User:Steven Crossin/DRNsize

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Afro-textured hair[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Priorsolve77 on 21:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC).
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

Photos of bald people are being placed in an article about afro-textured hair. Photos showing texture are being removed and photos of unkempt hair not adequately showing texture are being placed by a user who has shown WP:ownership of the page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have requested discussion on the talk page, but edits have been made without consensus on an obvious issue (this is a page about texture of hair and pictures of bald people are being placed there) this is an absurd issue.

How do you think we can help?

Please make clear that in an article about the texture of hair bald pictures are completely inappropriate. Unkempt photos are disrespectful when they are removed and replace pictures of well-kept hair. This is not an issue of dispute. On a picture about blond hair would I put multiple photos of bald people and replace the ones that show longer hair?

Opening comments by soupforone[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Afro-textured discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Note: another mean of dispute resolution — RfC — is in action since 21:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC and DRN are two alternative processes for dispute resolution. Only one should be used at a time. The RfC is on the article Talk page, and it looks like it was started today, the same time as this DRN. I recommend that the RfC be allowed to progress, and that DRN be used only if the RfC is not fruitful in the next couple of weeks. Editors interested in helping out can contribute at the RfC. --Noleander (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Though I only briefly overlooked the RfC questions, I would advise Priorsolve77 to revoke the RfC and try to settle the issue here, as there are several indicators suggesting that the aforementioned RfC would only escalate the conflict. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
DRN is only supposed to be used after significant discussion (RfC or otherwise) has happened on the article Talk page (the DRN instructions say "the issue must have been discussed extensively on a talk page ... " ). Looking at the article history, it appears that the dispute just started in the last day or 2, involving 2 (or 3?) editors. One of those editors wanted more input, and so started an RfC and DRN simultaneously. Since there has been virtually no discussion on the Talk page yet (RfC or otherwise) it is wisest to first discuss on the Talk page for a few days and see how it goes. If things reach a stalemate, then DRN is the appropriate venue. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: August 2, 2012 at 02:29 (UTC) Reason: Closed the case, as the dispute resolution is happening elsewhere. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Bulgaria[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Ximhua on 15:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
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

Citing United States Library of Congress Research Division http://countrystudies.us and specifically their page on Bulgaria http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htm I wanted to add the following text (in various forms): "Bulgarian resistance south of the Danube continued until 1453 and included the uprisings of Konstantin and Fruzhin in the early 1400s." The other party rejected the edit, stating that the source was biased and flatly rejecting the change. Sources to support my edit: US Library of Congress Research Division - http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htm http://www.ue-varna.bg/bg/index.php?page=12&id=11 - University of Varna History Exam Recommended Areas of Study, which clearly mentions Konstantin and Fruzhin's revolt. Couple of academic sources, in Bulgarian, that confirm the above. These sources are also mentioned in the University of Varna History Exam site. 1. Ангелов, П., Д. Саздов, И. Стоянов, История на България (681 - 1944 г.),т. 1, С., 2003. 2. Бакалов, Г. и др., История на българите, т. 1, Изд. Знание - ЕОД, 2003. 3. Бакалов, Г. и др., История на българите, т. 2, Изд. Знание - ЕОД, 2004.

An English Language History book about the uprising: http://www.loot.co.za/product/lambert-m-surhone-uprising-of-konstantin-and-fruzhin/xmdd-1676-g740 Uprising of Konstantin and Fruzhin (Paperback) Lambert M. Surhone, Mariam T. Tennoe, Susan F. Henssonow

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried several versions of the text as well as presenting sources and arguments on the talk page, but was rejected with no logical explanation and with my sources replaced with sources I never quoted or the wording from my sources distorted.

How do you think we can help?

Since WP is based on fact and not opinion, I need your support to help me convince the other side to read the sources provided and either realize the correctness of my text or present other sources that negate the revolt in early 1400s and resistance mentioned.

Opening comments by Chipmunkdavis[edit]

I never said the source was biased, Ximhua just has a way to read sources as saying things they don't, and also apparently a way of reading my comments as saying things they don't. Discussion on the topic can be seen in the jumble of the talkpage, and I have no idea why this has been taken here. I recommend this be quickly closed as totally premature. CMD (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi! I am a dispute resolution volunteer. Based on your respective definitions of the problem, I agree that this is not the appropriate forum at this time. If there's a question about what the sources say and/or whether they're reliable, I'm going to refer you to the reliable sources noticeboard. If there's any behavioral issues (such as misrepresenting a source, or accusations of bias) then those should be taken care of in one of the forums for resolving disputes about user conduct. I am going to close this now, because it appears to be a dispute over what the sources say, at least for now and I don't think we can figure out a compromise on what the article should say until consensus is established for what the sources say. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem addressing these kinds of content disputes here in the DRN. There is overlap between the function of the DRN and the RSN. On the other hand, this DRN request may be a bit early, because this particular content issue (resistance after 1453, etc) only came up on the Talk page yesterday, and the conversation there is still on-going and appears to be making progress. In addition, this content issue can be viewed as a tangent to an earlier Bulgaria DRN (from about 10 days ago) which, last I heard, was going to go to MedCom for resolution. So, yes, perhaps this DRN could be closed, but IMHO not simply because it involves sourcing questions. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem addressing sourcing questions here; this is a fairly broad content dispute board, after all. But I prefer to do so as part of a broader dispute, not deal with sourcing-only questions. In this case, my argument for RSN was that it seemed to be exclusively a sourcing question, not a joint sourcing-and-content question. Still, I'm fine with making the close rationale be that talk page discussion is still ongoing and it's too early, and not touch the appropriate-venue question. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please not archive it until a resolution is found on the talk page. I think we're close. Ximhua (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but for future reference please don't edit these after they've been closed like this. In the future, you should put a message on the closer's (in this case, my) talk page. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm also a DRN volunteer. Jorgath's right, please go to the RSN. We primarily handle content disputes here. Electric Catfish 23:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Corporals_killings[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by FergusM1970 on 22:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC).
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 number of editors are repeatedly describing the killing of two British soldiers by PIRA as "summary execution." WP's article on summary execution begins "Summary executions are a variety of execution." The WP article on executions clearly states that an execution is a killing carried out by a state as a punishment for a crime, and therefore does not apply to this situation. However the editors involved refuse to discuss or justify their use of this wording. I would like a ruling on whether it is acceptable or if the neutral "killed" should be used.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Flexdream and I have attempted to discuss this with the other users on the article talk page. They refuse.

How do you think we can help?

By making a judgement on whether or not the term "summary execution," when applied to the killing of British soldiers in Britain by a banned militant group, is POV or not.

Opening comments by Flexdream[edit]

I'd welcome a neutral opinion. Wikipedia article 'summary execution' says its "a variety of execution in which a person is accused of a crime and then immediately killed without benefit of a full and fair trial." So if the person has not been accused of a crime I don't see how it's a 'summary execution'. 'Killed' seems a more straightforward and uncontentious word. The Independent source uses the word 'murdered' and I'd be content with that word also.--Flexdream (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by One_Night_In_Hackney[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by TheOldJacobite[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Domer48[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Talk:Corporals_killings discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hello, I'm a volunteer at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. I would like to say that we do not decide stuff, but we may help with discussion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ebe. Yes, that would be great too.--FergusM1970 (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, here we go. The issue in question is that the article is being continually edited to say that two British soldiers, killed by a banned militant organisation on British soil, were "summarily executed." An execution is a killing carried out by a legally authorised body as punishment for a crime and clearly does not apply here. Three editors have repeatedly reinserted this term when it's been removed and have refused to explain their reasons for doing so. They cite one source as justification, despite the vast majority of sources using the terms "killed" or "murdered."--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait for the other parties. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
That could be a long wait. User:One_Night_In_Hackney has blanked his talk page and removed the notice of this request, User:TheOldJacobite has commented "What a joke" and I can't find it on User:Domer48's talk page either. They don't seem interested, frankly.--FergusM1970 (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Ebe - The other involved editors are aware of this DRN and it has been mentioned on the AE page. One of the admins there has floated five days as a time to allow for the DRN to be considered. [[1]]. I don't know if there is any deadline or timetable but maybe five days would be a reasonable time to allow for comments? I'll be guided by you. Of course if comments are submitted just before any deadline you might then want to allow others to respoond to them. --Flexdream (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
There is normally no deadline, but as there is the AE, the limit for opening comments will be of 5 days, then, there will be 3 days of discussion. If they do not answer, the Arbitration Committee should make sanctions on the users for failing to discuss. As a DRN volunteer, ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Given the fact that three of the five listed parties have either implicitly or explicitly declined to participate here, there is little point in continuing on the discussion. I've noted as such at AE, and have made recommendations based on my assessment of the situation. I'm going to close this discussion, and this should be addressed at MedCom in future if all participants decide to work on this issue. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nair[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by ARROWSGN on 12:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC).
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 Nair community page in WIKIPEDIA is an afront to the community and is a disgraceful attempt to show the community in poor light. I do not think that any other community page in WIKIPEDIA has been twisted this way to malign, ridicule and spread negativism. The whole information given is fabricated and an insult to the Nair community who are known to have a glorious past and present. I would like to register a protest in the strongest terms against the perpetrators of this evil design and request those who have the know how to intervene. This will go a longway in restoring the credibility of WIKIPEDIA as a source of authentic information. It should not be left to independant editors to re write or write there own versions of history in order to hurt and mutilate community's psyche which seems to be the very purpose of writing such nonsense. Behind their scholarly garbs lies very vicious and venomous commulalist ideology and thinking.Beware!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is the first step I am taking in this respect and would consider further steps including drawing the attention of community leadership, media etc. How do you think we can help?

You need to intervene to re write this article in a balanced manner. No one is against stating facts but there needs to be balance between negative and positve.Nair community has a glorious past, art, culture, eminent personalities etc who have contributed immensely in shaping the cultural, political and social fabric to their state and the country. Such things needs to find a place when you write about a community and that too under the pretention of writing historical facts.

Opening comments by SITUSH[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

NAIR COMMUNITY PAGE discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. I'm closing this as this is not a dispute and the page is non-existant. As a DRN volunteer, ~~Ebe123~~ → report 12:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Federal Correctional Complex, Oakdale[edit]

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by MDEVER802 on 23:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC).
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 some detail to the Notable Inmates chart, hyperlinked the Bureau of Prisons Prisoner Number section to the BOP website, put a photograph of the prison in the infobox. Also, since some of the inmate names did not have their own wikipedia articles, I linked those names to articles on the same subject. I did not remove any information. I admit I did not discuss the changes before I made them and accepted responsibility for that. User XLR8TION reported me for a 3RR violation and accused me of being a bully, a rogue and a vandal. In order to address XLR8TION's concerns, I made a compromise edit (added less detail, did not use hyperlinks and did not link names to different articles), but he still reverted them all. XLR8TION comments to me in the article's talk page have a bullying tone like he owns the article and he seems to think he can order me what and what not to do like an administrator. I invite you to review the article's talk page, as well as the results of the 3RR complaint he filed, to see what I mean. I really appreciate your help!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

In order to address XLR8TION's concerns, I made a compromise edit (added less detail, did not use hyperlinks and did not link names to different articles), but he still reverted them all.

How do you think we can help?

I'm honestly not sure because this is the first time I've had to do this. I tried to compromise as I discussed above, but XLR8TION isn't being very reasonable, in my opinion.

Opening comments by XLR8TION[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - User is an apaprent novice on Wikipedia and doesn't comprehend the importance of articles, wililinks, blurbs, or copyrighted photos. If you read my conversations on the article talk page, the editor continues to provoke an edit war due to his unwillingness to comprehend by site guidelines regarding copyrighted photos and the importance of wikilinks. I have informed editor that blurbs should be kept short as article will discuss the subject's importance, and that copyrighted photos that have been removed by other administrators should not be used. It's like teaching a stubborn child. The article is concise and his refusal to comply by the simplicity of allowing the reader to discover the subject further by clicking on the wikilink instead of reading a redundant blurb that is already covered in the subject's main article is a waster of time and server space. Learn to cooperate and stop edit warring. --XLR8TION (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ebe123, a DRN volunteer. DRN is for content disputes, and we do not comment on the editor here, only on the content. Please make your statement about the content, not the editor. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Steve Zhang[edit]

Indeed, I do think that the additions made were reasonable ones. See my comments on the talk page for more. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Federal Correctional Complex, Oakdale discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

To all editors, please provide diffs for evidence. As a DRN volunteer, ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I added to the "details" part of the Notable Inmates section was one sentence regarding what the person was convicted of and why. XLR8TION would be right if I went on and on, but that is not the case.

Here are the changes I made at first, which XLR8TION reverted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Correctional_Complex,_Oakdale&diff=500944098&oldid=500879157

Here are the ones I made as a compromise to address XLR8TION's concerns, which XLR8TION also reverted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Correctional_Complex,_Oakdale&diff=505673101&oldid=505671351

In addition, if it makes any difference, two editors remarked on the talk page that my edits are reasonable. MDEVER802 (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed some new discussion on the talk page. Do the parties still have any unresolved disputes? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Casprings on 05:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC).
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

Edits to in the background section and edits on including the war on women.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to resolve on the talk page. Doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

How do you think we can help?

Give second opinions and perhaps help continue the process.

Opening comments by Adavidb[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by 209.6.69.227[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Fixed the usernames. Please wait for the opening comments of the other users. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 12:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer. I'd love to help out with this discussion, just awaiting opening comments. Electric Catfish 00:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Filmnet[edit]

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Floating Boat on 09:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC).
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 user called QbeTrue has been adding unsourced original content at Filmnet about a couple of hacks into the channel. He has also published source code from the hack. The issue was discussed on User talk:Floating Boat#Filmnet where I was trying to explain that the content needed reliable sources, but he refuses to do so, saying that he had hacked the channel and is a trusted source.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?


How do you think we can help?

He needs to know that he cannot be used as a source but I can't convince him on my own without him throwing claims of "censoring articles" and "not trusting the source code" .

