia. I am closing this discussion with the conclusion that, while both parties may not completely agree with each other, they see each others point of view and are willing to work together, and in consensus with the larger Wikipedia community and its policies. Happy Editing!-Wikishagnik (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Godhra train_burning

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion
  – Discussion in progress.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Two editors Vanamonde93, Darkness Shines have been making various changes to this article to push a theory that the incident was a result of an "accident". Matter takes importance, since the nation is going into election.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

discussed on Talk page. But, it seems to have only encouraged the other 2 editor to make further changes on the article to push the "accident theory" bias.

How do you think we can help?

Remove opinions/comments from academics/individuals. Provide information as per the reports of the investigation body and Indian judiciary, as reported.

Summary of dispute by Vanamonde93

All the information Prodigyhk is objecting to is thoroughly sourced to mostly academic sources. For some reason, he is dead set against using academic sources, and insists on presenting only the view that the courts have taken, despite this being against WP. He attempted to question the veracity of one of the sources; when his claims were debunked, he resorted to complaining about the nationality of the author. When told to make constructive contributions, he has come here. I would also point out that I was not notified about this discussion, despite being named here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that you were not notified. That is the fault of the DRN bot which often forgets to notify participants. In any case I'm glad you came to participate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Darkness Shines

Prodigyhk is flat out wrong, we will not be removing academically sourced content because he thinks it will hurt someone's chances in an election. Quite simply tough shite, the content stays. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, someone here thinks that Wikipedia articles decide Indian elections, well let me give you a small advice. Wikipedia decides nothing in elections in India. -106.51.52.214 (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
User talk:Darkness Shines Understand I am not in any hurry to have this article changed. I made one edit, which the other user user:Vanamonde93 reverted. I then started the discussion on the Talk page. But, on the contrary both of you then started to do many edits in the article space to push the accident theory. When I again made one more edit, you reverted it. So, I went back to the Talk page. Do understand, I have not started any edit war. I followed the right WP approach to talk, discuss and find consensus. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Godhra train_burning discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I'm officially opening this case. Please limit your comments to discussion of content and refrain from making comments about other editors. I cannot moderate an open ended discussion so please delineate the exact content that is being disputed here. Is their content that has been reverted? If so please provide a diff(s). Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

comment As an uninvolved editor, I can see the very first line on the talk page as : @"This incident has gone through a proper due process by the police and the judiciary. And a verdict has been provided. This should be the primary narration of the article. Regarding the theory of this American intellectual that it was result of an accident. It will be best to be removed. Such theories are not helpful, especially as part of the primary narration." That uin itself shows a lack of understanding that WP is supposed to be neutral and doesn't take sides (especially that of giovernmnet). Whether the academic is X,Y,Z is irrelevant as long as it is RS and not FRINGE.Lihaas (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
WP has not included any "theory" to be included in September_11_attacks or similar event. WP neutrality does not mean we push "theories". Prodigyhk (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Who says it is a "theory"? We follow policy, NPOV "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" WP:RS "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." If anyone thinks Martha Nussbaum in a book published by Springer is neither reliable nor a mainstream view are welcome to try their luck at the RSN board. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Folks, Thanks for you participation. However, DRN "is an informal place to resolve small content disputes" and is "not be a substitute for talk pages." If you have complex problems with the topic, tone and content of the article that cannot be resolved on the talk page or via notice board discussion or an WP:RfC then I suggest WP:Mediation. If you have a well defined issue or piece of content I can moderate a discussion to increase the chances of a compromise or resolution. But I need you to identify the core of the dispute and cite a specific issue related to specific content. If the core of the dispute is not clearly identified very soon, I will have no choice but to close this case. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

United States

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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:Mark Miller has recently made sweeping changes to several long-standing images in the United States article under the justification that the images "lack context" and as such violate Wikipedia's image use policy and should be removed. To me he seems to have not only a strict, but distorted, interpretation of the image use policy, requiring all images, even long-standing ones that no one has ever had a problem with, to have a direct, specific mention within the body of the section for them to be kept (rather than general relevance which most editors follow), otherwise it warrants immediate removal or replacement on an equal level with copyrighted or non-fair use images, despite the fact that none of the images in the article violate those policies.

I think administrators and other experienced editors should have a look at the recent changes made and see if you can reason with him. I have attempted to appease him but he remains unsatisfied and insist that I abide by his narrow, unusual "rules" treating them as if they are wiki policy when I found nothing of the sort in WP:IUP or MOS:IMAGE: he was really vague in a general "abiding by the policies" and did not specify anything within them to directly support his assertions.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have attempted to start a civil discussion in Talk:United States#Mark Miller's image changes and have attempted to appease him (doing it his preferred way) by replacing or re-adding images with the 'context' that satisfies him, but he has again reverted my changes under very weak justifications.

How do you think we can help?

By looking at the changes, and the specific images to see if they really violate WP:IMAGE or MOS:IMAGE, which ones don't and can be kept, and which ones do and should be replaced. Right now the article is his version because I followed the 3-revert rule (however a lot of the images have been restored or changed by other editors since).

Summary of dispute by Mark Miller

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

United States discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Homeopathy

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Since I began editing on wiki on the homeopathy article I've encountered personal slurrs and a general bullying from editors of a different point of view. Other editors have had similar treatment. The article is contentious, editors tending to be either pro homeopathy, or anti homeopathy. There have been some who are more neutral, although the ones who stick around tend to be polarised.

Rather than get into a debate covering a number of years of edits on the talk page, I'd like to stick to one thread - Talk:Homeopathy#The_decline_of_homeopathy_on_the_NHS - with the aim of resolving this bullying and allowing all to move on in a civil manner.

Comments within this thread I consider contrary to WP:CIVIL:

No point telling Chris that, he's a homeopathy apologist.

Chris is a homeopathist, of course, so his views are contingent on the need to protect his cherished beliefs against ugly fact.

As to your cherished beliefs being contradicted by ugly fact, that is just reality for you. I can't help you with that.

to understand that homeopathy is bogus requires only GCSE general science.

rather than the cranks with their ever-shifting post-hoc rationalisations and long history of outright lies

Here's the key point: you are a homeopathist engaging in special pleading. The data is what it is, you just don't like it. Problem's your end.

For a homeopathasist to accuse people of "not giving it a thought" and "Misleading either by intent or naivety" is hypocrisy gone mad. So sad.

Chris, neither science nor Wikipedia are censored for the protection of your delusional beliefs. Stick to the articles on Doncaster Rovers.

The above eg's aren't extreme at all, but it is continual, wearing and other editors give up because of it. There is a point at which it has humour, but it tends to go beyond that most times. I acknowledge retaliating, but in my defence, it's merely a way of holding my space.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried to point out that name calling, put downs etc are not conducive to us getting on positively. It seems to have no effect.

How do you think we can help?

Help clarify what is and isn't acceptible to all concerned.

Summary of dispute by JzG

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Roxy the dog

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Homeopathy discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_89&oldid=1142604199"