Opening comments by QbeTrue[edit]

How can I proof something I did 24 years ago ?. I do have the full souce code and provided only a small peace of the code. Can provide all if you like ?. The fact that this is argued is already very strange since no person is argueing today if a hacker is providing thousands of passwords in a file as proof. QbeTrue (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Floating Boat is making decisions about what is good or bad information on his own and has a pre-biased opinion, from the way he openede this case you can already tell he is looking for some support in his opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by QbeTrue (talk • contribs) 10:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Filmnet discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi, I'm a Dispute resolution noticeboard volunteer, and the case is open. Do not comment on the opposite party please, only on the content. Here's a policy to be read before commenting. It is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I will agrue: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. I can also claim to be an expert since I am (three world wide patents in securing information and protecting it) QbeTrue (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Bulleted list item

Comment from czarkoff (talk · contribs)[edit]

May I ask the parties a few questions for clarifying the dispute?

  1. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves sets several conditions for using self-public sources about themselves. Among those conditions there are "it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)" and "the article is not based primarily on such sources." How would you comment on applicability of these limitations on QbeTrue's sources?
  2. QbeTrue reproduced a fragment of source code on the page. Who is an author of this code, and what is its copyright status?

If possible, please try to address these questions precisely and avoid commenting each other's behavior. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The code fragment is to small to be relevant for copyright. QbeTrue (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume question 1 applies to me, so I will answer it and let QbeTrue answer question 2.
1.The editor claims that he had hacked the channel himself so I think that would be a claim about a third party. I apologize if I misunderstood the guideline, because I admit I've just seen it for the first time.
2. The source code was the property of Filmnet, so the copyright would be theirs. However, now that the channel is defunct, it would be safe to assume that copyright is questionable.
And just a note to QbeTrue that I am a female. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

QbeTrue and Floating Boat, could you please answer both questions? The goal of these questions is to probe your opinions on differences, not to accuse you of violation of this or that policy. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

QbeTrue: Don't understand the logic about being female or male I don't care !. Now to the point:

  1. Yes, I did the hack. This means first hand information and NOT third party since third party is writing about something you did not widnes yourself but simply did hear about a "third party". I am also an expert in the field of computer and communication security but this was unknow to Floating Boat when I posted the article.
  2. The original copyright party is the company that designed the encryption system and sold or did lease the decoders to Filmnet. They can not be located anymore and even if we could, copyrights will have expired after 14 or 20 years already according to current software law. Since this peace of code is only a fragment there is no copyright problem. Same if you use ONE sentence from a famous book you also do not brake any copyright law but you only can proof you have the book. When this software was written during beginning of 1983 there was no such thing as copyright on software. Floating Boat: If you buy a product you do not get the copyright of that product, you simply have the right to use the product and thats it.

QbeTrue (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

QbeTrue, per Wikipedia:Verifiability all encyclopedic content "is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors." What previously published information do you cite with your additions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The only person that I told about my Hack outside my circle of friends was Cambridge researcher Sergei Skorobogatov some 8 years ago when I did talk to him. He was just busy with his PhD in this field and reported some hacks that did look a lot like what I did in 1988. The only link I can provide that is explaining the methode used in 1988 is: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sps32/mcu_lock.html QbeTrue (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This link doesn't mention Filmnet or microcontrollers you've mentioned in your additions. In your opinion, in what way does it verify your statement? Please, keep in mind the provisions of No original research policy while replying. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your completely new to this but microcontrollers = MCU = microcontroller and the page if FULL of this, read the first few opening lines PLEASE. Please ask an expert to review and not a person who does not understand. Please. No offence. Better study something first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcontroller QbeTrue (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

At this moment I do not care anymore what you do with my written text. I am more morried the way Wikipedia is handling things by using people with no knowledge to judge and decide about people with knowledge, its very worrisome. QbeTrue (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

QbeTrue, I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at DRN. I am also an expert on microcontrollers (to pick two examples, I have designed a microcontroller-based system that shipped at a rate of 100,000 units per hour and another that passed a MISRA code review and was accepted for use on the flight controls on commercial aircraft). That being said, my expertise is totally irrelevant in this case. Anyone who can read and follow simple instructions can tell you where your thinking has gone wrong. We do know quite a bit about building an online encyclopedia, you know...
Your concern about "using people with no knowledge to judge and decide about people with knowledge" above is a common one, and we have a page explaining why it it that your thinking is wrong at WP:EXPERT. Please read that page. Fortunately for us, we already know what the result is of trying to create a free encyclopedia with articles that are written by experts. That experiment was called Nupedia and it was a failure. We also provide, at no charge, the code it takes to run Wikipedia and all of the data contained in all the articles. You are free to use that as a starting point to create your own expert-based encyclopedia if you think you can avoid the mistakes that doomed Nupedia. Alas, the primary mistake was trying to create a free encyclopedia with articles that are written by experts. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The bottom line is this. Either you are refusing to read Wikipedia's policies or you think that they don't apply to you. It's very simple. Either you read and understand WP:V and WP:OR and follow those guidelines, or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sorry to be so harsh, but I can see that previous efforts to inform you of this basic fact have had little effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Last time some person told me he had a bigger bike than me is so long ago that I do not even remember, think I was 10. I did read all links provided and also understand that proof is needed for claims not to get a mess but if I provide proof its not good or it needs to be published before. This way you can always find an excuse to stop people from providing information. That is all I wanted to do but it seems your not interested. I can tell you that many Wiki articles have lots of mistakes written in them simply because people with NO knowledge are reviewing them. I stop wasting my time and seems friends and colleagues in the academic world that did warn me about Wiki are right. QbeTrue (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

QbeTrue, I think we (both Guy Macon and I) failed to communicate the idea to you: your additions should rely on previously published information. To add information about your work on hacking these particular microcontrollers you have to provide a source which would report this particular work. Your link didn't mention neither those particular MCU, nor your work on hacking them, so it doesn't help with verifiability. FYI, I am quite familiar with the MCU topic to be able to discuss this (though my experience is indeed doesn't match that you claim to possess), and I see that your additions, though possibly true, are not supported with previously published evidence. Like it or not, but original research regardless of its quality and proficiency is not allowable in encyclopedias (not only in Wikipedia, but any encyclopedia). I would also specifically warn you, that if you change your mind and continue editing Wikipedia, you should restrain from making (and specifically expressing) broad assumptions without proper grounds. The whole dispute about these additions owes exclusively to the fact that you don't do your homework of reading others' comments; thus this dispute is not about content, but about conduct instead. Closing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rule of Three (writing)[edit]

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Scampicat on 19:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC).
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 a section on the Rule of Three (writing) page. The section was entitled "Copywriting, marketing and advertising". It explained the use of rule of three techniques within these fields. The information was sourced by me from an external article listed in the history of the page. The article is from a knowledgable source. Although this article is published by a copywriting agency, there is no self-promotion in the article. The article is objective, appears only within the article section of their site and does not sell its services. The editor kept the content sourced from this article but deleted the link to the article as he considered it to be spam. It seems unfair not to credit the source from where the content came. The article is informative adds to the wikipedia topic and is not self-promotional.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to engage with the editor in a calm and rational manner. However, he did not want to enter into any discussion beyond posting links to Conflict of interest and external link policy pages (which I believe that this link does not violate). My questions were deleted rather aggressively and I was told by him to stop posting on his talk page, despite the fact that I have genuine concerns and was trying to engage in a rational discussion to clarify and perhaps resolve the situation.


How do you think we can help?

Would it be possible for an editor to offer a second opinion - to perhaps look at the content Copywriting, marketing and advertising (available in the history of Rule of three (writing) page) and the external link to gauge their suitability?

Opening comments by Ohnoitsjamie[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Scampicat (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi. I'm a DRN volunteer. Let's wait for all parties to respond before proceeding. Topher385 (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
That appears unlikely to happen [2] -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
If it doesn't happen, I recommend a referral to WP:3O instead. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't. The user does not want to discuss. The place will not matter. Dispute resolution cannot work without half of the parties. I would suggest to Ohnoitsjamie to keep away from the disputed section if the user will not discuss to avoid (the appearence of) Wikipedia:Stonewalling. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a clear case of WP:COI WP:SPAM, and nothing else. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Ohnoitsjamie is observing WP:ETIQ. I feel that this is not a case of either a conflict of interest or spam. Wikipedia does accept citations to commercial websites. I simply provided a citation to an external website. Again: the article is non-promotional. Not every link to an external site poses a conflict of interest, nor should every instance be treated as spam. An editor should not treat all external links with a ‘zero tolerance’ approach, without first engaging with the content. I maintain my intial statement outlined in the dispute overview: If the content added to the topic was good enough to pass the editor's approval (which it was), so too should the citation - simply to credit the source of the information. Scampicat (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Ohnoitsjamie didn't remove a citation, though; he removed two entries in the "External links" section. Entries in "External links" are not thought of as citations, they're supposed to be a small assortment of links to external websites that would be helpful to the reader, more like a "see also" section. Ohnoitsjamie was perfectly within his rights to delete it as linkspam, since the links weren't actually being used as citations. I understand that you might have meant them as citations, Scampicat, but that's not what they were. You should read this article to find out more about Wikipedia-style citations, or perhaps this one if you think you need something simpler, since it's designed for beginners. As this appears to be a case of mixed signals, I'm going to close this, unless anyone else objects. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. I misunderstood how to provide a citation. I can see now why Ohnoitsjamie removed the external link as it wouldn't have been clear that it had anything to do with the content. If I were to republish the "Copywriting, marketing and advertising" section, would Ohnoitsjamie object to me adding the link as a citation to credit the source of that information?Scampicat (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
As I stated on your talk page, there are a plentitude of non-commercial reliable sources about all aspects of copy editing. Why should we be using this particular commercial site rather than one of them? -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course, we don't have to use the link or the content. However, I chose it as it enabled me to contribute an important section to the Rule of Three (writing) section which has not as yet been covered. Sadly, when it comes to copywriting theory, the majority of text on the subject are fairly superficial, covering topics such as basic writing technique and how to gain employment (building a portfolio, gaining employment, etc). Text on actual contemporary copywriting theory are scarce and I've yet to find one that covers the topic discussed here. In my research on the rule of three writing techniques, this particular article seemed to summarise the technique's application within copywriting, while also covering the broader context. As the article is non-promotional I personally didn't see a problem with it, as it enabled me to provide an additional section to Rule of Three writing. Scampicat (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a good conversation and I'd hate to stifle it with bureaucracy, but as it's kinda drifted away from the subject that brought us to DRN, perhaps we should move this to the article's talk page? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course. I will place my question in the article's talk page. Thank you all for your help, and apologies once again for the confusion on my part.Scampicat (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Margaret Thatcher[edit]

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Ogwikitem on 08:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC).
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 recently been made aware that my image appears in this photo on Margaret Thatcher's wikipedia page - File:Lady Thatcher at dinner 2008 crop.jpg. I am very new to wikipedia and I wanted to see whether or not it could be taken down. I have explained how and why the picture exists and engaged in discussions about removing it on the article talk page - Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Incorrect and inappropriate photo and on the wikipedia help desk - Wikipedia:Help desk#My image, but there seems to be some disagreement on the matter. I would like the image to be removed because: 1. It suggests that I was/am a Conservative, which is not true (the caption initially read "Thatcher is surrounded by Young Conservatives", which can be proved to be factually incorrect and I asked to be removed). 2. It could really impede my efforts to find a job (I am just completing my masters and would like a job with a progressive organisation). 3. I have never, and would never have, consented to my image being used in this way. I realise that nobody can totally manage their image on the internet and I admire the work that wikipedia does, but this seems a little extreme. As far as I can see the range of opinions on the matter seem to be: a. 'I don't believe your story', b. 'the reasons that you have provided are not strong enough for the photo to be removed', and c. 'whatever your reasons, the photo actually detracts from the article and so should be removed'. I can, if needs be, verify my story and I think that I have provided a reasonable enough case for the photo to be removed. I also agree that the photo adds nothing to, and possibly detracts from, the article. This is not really about party politics for me; I actually have quite a nuanced view on Thatcher and, in any case, think that politics is more important than parties. It is about privacy, compromise, and unfortunate, unforeseeable consequences.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have engaged in discussions on the article talk page - Talk:Margaret Thatcher#Incorrect and inappropriate photo and the wikipedia help desk - Wikipedia:Help desk#My image. I have also contacted the Volunteer Response Team to see if this might be a personality rights issue (I was advised to do this by someone in one of the discussions). I am also thinking of contacting the Author of the image to see if he can do something.

How do you think we can help?

As I said, I am new to wikipedia and this is all a little overwhelming. I have tried to be reasonable all the way through this process and I just want to see a swift end to this quite surreal situation. I would like the image to be taken down. I really don't think that it adds anything at all to the article and given the the possibility of it having some quite unfortunate consequences for someone who has never sought nor intends to seek public attention, it seems unreasonable to keep it.

Opening comments by BritishWatcher[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Maproom[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Margaret Thatcher discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

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.

Pantheism[edit]

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Allisgod on 21:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC).
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

Basically, the president of an environmentalist donation based website that calls itself "The World Pantheist Movement" has been trying to control the page on Pantheism and promote his organization (and book) and their New Age atheistic view of pantheism he has himself termed "naturalistic pantheism". I have attempted to compromise with him in the past but have failed and it has turned into an edit war. I have made edits that make the page more neutral and beneficial for Wikipedia readers but on a daily basis he undos my edits and accuses me of being biased - but my bias is simply toward a regular historical view of pantheism which includes all sides.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Many many discussions. The pantheism talk page along with the Classical pantheism talk page is filled with our discussions

How do you think we can help?

Please be the judge on whether or not this individual is self promoting himself and his internet group and forcing his one sided views on the pantheism page.

Opening comments by naturalistic[edit]

If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pantheism especially sections 33 and 34 you will see that I have repeatedly asked Allisgod to cooperate, instead of which he has simply engaged in invective against me. Since he is in fact unwilling to have any discussion about cooperation in the usual place, I guess it moves here. I hope you will convince him that cooperation is the best approach. You can see from his description of the World Pantheist Movement (in "Dispute Overview") the extent of his bias.

I have been involved in editing the Pantheism entry since around 2009. I am Dr Paul Harrison, author of the most widely read book on pantheism: Elements of Pantheism and the Pantheist information website http://www.pantheism.net/paul which is the largest collection of information about Pantheism on the Internet. I am a world expert on Pantheism. I have repeatedly explained that my "agenda" at the Pantheism article is to ensure neutrality (all forms of Pantheism get equal prominence and none are favored). Also accuracy and absence of original research (OR) or Point of View material (POV). Naturalistic Pantheism (the version I favor) does not get any better treatment than any other form. The World Pantheist Movement of which I am president is mentioned because it is by far the largest pantheist organization in the world.

Allisgod arrived a couple of months ago and immediately began making radical changes. Allisgod began by including a great deal of OR and POV material. Now he knows the ropes he sources his material, but he still has a clear agenda which he admitted explicitly, which involves pushing certain key figures and forms of pantheism. His view is not at all neutral, he has been heavily pushing so-called "Classical Pantheism" and determinism and he openly admits this here: Yes, my "agenda" is promoting Baruch Spinoza, world famous philosopher from which the word pantheism was used to describe his philosophy; Charles Hartshorne, the only world renowned philosopher that discussed pantheism in depth; Determinism, the monist viewpoint associated to pantheism by many texts and major philosophers. And your agenda is the "World Pantheist Movement", an internet donation based environmentalist group started in 1999. Hmmm.. the "agenda" of Spinoza, Hartshorne, Determinism, Classical Pantheism versus the agenda of a president of a donation based website. (Allisgod (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)) We do not know what vested interests Allisgod has but has has here declared his bias and his intention to edit the page in accordance with his bias.

Far from controlling the page I have in fact accepted many of Alligod's changes such as including in the Categories sections "Determinism or Indeterminism" and "Theistic or Atheistic", removing an image of the World Pantheist Movement symbol (which was not inserted by me in the first place) and moving the "God" table to the top.

None of Alligod's contributions to the Talk: Pantheism page have been aimed at resolving anything whatsoever, rather he has simply engaged in accusations against me. I have requested cooperation and mutual respect and he has never responded.

I believe that you should advise Allisgod to respond positively to my repeated suggestions of cooperation and mutual respect. A few weeks ago we had arrived at a version that both of us left alone for several weeks - I assumed that version was acceptable. We had also arrived (or so I thought) at a more rational and cooperative approach to editing. But in the last couple of days Allisgod has reverted to his original approach of non-cooperation and personal attacks.

Pantheism discussion[edit]

NOTE to participants: Here at DRN please comment only on the content of the ariticle. Please refrain from discussing the other editor's behavior. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Allisgod: Can you clarify the issues a bit? (1) You say that user Naturalistic is attempting to add material regarding "naturalistic pantheism". Are you suggesting that NP is not a notable concept, or that there are insufficient sources to justify its inclusion? (2) Can you provide a few "diffs" (article history deltas) that illustrate the sort of additions to the article that you object to? (3) Is it correct to say that you wouldn't object to some mention of naturalistic pantheism, but you just want it limited to a modern context? (4) You suggest that a book is being improperly promoted. Which book? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I note that the naturalistic pantheism article has virtually no citations; and the few it does have are to http://www.pantheism.net/ which is the site of World Pantheism Movement (WPM). --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
1) I have seen the phrase "Naturalistic pantheism" used in texts, however the meanings have varied. Various individuals, in an effort to distinguish their version of pantheism with the more traditional versions inspired by Spinoza, have used the phrase. Whether or not it is a notable concept in itself, I am not sure. But I would note that "The World Pantheist Movement" has its own very specific idea of what "Naturalistic Pantheism" means to them, which they originally termed "Scientific Pantheism" (the latter phrase is probably not a notable concept and was invented by the user). I haven't attempted to edit the Naturalistic pantheism page.
2) The recent 3 edits on August 3 2012 by user naturalistic are what brought me here for some help. The differences between versions may look minor for some, but they are not minor to a student of philosophy. User naturalistic attempts to remove or diminish certain concepts bound to Pantheism. Those concepts include Baruch Spinoza, God, and Classical Pantheism (and related concepts). I will address these individually:
-Baruch Spinoza is the name mentioned most often in any scholarly text regarding Pantheism. That's because the term was invented and popularized by two individuals (Joseph Raphson and John Toland) who were inspired by Spinoza's philosophical work, Ethics. Toland (and others) used the word Spinozist and Pantheist interchangeably. Spinoza was a determinist who used the word God to describe everything (every substance and event of the Universe).
-God is a word discouraged by user naturalistic's version of "Naturalistic pantheism" and "The World Pantheist Movement". As such, he clearly removes and edits out the word God in the Pantheism article and any related words, or he adds significant qualifiers to the word.
-User naturalistic and I had an extensive debate about the "Varieties" section of the article. He had in the past deleted the article on Classical Pantheism section saying something along the lines of 'there's no such thing' and that it 'makes naturalistic pantheism look inferior'. Yet, there was no counter to "Naturalistic pantheism" on the page. In fact, the page was dominated by this naturalistic position. Classical Pantheism was a phrase used by philosopher Charles Hartshorne which he used to specifically describe the traditional deterministic pantheism of Spinoza and the Stoics. It is what is traditionally meant by the word pantheism and Hartshorne is the only major philosopher to have qualified the broad word Pantheism into a specific type.
-3) That is correct. Although I believe their form of "Naturalistic pantheism" may not be pantheism at all (Naturalism would be a better word), I am alright with the usage and the ideas limited to a modern context.
-4) My point was about a conflict of interest and explaining the motivations of the user in making persistent changes in the long term. After weeks of extensive debate, we had come up with a compromise on the varieties section, only for him to start making changes again recently on what we had exhaustively compromised on before. This suggests to me that the user is insincere in reaching a compromise due to his conflict of interest (promotion of his "Naturalistic pantheism" donation based website, which includes his book). But regardless of his motivations, he has tried to pigeonhole the word pantheism. For example, here is the intro he wants for the pantheism page:
Pantheism is the view that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, or anthropomorphic god. The word derives from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek (theos) meaning "God". As such, pantheism denotes the idea that "God" is best seen as a process of relating to the Universe.[2] The central ideas found in almost all pantheistic beliefs are the view of the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity, reverence for the Cosmos, and recognition of the sacredness of the Universe and Nature.
My version:
Pantheism is a word derived from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek (theos) meaning "God". It is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God,[3] or that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.[4] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, or anthropomorphic god. As such, pantheism denotes the idea that every single thing is a part of one Being ("God") and that all forms of reality are either modes of that Being or identical with it.[2] The central ideas found in almost all pantheistic beliefs are the view of the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity, reverence for the Cosmos, and recognition of the sacredness of the Universe and Nature.
In my version I add 1) "It is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God, or" and 2) "As such, pantheism denotes the idea that every single thing is a part of one Being ("God") and that all forms of reality are either modes of that Being or identical with it." These are well sourced, and note that both include the word "or" to leave room for his version of pantheism. He, on the other hand, attempts to limit Pantheism to mean only his version of pantheism. I find him to be an intelligent person, but some of what he has been doing in trying to redefine pantheism and/or prioritize his modern version of pantheism to be a disservice to Wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisgod (talk • contribs)
Allisgod's version of the introduction is blatantly theistic. Almost all reputable sources define Pantheism as equating the Universe with God.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
My version includes both theistic and atheistic elements of pantheism, hence the word "or". User naturalistic's version only includes a strictly atheistic POV (a.k.a. "Naturalistic pantheism). I will note he also keeps removing or bringing down the "God" box from the page while most of the other pages included in the God box have this box on top. (Allisgod (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC))

Naturalistic: Questions for you: (1) Can you provide some sources here that demonstrate that "naturalistic pantheism" (NP) is sufficiently important to be in the pantheism article? I glanced at Google Books, and it looks like the term is indeed used frequently by somewhat major publications. Could you pick the two or three most reliable, most authorative sources (not your own) that (in your opinion) define NP and explain its significance? (2) the pantheism article has three footnotes and two external links that refer to pantheism.net. Is there any conflict of interest (see WP:COI) involved in those references? (3) Are there any more reliable/formal (book or journal) sources (not your own) that could be used for the footnotes instead of a web site? --Noleander (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There are only three books in print that address Pantheism comprehensively. One of these is my own, Elements of Pantheism, which was published in 1999 and introduces and describes Naturalistic Pantheism on pages 97-99. The other two are Standing in the Light by Sharman Apt Russel and Pantheism by Michael Levine. Out of the three books Elements of Pantheism is consistently much higher in the Amazon raking of sales. On what basis would I not quote my own book?
The World Pantheist Movement website (http://www.pantheism.net) has been in existence for 13 years and is the highest ranked non-Wikipedia pantheism search result on Google AND on Bing. How can that not be notable?
I have addressed the conflict of interest issue below. Many many editors who are experts in their field have conflicts of interest - what matters is that their editing should be neutral, which mine always has been. I have not placed Naturalistic Pantheism at the top in the "Varieties" section, I have not given in extra length, I have not presented any arguments that favor it over other versions.
Alligod has a conflict of interest, in that he very strongly favors "Classical Pantheism" and has stated his intention to push it, Charles Hartshorne, Spinoza and determinism. His editing is in line with his preference. He keeps placing his preferred version Classical Pantheism at the top of the varieties section, he has kept increasing its length, and he has included arguments that determinism is a logical consequence of Pantheism.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Noleander, I don't think that Allisgod is objecting to inclusion of Naturalistic Pantheism (a term widely used in the pages of the World Pantheist Movement, which is the largest pantheist organization in the world, and the first entry in any Google search for Pantheism after Wikipedia.
His claim is that I am editing the page in a biassed manner in favor of Naturalistic Pantheism. That claim is obviously false. Naturalistic Pantheism has LESS mention here (3 lines) than Taoism, Hinduism, Wicca or for that matter Allisgod's favorite, Classical or Deterministic Pantheism (4 lines).
I have always edited this page in a neutral way. Allisgod has been continually pushing his own favorite to the top of the "Varieties" section. I have not been responding by pushing my favorite to the top.
Re conflict of interest, this concept does not mean that experts in a field may not edit Wikipedia articles in that field. All types of expert have their own particular slant - what matters is that they should edit in a neutral way without letting their interest affect how they edit. I have never done so.
However, I believe that Allisgod has done so. He has clearly admitted his agenda (see above in italics) and all his edits have been aimed at pushing his agenda. We do not know whether Allisgod has a conflict of interest - I believe he does. At the very least he is known to favor one version of Pantheism and has admitted as much. However, whether he does or not, he has clearly been editing in a biased manner.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Can you please answer questions (1) and (3)? Also, please refrain from discussing Allisgod's behavior: it does not help at all. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Noleander, I don't think either Allisgod or myself have a clear idea of what Wikipedia dispute resolution does, what is its end-product? An agreed version of the entire article? Or what?
I don't understand the importance of your questions 1 and 3 since Allisgod has not complained about the inclusion of Naturalistic Pantheism. His gripe is basically an accusation against me of biassed editing - not by simply including Naturalistic Pantheism, but by favoritizing it and the World Pantheist Movement.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of DRN is summarized at the top of this page. Basically, it is a forum for mediating disputes. The goal here is not to assess the behavior of you or Allisgod. Behavior does not enter into it all all. Allisgod seems to think that (a) there is too much emphasis on NP in the article; and (b) the sources used for NP in the article are not appropriate. Those are valid concerns. As a group, we can try to address those concerns. It may be that the article is perfect now and needs no changes. I'm trying to gather some information to help me form an opinion, so could you please answer questions (1) and (3)? The answers will help me (and anyone else that wants to assist) provide some input. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, as to there being too much emphasis, you have only to see what length is devoted to each version of pantheism to see that this is a false statement.
The current version is as edited (reverted) by Allisgod, so no, it is not perfect.
I will check for other sources besides the World Pantheist Movement website, however, is it not the case that the long-standing website of a prominent organization in the field is itself a notable source?
If this is Allisgod's objection I also wish to raise one of my own, which I will add to my statement, relating to his inclusion of the term Classical Pantheism. More tomorrow.--Naturalistic (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking for more sources. The WP:Reliable source guideline summarizes how WP evaluates sources. Generally, web sites are discouraged. The best sources are scholarly texts published by academic publishing houses; or peer-reviewed journals. Pantheism is a very well known philosophy, and there are numerous top quality academic sources, so there is no reason to resort to web sites. --Noleander (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, I am a volunteer here at DRN. This discussion is getting quite long, but from what I read of the discussion it's regarding the lede section of the article. As Noleander states, we need to focus on the best quality sources. Noelander, try using this page to see if the participants here can work towards a lede they can agree on. I've found it works well in situations like this before. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts - I've read through some sources on Pantheism in Google books, and I've read thru the latest postings from participants above, and I came up with a few suggestions:

  • The WP verifiability policy requires virtually all sentences in the article to have a footnote (citation) referring to a source that supports the statement. The top priority for this article is supplying missing citations (for instance, entire sections such as Wiccans and OtherReligions have no citations at all).
  • WP prefers secondary sources, which (in this case) are books written by philosophers, historians, or theologians. See. WP:RS.
  • Web sites, including pantheism.net or any other web site, cannot be used as a source, because there are so many top notch scholarly books on the subject. See WP:RS. Web sites can be included only in the "external links" section.
  • The book Elements of Pantheism should not be used as a source, because it is a primary source, written by an advocate of pantheism. That is not to say that viewpoints from the book cannot be in the article; but that any viewpoint must be supported by a citation to a secondary source. Any modern (20th c) developments regarding pantheism which are to be mentioned in the article must by supported by citations to secondary sources, not by citations to material written by advocates.
  • The article should mention both "Natural pantheism" and "Classical pantheism" because reliable secondary sources define and use both terms. Both terms should be defined (perhaps with multiple definitions, if the sources so indicate) based on exactly what reliable secondary sources say, not what editors think they mean or what primary sources (advocates) say they mean. The article needs to use definitions of pantheism that are nearly verbatim (although not in violation of copyright) of what the top-notch academic sources say. Editors are not allowed to interpret the definitions (see WP:OR).
  • The lead should be written after the body of the article (see WP:LEAD). After the body is written, then the lead is simply a synopsis of the body, which does not include any viewpoint not already in the body.
  • Spinoza should be mentioned very prominently in the article, because the secondary sources mention him very prominently in connection with pantheism.
  • "God" can be mentioned in the article, because the secondary sources use that word in some of their definitions. The article should, of course, explain that some definitions of pantheism involve a notion of God, and some do not.

I think if these suggestions were followed, the article would comply with WP guidelines, and the readers would be best served. Are there any concerns about these suggestions? --Noleander (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have serious concerns in several important respects.
1. WP:Reliable source does not say that primary sources may not be used. It says that secondary sources are preferred, but "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research" In other words, they can be used with caution. Is there any original research in the Wikipedia Pantheism article sections on Naturalistic Pantheism? No.
2. Have you read Elements of Pantheism? It is not an advocacy book at all and was commissioned by a very prominent UK religious publishing company (Element Books) as a handbook and summary of Pantheist history and practice, as part of a large series on different world religions and philosophies. It summarizes the various types of Pantheism and the teachings of many prominent pantheists, and by no means is a book advocating Naturalistic Pantheism above other types of Pantheism.
3. There is no other current book about Pantheist history and practice so to exclude it is very restrictive and does reduce the amount of information for Wikipedia readers.
4. God is mentioned in the article and I have never suggested that the word should not be used in the article.
5. Spinoza is mentioned with appropriate credit for his key role and I have never suggested that he should not be.
6. Hartshorne's writings on Pantheism can be viewed as a primary source since Harsthorne was a very active advocate of Panentheism and a critic of Pantheism and his description of Pantheism is slanted in such a way as to show that Panentheism is superior.--Naturalistic (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Elements of Pantheism: The author of the book is Paul Harrison (pantheist) who, according to their WP page, has a PhD in geography, not philosophy. He is also the founder of World Pantheist Movement, which appears to be an advocacy group promoting pantheism. Thus it is more of a primary source than a secondary source. I've never heard of the publisher Element Books, but when it comes to philosophy and theology, there is little reason to reach outside secondary sources from the academic press. WP aims for the highest standards of encyclopedic content, and there is no reason to use books by advocates as sources for articles on philosophy/theology. Maybe we could solicit some input from other WP editors from the reliable sources noticeboard. I'll post a note at the RSN and see if some editors can share their thoughts. --Noleander (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added a note at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Book_used_in_Pantheism_article_by_leader_of_pantheism_movement asking other editors for their opinions. Note that I never said that that WP policies prohibit use of this book; but - in my opinion - it should not be used. A book by a geographer turned leader of a "movement" just doesn't seem like a solid foundation for a WP article. But, we can see what other editors think. --Noleander (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Please note that I am not a geographer, I am a freelance writer. I have three degrees, the first (Cambridge UK First Class) was in French, German and Italian studies which are highly relevant to Pantheism. Maybe you should actually look at the book to see what it's like, rather than assuming it is advocacy. I have already explained that it is NOT a book of advocacy but is a survey of the history of pantheism and current practice.--Naturalistic (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I was asked to comment. I shall just give my views, and you may organize them how you please. i'm commenting as a librarian--I have no particular interest in the subject; my comments are based on general considerations, not the specific contents of any of the works.
As a preliminary, it is not the case that everything in Wikipedia must have an inline reference. But it is reasonable to ask for one if the material is challenged. In general, a definition is the sort of material most likely to require such a reference. The general principle, for a concept like Pantheism, there will be many definitions. All of those which represent interpretations or movements for which there is a reasonable degree of notability should be included--the standard for this is that there are good independent sources discussing that interpretation or meaning or movement. Many of the available works will be by people who are committed to one particular meaning, and they must be used very carefully, for they are prone to give a definition to other interpretations that will best suit their own ideas. The best source is independent modern academic works, with the proviso that meanings in popular use may also be significant.
More specifically, I do not consider that there is any evidence that Paul Harrison is an expert on the subject or that is book is an authority or even a reliable source. It is published by a specialized esoteric publisher whose list of publications is not encouraging [3], though at least some of the authors e.g. Arthur Versluis, have in fact works on their subject published by good publishers--having published a work with them does not alone make a writer unreliable. Having works on the subject published only by them is another matter. Harrison is a notable author, but that does not mean that all of his works are notable; I would certainly accept his works on geography as RSs in the field. This work is held by only 55 libraries in WorldCat [4]. I have seen no other sources for the concept of naturalistic pantheism presented, and if the term is used once or twice by earlier writers, such as Toland, it is probably used in other meanings--& the very article on the subject admits this. I would therefore reject any definitions sourced to his works,
I don't want to complicate this discussion, but when it is finished unless I do see some sources I shall nominate the article ( naturalistic pantheism ) for deletion. On the other hand, such an AfD might in fact be the best way of handling this argument, & perhaps this discussion should be suspended until then. And I shall also propose to move Paul Harrison (pantheist)]] to Paul Harrison (geographer). He himself should have no particular voice in how he is described, because of the obvious COI. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
@DGG: Thanks for your detailed input. I concur regarding the "not every sentence needs a cite ..." I was too terse when I made that pronouncement, and omitted lots of important nuance. As for the validity of the Elements of Pantheism as a RS for pantheism article, let's wait and see if any other editors have input. --Noleander (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
User Filefoo provided input on this issue at Wikipedia:RSN#Book_used_in_Pantheism_article_by_leader_of_pantheism_movement. The following snippet is excerpted from that comment: "Given that the expectation that Pantheism be established in the context of philosophy, theology and comparative religious studies (all scholarly discourses), Harrison's works fail to meet the standard of reliability required for an opinion worth citing in Pantheism. Harrison should not be used in Pantheism, ..." but refer to that link for the full comment. --Noleander (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Re DGG's comment above, I would request that Naturalistic Pantheism should not be nominated for deletion. A Google scholar search for "Naturalistic Pantheism" brings up 119 references. I will be drawing on some of these to improve references. A similar search for "Classical Pantheism" brings up only 48 results. Naturalistic Pantheism is the declared preference of the largest pantheist organization in the world, the World Pantheist Movement.
I don't mind whether Paul Harrison is described as a geographer or a pantheist - I would certainly agree that my publishing reputation rests on my geography books. I did not add the pantheist tag, someone else did, for disambiguation.
As you say, the "Elements of series" included some reputable authors, including also Martin Palmer (Taoism) John Snelling (Buddhism) and George Chryssides (Unitarianism). My academic record (two masters cum laude and a Cambridge Ph D) shows very clearly that by and large I can tackle almost any non-scientific subject extremely well. My geography books range from Inner City poverty and African agriculture, to world population and environment issues.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
In order to keep this DRN case focused, lets ignore Naturalistic Pantheism here. If someone starts an deletion process on the article, that will be a separate matter. Likewise, this DRN is better off without discussing the title of article Paul Harrison (pantheist). Focusing on the pantheism article: I think we all agree that "classical pantheism" and "naturalistic pantheism" are used by secondary sources, and can be mentioned in the article. The important issue we need closure on is whether Elements of Pantheism can be used as a source. So far, a few uninvolved editors have said "no", but let's wait a bit longer to see if there is more input. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm a DRN volunteer, I'm going to weigh in as an editor rather than as a volunteer due to a COI - my own religious views are at least partially pantheistic. I suggest that Harrison's book can be treated as semi-reliable; that is, it's fine as an additional reference for a piece of info, or for completely uncontroversial material, but should not be used as the only source for anything remotely controversial. I haven't read Elements of Pantheism in full, but I have read excerpts, and it seems to me that it's a little POV-heavy but accurate if you can get past the POV. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
@Jorgath: In light of the WP:PRIMARY guideline: Are you suggesting that the book can be used for any non-controversial facts about pantheism (e.g. history of pantheism in 18th and 19th centuries, how pantheism fits within theological frameworks, whether or not Einstein was a pantheist, etc); or are you saying the book's use should be limited to facts about the modern movement's own viewpoints (e.g. "The founder of the World Pantheist Movement, in his book Elements of Pantheism, defined a new naturalistic approach ...")? --Noleander (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Somewhere between the two. The latter stuff definitely can be used. The former, only for things that are completely uncontroversial. Essentially, I think it can be used for any fact about pantheism that is not contradicted by a more reliable source, and it can be used for any fact about the modern movement's viewpoints. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thankyou Jorgath. Just to assist in this discussion and make it less theoretical I have uploaded the sections of Elements of Pantheism that are uncontroversial and more or less free of POV here: http://www.pantheism.net/paul/Elements%of%PantheismReliableSourceMaterial.pdf I am suggesting that pages visually numbered 17 to 38 (history) and 87-91 (categories) are non-POV and can be used for factual references. Noleander, you can see for yourself whether this is controversial or biassed in any way.
The rest, as Jorgath suggests, could be used for facts about the World Pantheist Movement's or Paul Harrison's beliefs or practices.
The whole book is also here: http://www.pantheism.net/paul/Elements%20of%20Pantheism.pdf including sources.
Please note that the whole purpose of the commissioning of the book was to provide a source that would be of use to all types of pantheists, not just to one type.--Naturalistic (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you not see the circularity problem with arguing that your own work is reliable? Can you give us some evidence that other people who have objectively demonstrable expertise in the field, such as a doctorate in religion or philosophy, think it reliable? DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I do see it as a prima facie impression. However I have a whole life history of summa cum laude degrees in three different fields, accurate and highly regarded writing that has won me two international awards, and high-level UN editing work of flagship UN reports and international commissions - see my Wikipedia page Paul Harrison (pantheist) and resume site http://www.paul-harrison.com. All of the above, which can be independently verified, testifies to a deep and effective lifetime commitment to accuracy, as well as an ability to write about very diverse subjects at the same level of reliability. I have never had any other aim in view in my involvement with the Wikipedia article than accuracy and neutrality. And if you just dip into the link above http://www.pantheism.net/paul/Elements%of%PantheismReliableSourceMaterial.pdf you will see that the material is simply not controversial in any way, there is no slant in the coverage of individual pantheists nor in the categorization of types of pantheism.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
DGG, re your question of others using my book as source, here's some from a very cursory search
the Stanford Encyclopedia or Philosophy entry on Pantheism by philosophy Ph D Michael Levine has it as a reference - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
Here's a citation from Zygon, an academic journal of science and religion:
Religious naturalism and naturalizing morality U Goodenough - Zygon®, 2003 - Wiley Online Library ... 2001. “Mindful Virtue, Mindful Reverence.” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 36 (December): 585–95. Harrison, Paul. 1999. Elements of Pantheism: Understanding the Divinity in Nature and the Universe. London: Element.
Here's another from the Encyclopedia of Christianity: The Encyclopedia Of Christianity: Volume 4 Erwin Fahlbusch, Geoffrey William Bromiley - 2005 - 952 pages P. HARRISON, The Elements of Pantheism: Understanding the Divinity in Nature and the Universe (Boston, 1999)--Naturalistic (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
PS Re the challenge to the concept naturalistic pantheism from editor Allisgod who favors the concept of classical pantheism, I did a Google Books and Google scholar search for these two terms (as phrases), results as follows:
Google Scholar: Naturalistic Pantheism: 119 results. Classical Pantheism: 48 results
Google Books: Naturalistic Pantheism: 1,690 results. Classical Pantheism: 367 results.--Naturalistic (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I just finished reading the book, Elements of Pantheism. From start to finish it is a collection of rigid opinions mixed in with some facts by a person who obviously has no background in philosophy. The author writes: "[Pantheism] does not say whether it [life] is determined in advance - or undetermined." Pantheism "does not say" ? Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of philosophy can see the flaw in a sentence like that (not to mention the complete brushing off of Spinoza's philosophy). There are many examples throughout the book like that. And to say it does not have a bias in certain sections is wrong. The entire narrative works its way toward support of its own very specific POV and toward environmentalism and naturalism. Of course it has a significant bias.
Furthermore, it's not about 'favoring' classical pantheism. It is about correctly representing pantheism. For the most part, Classical pantheism is just a phrase used for what is traditionally meant by the word pantheism. "Naturalistic pantheism" includes the naturalism qualifier. It is a newly invented concept. It's been a real disservice to Wikipedia readers that the pantheism page has been dominated by the "naturalistic" position and all kinds of advertising for the "World Pantheist Movement". Even today, some brand new username tried to add back the "World Pantheist Movement" logo as the main picture of the page. I've examined the history of the page and others have come and gone trying to fix the page to represent a more neutral view of pantheism, only to be bullied away (by a person who seems to be working full time to defend a slanted view of the subject). That is why I came here seeking help. (Allisgod (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC))

For other sources about variants on the subject in general rather than the modern movement in particular, may I suggest The Body of God: An Ecological Theology by Dr. Sallie McFague (ISBN-10 0800627350). - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 11:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources? - Here are a few statements from the article that are sourced to the Elements book. Can someone provide a another source (secondary, reliable) for each of these statements?

  1. "In the late 20th century, pantheism began to see a resurgence."
  2. "the term 'Pantheism' did not exist before the 17th century, "
  3. "various pre-Christian religions and philosophies can be regarded as pantheistic. They include some of the Presocratics, such as Heraclitus and Anaximander."
  4. "The Stoics were Pantheists ...."

If we could see confirmation of these statements from independent, academic reliable sources, that would bring some clarity to this discussion. --Noleander (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't access most of my collection right now (they're in boxes while I get my wall fixed from water damage), but I might do some JSTOR-ing in the next day or two if no one beats me to it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
2, 3 and 4 are verifiable statements. Plumptre's General sketch of the history of pantheism from 1878 can verify those. However #1 is likely just POV. (Allisgod (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC))
"Plumptre's General sketch of the history of pantheism from 1878" does not sound like a good source. People still believed in aether and phrenology back then. Formerip (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
From my own knowledge, 1 is true-ish. I'm not sure whether I'd say the late 20th century, or even the 20th century (I read something somewhere about late 19th-century interest in the idea, but I don't rememeber where), but it definitely had a resurgence of "classical" pantheism and a surgence of naturalistic pantheism somewhere in that expanded timeframe. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
2 appears to be true, although we can probably go later. "First used by John Toland in 1705, the term 'pantheist' designates one who holds both that everything there is constitutes a unity and that this unity is divine." (Ted Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, OUP, 1995, p.641). Formerip (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we would need extremely strong sourcing for statements that people in the ancient world were pantheists. It may be appropriate, but it may also be anachronistic, like claiming Cleopatra as a feminist, Phaleas of Chalcedon as a communist or Jesus as a celebrity chef. Instead, we might consider comparing and contrasting old belief systems with new, if appropriate. It certainly seems unlikely that the Stoics can be considered pantheists, unless we mean to say that they tended to believe in the Greek pantheon. That said, the source I cited above does class Spinoza (17th century) as a pantheist. Formerip (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
1 is verifiable from the sourced contents of the article, including the founding, in 1975, of the Universal Pantheist Society - the first pantheist organization using the word pantheist in the title, and in 1999 of the World Pantheist Movement, which became the biggest pantheist organization in the world. The Pope saw fit to denounce Naturalistic Pantheism twice in major statements in 2010. All this is documented in the Pantheism article. The expression used is REsurgence. As the article describes, Pantheism had been very prominent in the 19th century but much less so in the first half of the 20th century.
2. It's impossible to prove that the term pantheism did not exist before the 17th century, but no mentions have been found before Joseph Raphson (see Pantheism article.
3 and 4. There are tons of sources classifying Stoicism and several presocratics as pantheistic - no problem in substituting these sources for Elements of Pantheism. It's perfectly valid to attribute the name pantheism to beliefs that existed before the word was invented, just as it would be to call certain ancient philosophies physicalist, or dualist, or monist etc before these terms were invented.--Naturalistic (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, but let me underline: extremely strong sourcing. Formerip (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
@Naturalistic: Perhaps I was not clear. I was attempting to evaluate the Elements source by seeing if it was corroborated by other sources. Can you name some other secondary sources, preferably academic, which justify those four statements from Elements? [Someone provided a good source for item #2, so maybe you could focus on #1, #3, and #4]. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the DRN can be closed now. It looks like the remaining open issue is finding reliable sources to corroborate/reinforce the material that is currently sourced to the Elements of Pantheism book. There are about a dozen examples of such material, and they have to be dealt with one by one; and that is not an ideal function of this DRN case. I'll enumerate the material in the article's Talk page, and I'll make an effort to find some sources. If anyone wants to keep the case open, please provide some rationale. --Noleander (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Closing as resolved. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 06:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maafa 21[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Beleg Strongbow on 19:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC).
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 "Reception" section of the "Maafa 21" article is under a POV dispute. Two editors claim that it is appropriate for the narrative of the article to declare that the opinions of one side of an issue have established "fact" while the opposing opinions are "false". They have even gone so far as to reject the idea that this dispute even exists and have attempted to remove the POV-section tag. A third editor and myself (being the fourth) feel that the cited opinions should be allowed to speak for themselves, without the editors inserting their own opinions. Both sides of this dispute have asserted that they desire a NPOV for the article, but we have been unable to come to an agreement as to what that actually means.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have extensively discussed the dispute within the Talk page. We have also cited Wikipedia policy.

How do you think we can help?

We could use more clarity as to the intended definitions of NPOV and Impartial tone. We could also use guidance on how to determine when it is appropriate to ignore sources or to elevate sources.

Opening comments by ClaudioSantos[edit]

Scholars' opinions should not be presented as undeniable facts. Not any piece of criticism is being removed here -as Roscelece claims and overreacts- but it solely presented those opinions precisely as a matter of opinions not as it was a matter of facts. --ClaudioSantos¿? 02:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Roscelese[edit]

Beleg Strongbow, a single-purpose account on this article, and ClaudioSantos, a single-purpose account dedicated to connecting Planned Parenthood with racist eugenics whose edit-warring has led to past topic bans, wish to remove the statement that the historical claims made in Maafa 21, an anti-abortion propaganda film, are not true. This statement is a summary of criticism from historical scholars, such as the editors of the Margaret Sanger Papers Project, situated further down in the section. In the section, the scholars' criticism is elaborated upon: quotes used in the film are grossly taken out of context or simply made up, people's positions are stated to be the opposite of what they in fact were, etc. Nor are the film's claims that abortion is a conspiracy to commit genocide against black people supported in any other historical literature.

We would be in a different situation if Beleg or Claudio were pointing to other available research on the subject or finding valid reasons to question the scholars' expertise. But that's not the case here. Beleg and Claudio evidently fully accept that these scholars are authorities on the subject, admitting that mainstream scholarly opinion holds that the films' claims are rubbish and that the quoted scholars are authorities on the subject. Their argument, rather, is that all opinions are equally valid, whether belonging to a professor of history at a prestigious university whose chief work is reading, editing, and writing about Margaret Sanger's papers, or the man in the street, and that if a fringe minority disagrees with something, it cannot be stated as fact. This is in clear contrast to WP policy and practice as laid out at WP:FRINGE, not to mention WP:RS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Binksternet[edit]

WP:NPOV says that we should avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. There is no contest here: all of the scholars and topic experts agree that the film portrays a fraudulent history with fabrications of fact and misleading context. The only people who disagree are pro-life activists such as the filmmaker.

The problem that Beleg Strongbow presents at the article is basically his distaste for the very negative conclusions made by scholars and topic experts. Until last week his user page showed his strong position as a pro-life proponent. The scholars and topic experts who have commented on the pro-life propaganda film Maafa 21 are in full agreement that is based on lies, fabrications and misrepresentations of context. Beleg Strongbow has not put forward any new sources, or quoted new experts, he is just reacting to the reversion of his only edit in which he downplayed the very negative evaluation of scholars.

Our article about the film cannot fail to tell the reader that all the scholarly and topic expert commentary about the film characterizes it as a "distorted... dishonest propaganda" containing serious "problems with the scholarship"; it's a "shockumentary" and part of a "propaganda... smear campaign... without any factual basis."

If Beleg Strongbow would like to soften the harsh evaluation of topic experts and scholars he should find some who praise its scholarship. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Maafa 21 discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi! I'm a dispute resolution volunteer. I'm awaiting a statement from ClaudioSantos before opening discussion, but I just wanted to make sure you all knew your request has been seen. That said, please do wait until I or another volunteer starts the discussion to post anything besides your statements. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm also a DRN volunteer and awaiting an opening statement from Claudio Santos. Electric Catfish 00:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All right, ClaudioSantos has made their statement, so we can begin. As I said before, I am a dispute resolution volunteer. This is an informal position that carries no actual authority beyond being a neutral, uninvolved person who is interested in mediating content disputes. This process is non-binding, and is only for mediating disputes over article content, not over user conduct. Since this matter is a potentially very sensitive one, I want to make sure that we're all on the same page on that aspect of this process.

To start, Binksternet's description of WP:NPOV is accurate. Just as we should not present contested opinion as uncontested fact, we should not present uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Note that for the purpose of this concept, "contested" and "uncontested" refer to the assertion's treatment by reliable sources, not to whether or not they are contested by Wikipedia editors. That said, I admire the idea of "letting the sources speak for themselves" as Beleg Strongbow puts it...but only if there are reliable sources that disagree with each other on the subject. If all reliable sources come down on one side, then coming down on the side of a different position is problematic. NPOV does not mean that we must give equal treatment to all opinions, it means that we must evaluate opinions based on their reliability, not on whether or not we agree with them. Furthermore, if all available RS come down harshly on this film, I can't imagine any way to back off of that harshness without going up against WP:WEASEL.

But all that said, there is another factor coming into play here. If ClaudioSantos or Beleg Strongbow (or anyone else) can bring in another reliable source that disagrees with the current ones, by all means we can change the weight of the wording. Likewise, if either of you, or anyone else, can provide a good reason why we should consider any of the current sources as unreliable, then change is possible. The latter will take some doing, as I don't see any of the sources currently in the article as unreliable (although some are only reliable in the ways they're currently being used). So I'd suggest going with the former. Find more sources. A good place to start might be a historian from a traditionally right-wing-Christian university (Liberty, perhaps?).

One more thing: something that very much concerns me about this whole section is the question of whether it is a good idea to have what is essentially a pros-and-cons list in the article. I'd like you all to weigh in on that question as well. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm leery of your suggestion that a user or users deliberately seek out the broadest possible definition of "scholar" in order to provide "balance." The sources should match, in quality, the scholarly sources already present - eg. Esther Katz, an expert on the topic from a prestigious and nonpartisan academic institution.
With regard to the pros and cons list, would you recommend simply collapsing the positive and negative reception subsections? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't suggest anything of the sort. Scholars are not the only reliable sources, for one. For another, I'm not asking them to find "balance," I'm asking them to find sources. If they want to "balance" the article, they need to have sources that show why the current state is not "balanced." If they can't, then the RS support the current state. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 11:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I just realized I didn't answer you on the pro-and-con list thing. Yes, and more than that, I'd prose-ify it up more. It's in prose format right now, but I'd make it so that there's more than one reaction per paragraph, perhaps improve the section intro, etc. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure it made much difference, but what do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Better. It still doesn't quite flow exactly right, if you know what I mean, but at least it reads like actual paragraphs instead of a list without bullet points. Anything further on that can wait until consensus is reached on what exactly should and shouldn't be in the section. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Jorgath, thanks for the great feedback and suggestions! Electric, thank you also for joining the discussion. We definitely can use your assistance. :) I have actually been preparing a growing list of support for the film from multiple types of sources, including The New York Times and websites either that review movies or that commentate on the African-American culture. I hope to post it in the Talk section sometime today. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The movie review sites I'd be leery of. If I were you, I'd go to news sources that include film critics, not online review sites. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the NYT piece "To Court Blacks, Foes of Abortion Make Racial Case"? That used to be cited in the article but IIRC it wasn't cited for anything it actually contained so it was removed. I hope you're not thinking of citing it as support for the film's alleged historical claims, because the article makes it clear that those claims are false and that supporters of the film don't know or don't care about the actual history. For further evidence that the film's claims are generally agreed to be propagandic nonsense, see this evaluation (it's not about the film, but it's about the same claims the film makes). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The assertion that ALL scholars reject Sanger's connection with Eugenics and that that the connection can be regarded as false in WP's voice just does not pass the sniff test. While Sanger's motivations are debated, that SOME connection exists is provable in primary sources (Sanger wrote extensively in Eugenics Review, and was a favored speaker of the KKK, though, oddly enough, worked with African-American pastors as well), and extensively covered in Race, Ethnicity, and Sexuality: Intimate Intersections, Forbidden Frontiers, by Professor Joane Nagel , and Professor Angela Frank's excellent and exhaustive Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility. While true, that the academics you cite, can be classified as academics, that in no way means that your list is exhaustive or representative(it isn't, and to say it is is WP:OR), nor does it mean that those select few have no bias; also not true, they all belong to one or another feminist school (not that there's anything wrong with that), and the Margaret Sanger Papers project participants have something of an understandable personal interest in deifying Sanger; their academic advancement is a little more tied to accentuating Sanger's positive traits than it would had they been general historians.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The other issue of the connection of all this to present day Planned Parenthood is entirely separate. Haven't searched too hard, but have never heard a convincing argument that the views are endorsed or even known by present-day Planned Parenthood workers/leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC) --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Angela Franks is a theologian (not a historian) and anti-abortion activist whose book has received no recognition in the scholarly community, only in activist circles. But guess what? Even this anti-abortion activist with tenuous claims to scholarship isn't claiming that abortion is a conspiracy to commit genocide against black people. I don't have online access to the book by Nagel, who is a real sociologist, but I strongly doubt she makes this thoroughly idiotic claim and I'd like you to provide some evidence. Sanger's relationship to the eugenic movement is discussed in our article on Sanger, but that's not the claim the film is making, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stay on topic. Dispute resolution is not the place to soapbox about abortion, and posting flat-out lies, like Sanger being a favored speaker of the KKK, is not helping anyone, least of all yourself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
DRN is not a soapbox nor for any lies. Point. Roscelese, I do not think your edit summary was constructive "your sources are bad and you should feel bad". "you should feel bad" is about the user, not the content. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, you are confusing and mixing two UNRELATED points, much to the detriment of focused argument. The film, as I understand, make TWO points, One, that Margaret Sanger was connected to the Eugenics movement, and that her 1930s views and motivations would be viewed with some horror as racist today. Two, that the 1930s views of Margaret Sanger are still known, accepted, and guiding principles of 2012 Planned Parenthood. The first point has been made by many scholarly and WP:RS sources; the claims of you selected academic (I'd challenge that designation on at least one of your sources) selections that this cannot be true in any way points to the fact that "academic" does not equal "non-partisan". Similarly calling academics that disagree names does not help, nor your "scholar therefore fact" argument, on THIS POINT ONLY. Please stop characterizing those who note the legitimacy of point ONE with point TWO. On the second, unrelated point, I would and DID agree that the view of the OTHER set of editors in this DRN might be considered fringe. The connection between 1930s Planned Parenthood and that of today is tenuous at best.
Completely unrelated, but you can scan the historical archives of most Southern newspapers. Believe it or not, many published KKK events in the news or social pages, and YES, Margaret Sanger was a regular speaker. Admittedly, if you want a general web-searchable/accessible article or photo, you might have to get it from a pro-life website, but if you have the resources, the originals are pretty easy to find. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
And I repeat that you are either accidentally or deliberately stating things that are completely wrong. It's not just that there's no evidence that modern PP has anything to do with eugenics; it's that actual historians completely reject the claims the film makes that tie Sanger to any racist goals. You're obviously relying on propaganda websites for this information, which explains why you're wrong, but you really should be doing better. (Sanger attended one KKK meeting to lecture on birth control for white people, was extremely uncomfortable, and did not attend any more.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: the discussion would be more productive, if it was around identifiable sources, not hypothetical. This primarily refers to IP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Regarding the Margaret Sanger racist allegation, every few months someone brings that notion to Talk:Planned Parenthood or Talk:Margaret Sanger. The end is always the same, that sources saying Sanger was racist are based on quotes and facts taken out of context. Scholarly sources debunk such allegations quite handily. The Margaret Sanger Project, a scholarly endeavor at NYU, has written several times about this problem: "Birth Control or Race Control? Sanger and the Negro Project", "Smear-n-Fear" (with mention of Maafa 21), "The Sanger-Hitler Equation", "Race Control", "Making it Black and White ", "Sanger Hearings", and the best one, "The Demonization of Margaret Sanger". None of the allegations are well-founded but they come thick and fast. The amount of misinformation available to anti-abortion activists is huge in this digital age. Unfortunately it's an echo-tank with bad facts and wrong context parroted endlessly. Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
As promised, I have added "support" to the Talk page. Have at it! :) -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
(DRN observers should note that I've responded to this "support" on the talk page, pointing out that it ranges from rather to badly unsuitable.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy deletion of page "Gerardo Poggi"[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Angryjo2012london on 01:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC).
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

Hello. I created some pages about the recent judging scandals in the 2012 olympics boxing events ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%22Gerardo_Poggi%22

Here is the deleted page for reference: Boxing judge in the London 2012 olympics who gave a controversial and scandalous decision against French boxer Alexis Vastine. [5] [6] [7] [8].

These were deleted in minutes by administrator Acroterion without having the chance of a proper discussion. I am quite shocked. Could you please tell me what should I do ? Thanks.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to discuss with Acroterion. He answered me "This isn't a debate or a negotiation: I've described how you might write an appropriate article. It's your choice to take the advice or not."

How do you think we can help?

I want to get the opinion of administrators who are neutral (ie NOT friends of Acroterion).

Opening comments by Acroterion[edit]

I've described to this editor how an appropriate article on 2012 Olympic boxing scandal might be constructed, and have pointed out that individual articles on otherwise non-notable Olympic judges, consisting of a single line about the person "who gave a controversial and scandalous decision" don't pass the BLP bar (or even notability). This editor's insistence on creating articles about individuals rather than the event is a matter of concern. In any case the proper venue is WP:DRV. Acroterion (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of page "Gerardo Poggi" discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Moved from "Opening comments by Acriterion" above. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What I challenge here is that the page was deleted without due discussion. I request a fair hearing and a vote. Angryjo2012london (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The references given for the articles did not mention the articles' subjects, causing them to fail both BLP and notability. This is why my advice was to focus on the event rather than the individual. BLP is very clear about this, and your insistence on naming and shaming individuals rather than writing an appropriate article about the event is troubling. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Not true. See the 4th reference: http://www.nbcolympics.com/boxing/event/men-welter-69kg/match=bxm069301/index.html . Furthermore the following article http://www.theblaze.com/stories/another-olympics-scandal-boxing-judge-expelled-after-fighter-awarded-shock-win-in-fight-some-question-was-fixed proves that focussing on judges has merit. Anyway what I challenge here is your unilateral deletion without proper and fair hearing. Your behavior is the best way to discourage contributors. Angryjo2012london (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The fourth reference is a bald match scorecard which neither substantiates your accusation against the deleted article's subject nor is an indication of notability. We must insist on direct, substantial mention in high-quality sources (have you read BLP?). You're drawing conclusions from unconnected sources, which is wholly unacceptable and in violation of BLP. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This is your personal judgement and it is flawed. I challenge it. I think that the issue merits a proper discussion, that you denied to me with your rushed speedy deletion. You are abusing your admin privileges. Angryjo2012london (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolution[edit]

Dispute resolution noticeboard isn't an appropriate forum for discussion of speedy deletions and article deletion in general. Angryjo2012london, you are free to apply WP:REFUND for undeletion of the article. Acroterion, once the article gets restored, you are free to nominate it for Articles for deletion. There is a right place to discuss these matters. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Michael Servetus[edit]

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jdemarcos on 11:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC).
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 Anatoly Ilych Belousov insists on keeping a section in the article titled "New Works" in which alleged discoveries by just one Spanish scholar, Dr. González-Echevarría, are presented as if they enjoyed generalized consensus by Servetus scholars. These works are still under academic review and further studies are needed before claiming that they can be included in Servetus' corpus of authentic works. I respected the new section and wanted to add a POV-section template, but the editor has removed the banner and replaced it with a link to the scholar's own website as enough proof that the information is reliable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to maintain a civilized discussion in the Talk page, but this editor and his small group of supporters insist on keeping the article as they like in support of Dr. González-Echevarría's views and ignoring what other scholars have published.

How do you think we can help?

I think that the section should be preserved until further proof is obtained that the so-called "new works" are legitimate. Meanwhile, some banner should be visible at the beginning of the "New Works" section, warning readers that the issue is not yet settled by scholars and it is simply an individual's original research (which may be valuable but still needs further investigation).

Opening comments by Jdemarcos[edit]

Most of my viewpoints are expressed above. I would like to simply point out that IMO the Wikipedia is not a place to promote original research, and the "New Works" section (actually an oximoron for a 16th-century writer to have "new" works) is a list of publications whose authorship is defended only by one researcher. I would expect more academic consensus. This may be extended to other references to this original research elsewhere in the article, although they might stay if they do not contradict established scientific views on the topic. Thanks. --jofframes (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Anatoly Ilych Belousov[edit]

A.I Belousov.

I have no intention of keeping this discussion. Users talked in the talk page, it is just De Marcos who did not like it. By the way , it was not me who removed that " not neutrality" label, and that user waited for more than a month, after the voting in the talk page. Too long,for a clear consensus.

The banner should be then of course as well in the identity and birthplace of Servetus. Which is not mentioned, at all. And for there is a growing theory, it has to have the banner. So, if there is in one place, ok, fine, but in the other as well. I am out of this discussion, I will react to editions , and I guess other users will.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Servetus discussion 1[edit]

Old discussions (opening case, users' behavior)
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

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.

I am not opening up the discussion yet -- we are waiting for the Opening comments by Jdemarcos. -- but while we wait we need to correct a few things.

First, The Opening comments by Anatoly Ilych Belousov are 5,829 characters long. Please trim the comments to 2,000 characters (about a third of the size it is now).

Second, multiple statements in the above violate the rules at the top of this page, which say "This noticeboard is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct." and "Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors." Please go back and delete all comment that are talking about other editors rather than discussing article content.

This discussion section will remain closed until these issues are fixed. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I noticed the comment "this editor and his small group of supporters." Should the member of the small group of supporters be added to the list of involved editors and notified? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no group of supporters, there are different users who think the same, actually just De Marcos thinks differently, I think I can remove the explicit mention to the website in the works section. I think that is fair enough. The rest of references should stay

that's it, removed explicit mention in the new works section of that website, just cause it is uncommon to have links in the middle of the sections. The other 3 remain, and the works section now has the references of the organizations that passed it. that is what I accept.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. No issues with it now. Still waiting for opening comments by Jdemarcos. The dispute overview should be a neutral and factual description of the dispute. The opening statement is the place to explain why you think your pref erred content should be in the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm also a DRN volunteer. Awaiting 2 opening statements before we can begin. Electric Catfish 00:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am opening this up for discussion. This would be a good time for any other interested dispute resolution volunteers to weigh in. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to discuss the following recent edits by:

Jdemarcos: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Servetus&diff=506447020&oldid=506354322

Anatoly Ilych Belousov: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Servetus&diff=506578742&oldid=506447020

Please note that the differences are easier to see if you click on the triangle at the bottom.

On what basis was a notice that says "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (August 2012)" removed? Clearly the dispute is not resolved. Why was the instruction "do not remove this message" not followed?

Why are there now some links in parenthesis at where the notice used to be? Wikipedia is formatted as text with supporting citations, not citations with no text. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The links were for showing this information was published in

  • More than 10 academic journals, some such as:

Vesalius ,

Pliegos de Bibliofilia,

TK

Historia 16, (2)

Roots Jewish Magazine of Culture, 2

Aki Yerushalayim

Abstracts of RAMC,

and ISHM(1),(2), an example of a congress in Galveston 3 and

SSHM

The International Society for the History of Medicine, the Spanish Society of History of Medicine, the Royal Academy of Medicine of Catalonia, and Jewish academic journals.

  • Not new. It was communicated more than 15 years ago.

The claim of Jaume de Marcos is not true. It is passed by many academic journals and peer review systems. For it is clearly referred after, I can remove the references in the title, which could be not proper. Anyway, if banners are remaining even with consensus in other directions, perhaps I should add my banner to the first years, education, and arrest sections of Servetus article, for I do not agree. The reason for Jaume to try to say it is not accepted in academic world is cause he is a member of the Michael Servetus institute, and the same researcher that discovered this new works defends Michael has another birthplace, and Jaume de marcos is a member of tha institution, which is located in that birthplace of Michael. He says it is not academically accepted, but he cannot give more than one reference and nof from an academic Journal which would say the contrary. I gave about 10. And all peer reviewed , but it does not matter, he will say " it is not certain", cause he wants it not to be. I just present the academic journals, which he claims not to exist, and he says " it is needed further study", not true. The Consensus was stablished by much bigger organizations. Whole list of references of publications on the new works can be found in many other places online, ( as well as the evident whole list in the scholar's website1). It is very certain, also passed by the American Society for the History of pharmacy, what happens is his intitute does not accept it , cause it would mean to give support to that researcher, who defends Michael was not born in the place of that institute. He would say "scholars say".. but he would forget tha there are Scholars in the specific fields, of Bibles, Materia Medica, pharmacopoeias, grammatical treatises, and Lyon printers, who accepted all this, and they are many more than those scholars he talks of, and that he cannot refer talking on this issue of the new works, ( but one). I wont discuss anything with a person in a conflict of interests, which makes false statements. the proofs are there, 10 academic journals. More than enough for any wikipedia article. I wont discuss anymore, I will simply remove that reference to teh RAMC and the ISHM and the SSHM, in the title. That should be enough. Yours sincerely. --Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

So your argument for removing the notice is "because I am right"? No. You don't get to remove the tag because you think you are right. As long as one other editor has a good faith disagreement the notice stays.
As far as I can tell you failed to answer my second question. I appreciate you willingness to remove the material in parenthesis at the top of the section, but I am more interested in why it was put there and in helping you to understand why I am saying that it was formatted incorrectly.
Regarding your statement "I wont discuss anything with a person in a conflict of interests" I have already told you once to comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Stop it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, because we talked on that, on the talk page, and because, out of 7 editors he was the one who said so. So I thought a dispute it was a consensus stuff, and , it was not me who removed it the first time, last week, it was Bernstein, after a Month, I removed it the second time. if it is not a consensus issue then don't worry, I will put it myself, and also in the biographical sections. The reason for talking of the editor it is cause it is gross. And it explains many things. But you are right, I don't have to do it. So, apparently a dispute has nothing to do with a consensus, that is ok then. Ok, done, that user banner is on the section he considers not neutral, and mine is in those I do not consider neutral, from a start, but that I did not add, cause of consensus. I am done.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have a question for Jdemarcos. It looks to me like content dispute resolution has failed because one party refuses to cooperate with the ground rules at the top of the DRN page. Do you concur, or do you think that further discussion might be able to resolve this dispute? If you concur and no other volunteer thinks that they can resolve it, I am going to point you in the right direction to get this dispute resolved, and then close this.
In my opinion, the next step would be WP:WQA. post a calm, cool, and fact-based description of the behavioral problems that you see here, including a reference to what happened here (refusal to stop talking about other editors).
Be prepared for the basic fact that WQA does not actually solve any problems. What WQA does do is this: first, they might identify any behaviors of yours that may be making things worse. And they might inform you that they see no misbehavior. Either of those would be good to know.
Second, they will try to get everyone to agree to follow Wikipedia's behavioral standards. Do not assume that just because the talk page discussion and the DRN case did not help that WQA cannot help. I have seen misbehaving editors turn around when someone says the right thing to them.
If WQA does not do the trick, I think the next place to go should be WP:RFC/U. Again, a calm, cool, and fact-based description of the problem is what is needed. Include references to the DRN and WQA cases. And again, give it your best good-faith effort to come to a conclusion. RFC/U is also a good place to ask "what should I be doing here? How can I make this better?" This would be a good time to stop following my advice and to instead follow the advice you get at RFC/U. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Refusal to stop talking of other users? didn't I stop? there is a pending case in Conflict of interest issue on that user. I mentioned Bernstein who was not invited here, and who removed the banner in the first place. Apparently you try to make us agree. I do not agree. I presented the academic journals. And I know they will not convince this user. He will keep saying the same thing. He was listened in the talk page, and half of the article was arranged according to what he though , even after it was other way during more than 6 months. Good faith?. You are totally wrong. There has to be more in the disputes than just agreement. Data. If not, anyone can just ask for a dispute, and act as if they have good faith, and not to present any data, simply saying they think differently. Good faith has who listens. And collaborates, and contributes, not who is trying to destroy other contributions. Wikipedia has a serious problem of data checking. Most, if not every issue is based on opinion, and there is no really attention in anything else. There are the academic journals. the facts that proof my opinion. I wont discuss endlessly this issue, based on the opinion of someone, and not data. There are better things to do than wasting my time, it was also talked in the talk page, several times but that user, basically has a conduct from one ear to the other one, and nevermind how many sources of academic nature, or huge organizations you name, he utters " not enough", not certain, further study, and he has the same worth than my sources? When did wikipedia turn into " politics". That user was listened too much in the talk page, too polite and considered all users were with his changes. But he aparently thinks we do not know what goes on, even if he calls his director baches Opi, the next day, for him to edit wikipedia and try to revert in a clumsy way , any information that would affect the institue. Clear confict of interest, and planned edition.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I told you to comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Your reply was "Nope" and "The reason for talking of the editor it is cause it is gross" Then you did it again ("And I know they will not convince this user. He will keep saying the same thing.") That is refusal to follow the rules.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
The next time you break the above rules your comment will be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I am going to assume from the following comment that Anatoly Ilych Belousov is now willing to focus on article content. I am going to wait to see what Jdemarcos's response is before commenting. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
If Mr. Belousov is willing to discuss the contents on the article and not intentions, I am happy with that and conversation may go on to settle the dispute. I am concerned by sentences such as I "was listened too much" in the Talk page. I have never said that I have "listened too much" from Mr. Belousov or from any other editor who is not trolling but exposing disagreements and alternate viewpoints in a civilized manner. So unless we can go into frank and open discussion on issues, please follow the standard procedure for resolution. Thank you. --jofframes (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Part of talking about article content and not about user conduct is not responding when someone else talks about other editors rather than what is in the article. I advise dropping the subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I would be happy to concentrate from now on debating my original request rather than in users' etiquette. I think that the "New Works" section, as it is written today, goes against WP:POV because it is one-sided, and also WP:SOAPBOX because its purpose is to promote the original research made by one individual. Rather than presenting a balanced view, we find only a list of alleged "discoveries" made by this scholar. My previous attempts at flagging the section for POV were reversed, e.g. this one. Now the banner is back but still the section is totally one-sided, with over 14 footnotes referring to the work of just one individual. Perhaps the whole section should be rewritten in a more balanced way, pointing out that this research needs further academic discussion and is not generally accepted, or the section might be removed until further secondary sources are published that either confirm or refute these "discoveries". --jofframes (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(lets see if this time I get to do it in a right way..)I said what I wanted to say, it is false to say it is not recognized in the academic world. I provided 10 academic journals, plus abstracts of the SSHM and the International Society for the History of Medicine. So that reasoning is just not true. It is the important thing I repeatidly said. That is the key here, according to the rules. And it shows what it was said was not true. Isn't that clear?--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to help parties build policy based rationale. The relevant policy for this dispute is Neutral point of view, and the particular application of this policy depends on the following factors:

  1. Was the view of Dr. González-Echevarría cited in academic sources?
  2. Did it receive any recognition or opposition?
  3. Were the opposite views discussed in academic sources since the emergence of view of Dr. González-Echevarría?
  4. What other information would allow one to judge on this view's prominence?

Also note: though one of the editors may have a conflict of interests, such conflict does not automatically invalidate his position. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make a few points about Mr. Belousov's claim that Dr. González-Echevarría's work was cited in 10 "academic journals". One of the journal is Vesalius, the journal of the International Society for the History of Medicine, the same organization that has been hosting Dr. Echevarría's speeches on his original research. "http://www.ramc.cat/revistes.asp" is a link to covers of the journal of the Royal Academy of Medicine, an affiliate of ISHM and another forum where Dr. Echevarría has been invited to speak, therefore they are just reflecting the academy's programs and activities, therefore the quote. Other sources quoted above refer to the "Librarians' Association of Navarra", which can hardly qualify as a scientific source. "Historia 16" is a popular history magazine, not an academic journal. In the article, all notes from #53 to #66 refer exclusively to Dr. González-Echevarría's book and speeches, with no references to other authors or materials that could be quoted to confirm or contrast his claims. My attempts at flagging the section with a POV banner have been repeatedly reverted, and I am told that Out of 7 users, it is just u, therefore my editions are not accepted. In sum, no contrasting view is allowed that could contradict or nuance Dr. González-Echevarría's original research as promoted by Mr. Belousov and his supporters. This, in my opinion, is not presenting a balanced view but a way of promoting the work of one person, which IMO would break the editing rules of Wikipedia not just regarding WP:POV but also WP:SOAPBOX. --jofframes (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Servetus discussion 2[edit]

I just spent 20 minutes going through the history at Michael Servetus and I am having trouble figuring out exactly what article text these alleged citations in academic journals are attached to. Could someone quote the exact text that is under dispute?

In the meantime, let's look at those references:

http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/busquedadoc?t=francisco+javier+gonzalez+echeverria&db=1&td=todo

503 error: "The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later." Will try again later.

http://www.miguelservetinvestigacion.com/enlaces.html

Spanish language webpage, translates to "Life of Michael Servetus." References other documents which may be usable, but this page is not an academic journal or a reliable source. Don't use it.

http://www.revista-raices.com/sumarios/suma.php?sum=49

Spanish language webpage, translates to "Roots, a magazine of Jewish culture published in Spain by SEFARAD BOOKS, SL, 1986." Not an academic journal. Not an article: link just goes to table of contents that does not contain the word "Servetus."

http://www.revista-raices.com/sumarios/suma.php?sum=40

Spanish language webpage, translates to "Roots, a magazine of Jewish culture published in Spain by SEFARAD BOOKS, SL, 1986." Not an academic journal. Not an article: link just goes to list of articles. One item on the list translates as "Article: The Jewish origin of Servetus."

http://www.aki-yerushalayim.co.il/

Website language is Judaeo-Spanish, looks like an online magazine, no use of the word "Servetus", certainly not an academic journal.

http://www.ramc.cat/revistes.asp

Another Spanish language list of articles, this time from the website of The Royal Academy of Medicine of Catalonia. Come up with an actual citation to a journal that talks about Servetus. and you might have something.

http://www.biusante.parisdescartes.fr/ishm/vesalius/VESx1999x05x01.pdf

Document from the journal of the International Society for the history of medicine. Mentions Servetus, so I need to see what text the citation is alleged to support.

http://www.biusante.parisdescartes.fr/ishm/vesalius/VESx2001x07x02.pdf

Document from the journal of the International Society for the history of medicine. Mentions Servetus, so I need to see what text the citation is alleged to support.

http://www.biusante.parisdescartes.fr/ishm/eng/galv/prog_06.htm

Another list of documents, this time from the Inter-University Medicine (BIUM) and Pharmacy (BIUP). No mention of Servetus, not an article in an academic journal.

http://www.sehm.es/pages/investigacion/publicaciones-socios

Another list of documents, this time from The Spanish Society for the History of Medicine. No mention of Servetus, not an article in an academic journal.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The ISHM and SSHM are totally big and neutral and peer reviewed, same than pliegos de Biblifilia, Historia 16, Aki reusalahim, Raices Jewish Magazine of Culture, and so. So what are you talking about? It is in very important peer reviewed systems. Stop saying things that are not real. Historia 16 is an academic Journal, Same than Vesalius, same than Pliegos de Bibliofilia or the 2 academic Jewish Magazines I referred. Again, None has given any reference to an academic journal where it would be talked of the new works, in the way that user wants. It is accepted in more than 58 countries thanks to the International Society for the History of Medicine, many universities, and has many supporters, which I listed in my talk page. So, it is the work of one person who has accomplished an amazing discovery, and has got peer reviews systems to check it and to admit it, cause of his solid ands deep research, and they are some of the biggest peer review systems of the world. So stop saying things that are not true thanks. By the way , the " affiliate " to the ISHM, is not true, there are common members that is. Besides he was not invited to talk, it was the president Jacint Corbeia i Corbeia and some other members who talked and defended and communicated Gonzalez discoveries in the RAMC. So, the one claim for doing so is that all this was accomplished by a man. Well, it was. He has many more supporters, and powerful organizations, present in more than 58 countries with scientific commmitte peer reviewed system. So, sometimes in history, Galieo or Newton, can accomplish things by themselves, and prove it scientficaly. And though wikipedia should be calmed deciding on this issues, if it is supported by strong peer reviewed systems, it can perfectly go in Wikipedia, and it should. Besides, the ISHM chooses his members freely, and accepts communications with a very hard revision, and tests, so if Gonzalez was hosted was cause his relevance as a scientist and researcher was important, not just in past , which does not count, but about the communications he had to present. So, the ISHM accepted 5 communications of that researcher, cause he is brilliant, and cause he made scientific communications, on the works, either if it is in Galveston, Patra, Tunis, Barcelona, or Kos. Besides he also communicated in Malaga, Santiago, Albacete with the Spansih Society for the History of Medicine, and in the Andres Laguna INternational Congress. So yea, the ISHM, has accepted, as the SSHM repeatidely great communications of Gonzalez, and presented it in Vesalius. Same that it did with Gregorio Marañón, or Pedro Lain Entralgo in the Past , many Spanish geniuses, cause their communcations are great, and theu were great researchers, so the fact the ISHM loves someone, means that person is great as a researcher, and not the contrary, as u tried to indicate. Please, do not try to make one of the biggest and most important scientific organization like a trifle , when your own MSI, is an organization that does not communicate any finding. Just reflection works, on old stuff of servetus, no research of archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that we are discussing here what the MSI does or does not. We are talking about Wikipedia policies regarding neutrality, balanced views, and non-advertising in the Michael Servetus article. I think that your policy of relentlessly promoting Dr. Echevarría's views and blaming everybody else who disagrees with him, does not respond to those standards, but it is not up to me to decide about it. --jofframes (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia says something accepted in peer review systems should be there, so the ISHM has one of the biggest systems in the world when it comes to peer review and pressence in the world. I think that your policy of relentesly destroy anything with Gonzalez has to do with personal interest, anyway, we cannot talk about it here. Here we talk about content, I did say what I had to say about the ISHM, I provided academic journals, that it.It is the biggest contribution to Servetus for the last 500 years. It was claimed non academic acceptance, well one of the biggest organizations which is peer reviewed has accepted it. And the SSHM, , and the RAMC,and appears in many academic journals. The claim is illegitimate. No more issues.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The "something accepted in peer review systems should be there" rule only applies if you cite something that was peer reviewed. Not a table of contents. Not a bibliography. Not some random page that makes no mention of Michael Servetus. You need to learn what a citation is. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Here you have all whole works and publications Here you have the mention and propper name and citiacion of all the sources. Not all are accesible online, if that is what u ment. But you can read some completelly, specially some Vesalius ones. And yes, some of them apparently are not working. They did some days ago. Anyway, pliegos de Bibliofilia and Historia 16, you can read the titles of the articles and have an idea, same with the communications in the ISHM and SSHM. The titles of the peer reviewed communcations are on the Opera Omnia of galen, On the Dioscories, on the Manuscritp of Complutense, on the Pharmacopoeia dispensarium, on the Portraits or figures from the old Testament, and Ymagine sfrom the old Testament, on the Eight parts of the sentence, on the Andria, on the Dischits of Cato, on the Beauty of the Latin Language. All the new works, communciated in Malaga, Santiago, Albacete, Patra, Tunisia, Galveston, Kos and Barcelona, all after passing the scientific committe, peer reviewed, and all stated in the book of abstracts, published every year. Here you can rear some news, in newspapers , some national ones, * just for curiosity* and , you can read more the medical Diary of Spain, it is in Spanish though, and the programme of the RAMC, it is th Black and white, in the middle of the 1st page. www.scoop.it/t/discovered-new-works-and-true-identity-of-michael-servetus-proofs . You can also read some Vesalius (dec 1999) and some Pliegos de Bibliofilia (12-1997) articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk • contribs) 15:13, 11 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Note: editors, please, mark modifications to your comments with <ins></isn> and <del></del> tags, sign your comments and use edit summaries. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) (DRN volunteer) 15:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the links provided above to michaelservetusresearch.com refer to Dr. González-Echevarría's personal website, designed to promote his personal views and investigation about Servetus. --jofframes (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC) P.S.: The same about miguelservetinvestigacion.com, it is the Spanish version of the same website. --jofframes (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No, note that those works were published in peer reviewed systems, some of them huge, with scientific committe and in more than 58 countries and 12 national delegations. We are not here for judging intentions, just for studying where those works were published, and I provided exact citacions. The personal website of that scholar gathers it, But that is irrelevant, the fact they are published is what matters. The fact they were gathered there, as it is normal, cause it is the profile of that researcher, does not make them untrue. It makes a good collection of the works published by this researcher, accepted in the huge ISHM and big SSHM and some academic Journals such as vesalius or pliegos de Bibliofilia, or more. And books of abstracts. Peer reviewed systems do not promote. Study and publish. His views are not personal, are shared by Huge organizations of peer reviewed systems. What is clear is a try to unpromote, based on personal reasons--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Here you have all whole works and publications", you are wrong. That URL does not contain the text of any publication. None of your links do. Unless you can give a citation to an actual document, not just a page that mentions the title, you do not have a citation that Wikipedia can use. Re: "The personal website of that scholar gathers it, But that is irrelevant, the fact they are published is what matters", you are wrong. It is the content of a document that matters. Does it support what we say it does? Is it a reliable source? Please provide citations to actual documents, not to some website that mentions them. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that we are moving forward by accusing me of having personal reasons (thus going against WP:AGF), or by insisting in your list of "peer-reviewed journals" quoted in Echevarría's own website, and that user Guy Macon has already checked out and verified that most are not scientific or peer-reviewed. I am not trying to "unpromote" anybody, I just would like a more balanced view in the article and particularly in the so-called "New" Works section. Can we debate just on that? --jofframes (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Anatoly Ilych Belousov (16:28, 11 August 2012) deleted because it contained the comments "" Do you realy know what you talk of?"" and "Your behaviour sounds partial.". You were warned that any comments that talk about user conduct instead of article content would be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


And also note, I put my banner in the biography sections, for it is published in the Vesalius Academic Journal of ISHM, 3rd reference by Lelouch, that his name is not Servetus. This was shared with the 39 delegations, offices in the 58 countries and 12 national societies, after beeing peer reviewed by a scientific committee.Also same with the RAMC, one can clearly read it in the programme of book of abstracts, Miguel De Villanueva So, this is not referred,nor mentioned, so my banner will remain in the biographical sections.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Servetus discussion 3[edit]

Perhaps you are not familiar with the full process of peer review. Please note that your first reference from Vesalius, ISHM revue Vesalius, vol. V, nº 1, año 1999 (p. 53, not 59 as you say), is a summary of contents in the Book Review section, not a manuscript submitted by the author which has been scrutinized by peers before publication, or an essay by another scholar who writes an essay or article about the book. The second reference from Vesalius is also a book summary. The third reference from Vesalius is again a book summary and there is only a brief mention to Echevarría's article in the book. The reference to the Catalan congress is just a programme with a list of speakers, not an article. I could provide you with programmes of congresses where I have spoken, but you would probably be more interested in knowing what I said, not where I said it. A full peer-reviewed article on Echevarría's "discoveries" would be necessary. Can you provide just one, apart from summaries and programmes? --jofframes (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Anatoly Ilych Belousov (21:20, 11 August 2012) deleted. You were warned to talk about article content, not user conduct, and you decided to break the rule. Your comment "I should not talk about users, well, it is so gross the stuff, that if I do not say it people will not understand what goes on" shows that you are aware of the rule and broke it on purpose. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Another DRN volunteer has spoken, and you're new comments were not appropriate for DRN, and so I have reverted them. As a DRN volunteer, ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke, I try to write the whole citazions that Guy Manon asked me to and you revert it? why. It has nothign to do with Users.

(Comment moved here from my talk page --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC))

You deleted many comments I did not just the ones talking of users, I was rewriting those, preciesly the citazions you asked for, and you block me? Do you find it logical?--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to slowly go through your posts deleting just the parts that break the rules. I do not work for free. Break the rules in part of your comment and the whole thing will be deleted. You are free to rewrite your comments without the personal attacks against other editors and resubmit. You were warned to talk about article content, not user conduct, and you decided to break the rule. You were aware of the rule and broke it on purpose. Now you are engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing. (Edit war warning placed on user page). It's really quite simple. follow the rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - It appears that there is a scholar, González Echeverría, who claims that some works were in fact written by Servetus. I think the applicable WP guideline is WP:FRINGE, which comes into play when a single scholar holds a view that is not endorsed by the majority. WP:FRINGE says "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. " The FRINGE guideline does not say that the viewpoint must be totally omitted from the article, but does say that the article cannot contain a lot of text about it. For example, even the Shakespeare article has an entire paragraph devoted to alterative author theories. For the Michael Servetus article, my suggestion would be that the "New" section, which is rather large now, be compacted down to a one paragraph summary which summarizes Echeverría's claims, and makes it clear they are not endorsed by the majority. --Noleander (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur with this. I specifically asked for citations of other academics that support the view, and I only get a list of names without list of works. If this position is only verified to single academic, and no other academics refer to it either endorsing or opposing it, such positions surely shouldn't get prominence in the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Strong agreement with Noleander. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
As the OP for this dispute resolution request, I agree and would support Noleander's proposal, it is very reasonable and open to further developments in Servetus studies in the future in order to confirm or refute Echevarría's claims. This would close the dispute request on my side. Thank you all. --jofframes (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Glad you like it. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I am closing this as resolved; it is clear that the content dispute is settled. I suspect that there will be ongoing issues with user conduct, in which case I advise going through the user conduct steps at WP:DR. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you run into any problems. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Religion in Turkey[edit]

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 178.223.212.72 on 23:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC).
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

Well, for starters, the article presents the KONDA reasearch which states 2.3% agnostics and 0.9% atheists. In the nature of other Religion in Europe articles (all articles use irreligion; not that I'm the fan of the WP:OSE), I asked that those be incorporated into the 3.2% irreligious. However, not only that my proposal was left undiscussed on the talk page, but Saguamundi also requested the article's protection. So, not that it's only content dispute, it's also user conduct dispute (for not discussing and practically using WP:OWN). Please, help us resolve these disputes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Edit warring (wasn't the best idea), temporally full protection (didn't help), discussion on talk page (Saguamundi didn't want to discuss - at all), help desk...

How do you think we can help?

Firstly, you could 'convince' Saguamundi to act properly and be a good Wikipedian discussing rather than edit warring (plus WP:OWN). Secondly, you could help me/us determine whether atheism and agnosticism should be unified as irreligion or not. Thirdly, you could find the third, compromising (and maybe creative) idea, so that everyone would be happy and satisfied.

Opening comments by Saguamundi[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Poeticbent[edit]

First of all, I'm NOT an "involved user". So, why am I being dragged into this? All I did was to revert once a suspicious chart with no external source and numbers that did not correspond to what the article said. I requested the citation. The uploader corrected his mistake and appologized in his edit summary; I let go of it, end of story. However, KONDA Research is a private company from Turkey (not from Poland) involved only in polling and data collection. It is one of over a dozen such companies in Turkey earning a living by research in Social Sciences and Humanities.[5] I wonder why the charts are posted everywhere around (from Albania to Norway), even if the actual data isn't new or differs from the equally reliable local sources? Is there a possible COI behind this unusual push for mass inclussion of KONDA results in Wikipedia? And why is a dynamic IP doing the posting instead of a registered user? There must be a better way of doing this, without giving grief. Poeticbent talk 15:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Erp[edit]

I've also had not been involved in the Religion in Turkey article; however, I have been involved in the Religion in Norway article and was considering bringing up the problem there though I was awaiting a discussion in Talk:Religion in Norway. Namely the renaming and shoehorning of cited statistics into a bar graph which I think misleads people. The same seems to be happening in the Turkey article (with the addition that the stats however munged apparently don't seem to come from the given reference). As an aside I find irreligion as a term inappropriate and vague for what is included under it; it is too strong a word to apply to the merely non-religious. It is not used very much as far as I can see in modern scholarly research and most of those uses are for specific historical periods when the term was in use. The Library of Congress has a sum total of at most 67 works classified as being about 'irreligion' (the search would also find use in notes or title) which means their definition of it must be quite narrow and far narrower than its current use in Wikipedia. --Erp (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Tahc[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Sabrebd[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Religion in Turkey discussion[edit]

Discussion[edit]

I will wait for the other party to comment. Page protection is never the solution to a dispute, and atheism is different than irreligion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer and am awaiting an opening statement by Saguamundi. Electric Catfish 21:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as there is already some chat here, I would like to interject. Agnosticism and irreligion are unrelated (see Agnostic theism). Thus uniting agnostics and atheists you get a set of people who are not necessarily irreligious; renaming atheists to irreligious you get a set of people, which is smaller then amount of irreligious. Statistics is all about it: the way the question is posed severely limits ability of data manipulation. That is why the community-wide RfCs are normally prepared for quite a lot of time. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That isn't what the irreligion says. It clearly includes 'all the possibilities' (of course not agnostic theism; it's theism, so belief is present; agnostics we talk about here are agnostic atheists). You got me confused with the part of the way question is posed? This all seems lake a misunderstanding to me. Could someone write what irreligion is and what it isn't? Is article lying? Regarding the informations it contains, irreligious are - atheists, secular humanists (mostly atheists), antitheists (atheists again), anticlericalists (wide group; from atheists to SBNR), antireligionists (wide group again), apatheists, ignostics, nontheists (wide group; discluding nontheistic religions), religious skeptics, etc... However, those actually sum up almost only to atheists and (agnostic) atheists. So, is it OK to count atheists and agnostics as irreligious or not (my guess is yes)? 93.87.210.14 (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that irreligion is lying, as it uses word "agnostic" in sense of "agnostic atheist". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
What to do in that case? Nominate irreligion for speedy (kidding of course)? However, these issues must be checked, since there are some conflicting definitions (as I 'got a hold of them') that need to be adressed, so they don't cause confusion. Either way, the 'opening' comment is still pretty much needed. 93.87.210.14 (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I partly agree with Poeticbent. The volounteer added all of you (who clearly have nothing to do with Religion in Turkey dispute; I actually already explained that). As for 'KONDA agenda', it could be prestent (but only in Religion in Turkey), since (read Religion in Turkey's talk and hisory pages) Saguamundi was one instisting (for several years) "stick to KONDA", "we better stick to KONDA", etc. I posted a question on help desk regarding major Wikipedia justice I experienced in these few days [6]. So, KONDA's present only in Religion in Turkey, so no 'KONDA agenda' is present. 93.86.129.66 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, filing requests on the same topic in different places is discouraged on Wikipedia. Such practice is usually referred to as "forum shopping". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That was mainly regarding the other user conduct dispute (no relations with this one). 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How exactly would you derive the amount of "irreligious" in the "Religion in Turkey"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Big sorries for not being able to comment earlier. As for irreligious in Turkey, according to the updated terminology used by KONDA (thank you for doing that, since I wasn't able to access the archive), it would be only 0.9%. I'm confused about those 2.3%. They don't seem to be the agnostic atheist. Are they just people not going to church/mosque, Muslims not doing obligatory prayer? Or maybe some of these: agnostic theists, believers without religion (Ietsers and SBNR)? Any further specification (non-believer is imprecise, and is Arabic term (Kafir) used to denote all non-Muslims)? Either way(s), all those don't belong to Irreligion, but to respective religions (agnostic theists, Ietsers and SBNR usually identify with one of the religions (see respective articles)). A for bar box, new one would contain: 98.4% Islam (what's left after everything else is counted in), 0.9% Irreligion/Atheism (KONDA) and 0.7% Others (referenced and present in the beginning of the article). In that case, Atheism could be a better choice (same as with Serbia, Romania, Luxembourg, Russia, Belarus etc.). However, Irreligion is still the best choice for Germany, France, Sweden, Norway (unless the article renaming), the Netherlands, Latvia, etc, etc... So, since it's the most appropriate term for the most Religion in Europe articles, I though that it would be good to use Irreligion for all, so that there is consistency present. Also, readers would be able to compare the information more easily, since the same terms would be used. Thoughts? 178.223.215.93 (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
See, this particular classification is very uncommon and difficult to match against common variants. So even if the policy would allow to state own analysis of sources (WP:OR forbids this), any particular option would constitute improper synthesis, as all of the groups the source uses includes irreligious (eg. anticlericals are "non-believers", while agnostic-theists may be "believers", "religious" or "fully devouts"). We just can't report the sources the way that misrepresents their findings, so unless there'll be some source that would group various flavors of "irreligious" into single group, we just can't use the word "irreligious".
That said, inconsistency between articles is a problem indeed. Still, in the lack of consistency within sources all we can do is to give an explanatory note, stating that the classification in this particular article doesn't match that in other articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. Sadly, thing aren't always black and white (talking about Wikipedia (in)consistency here; present in all the other printed encyclopedias). So, should I start renaming "Irreligion" to "Atheism" where it's applicable as so (Serbia, Russia, Luxembourg, etc.) or should I wait for other opinions, if any? I still am kind of a beginner. Nevertheless, after closing all the discussions here on English Wikipedia (there are a few left excluding this), I'll start (as a registered user) on Serbian Wikipedia, translating English articles, so don't except me to "intrude" here on the religion again, EVER. 178.223.223.170 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Acually, after a little thought, I think we should wait a few days (why we couldn't), since I remember some users, such as BigNate37 (talk · contribs), Electriccatfish2 (talk · contribs) and Ebe123 (talk · contribs) promised they'll join in the discussion. I'll left them notes on their respective talk pages. 178.223.223.170 (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Still here. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
(Still here), not giving us your piece of mind? What's the sitch? Sagaumundi's comment isn't to be excepted (disregarding the fact he's not the "problem" now). It actually is crucial to have as many thoughts as possible (including yours, of those I sent the note to, and all the other available volounteers). Please, comment. Disputes involving the whole Wikipedia can't be solved obly by two users (me and Czarkoff in this case). 178.223.223.170 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure we can wait. I would say we should wait, as is quite possible that some more appropriate solution would be found. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that, after reading our discussion again, I think we solved everything except "humanism". Now, the results are:

  • For Saguamundi (talk · contribs), nothing is to be taken againsts him.
  • For "Irreligion" and "No religion", it should be written as the source says.
  • For "(Secular) Humanism", discussion is still ahead.

I'll start changing the terms and report back here. 77.46.175.85 (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Now → EUR (Irreligion → Atheism), ALB (no chart), AND (no chart), ARM (no disputed terms), AUT (stayed Irreligion), AZE (no disputed terms), BLR (help needed), BEL (Irreligion → Atheism), BIH (no disputed terms), BGR (help needed), CRO (Irreligion → Atheism), CYP (no disputed terms), CZE (Irreligion → No religion), DNK (Irreligion → No religion), EST (Irreligion → No religion), FIN (Irreligion → No religion), ITA (Irreligion → No religion), IRL (Irreligion → No religion), KAZ (Irreligion → Atheism), ISL (Irreligion → No religion), HUN (Irreligion → No religion), GRC (no disputed terms), GER (Irreligion → No religion), GEO (no disputed terms), FRA (Irreligion → No religion). Still lots to go, but I need a break. Please, help with Belarus and Bulgaria. 77.46.175.85 (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've checked the contributions of editors, whose opening statements are missing: all of them were active after receiving the notification, so there is no sense in waiting for their comments to come. If nobody disagrees, I'll close this case as "resolved". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, first see what I'm doing and if it's right. Continuing → LVA (Irreligion → No religion), LIE (no disputed terms), LTU (Irreligion → No religion), LUX (Irreligion → Atheism), MKD (no disputed terms), MLT (no chart), MDA (no disputed terms), MCO (no chart), MNE (no disputed terms), NLD (need help), NOR (discussion still going on), POL (stayed Irreligion), PRT (is that vandalism?), ROU (no disputed terms), RUS (Irreligion → Atheism), SMR (no disputed terms), SRB (Irreligion → Atheism), SVK (Irreligion → No religion; help, atricle's confusing and misleading), SVN (Irreligion → Atheism; help, article is totally vandalized), ESP (Irreligion → No religion), SWE (Irreligion → Atheism), CHE (stayed Irreligion; maybe erroneously), TUR (no chart), UKR (Unaffiliated seems good enough), GBR (everything's clear), ENG (no chart), WLS (Irreligion → No religion), NIR (Irreligion → No religion), KSV (no disputed terms) and, finally, ABK (None → No religion). 77.46.175.85 (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

So, I just need help with Belarus, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal (sources???), Slovakia (confusing and misleading) and Slovenia (it's either atheo-vandalized or unreferenced). 77.46.175.85 (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, don't close the discussion before checking if everything's alright and helping me with forementioned articles. Thanks, 77.46.175.85 (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This discussion should be closed when there is no further dispute to resolve. Is that the case here? The discussion about helping you with the articles should go on the article talk pages --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Answered questions

The first question (user misconduct)[edit]

The first question is: Is it appropriate for Saguamundi (talk · contribs) to get a warning for his misconduct and violation of WP: 3RR, WP: OWN and WP: BRD? Note: It has to be done by someone else, since I, as an IP user, can't do it myself. Answer the forementioned question (in bold) and explain your stance, please. 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My answer is yes since he didn't do too little for nothing, nor too much for ban. 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please note that the DRN is only about content, not conduct. There's a note at the top of the page about that. ANI is there for user conduct. Ravensfire (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I know, but it was already mentioned by volounteer Electric Catfish, so I couldn't just ignore it. Would this one exception hurt (the system)? Please!!! This is a case for WP:IAR!!! 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, as this was already previously discussed, I'll answer: no, I see no grounds for issuing any warnings. Saguamundi performed exactly 3 reverts withing 3 days, thus not breaking WP:3RR, explaining his position in edit summaries. Though it would be nice of him to actually answer your comment on the talk page, he wasn't obliged to. I see no violation of WP:OWN, and WP:BRD is an essay, so we can't emit warnings based on it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, then, I change my yes to no, since this issue isn't the major one. Also, Saguamundi (talk · contribs) won't be able to re-add his bar "KONDA bar box", since it actually was a kind of guesstimate. Nevertheless, he's been active today and should be urged to join the discussion, so concensus could be reached. 178.223.223.170 (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The second question (irreligion)[edit]

The second question is: Is it appropriate to use irreligion as all-in-one term in bar boxes, pie charts, etc, which would, per its definition, include atheists, agnostics (agnostic atheists), secular humanists and other belief systems which either reject, deny, or somehow else (ignosticism) dismiss belief of deities, God or life spirit? Note: It would obviously exclude non-theistic religions and belief systems containig some supernatural/faith elements (deism and agnostic theism; however, these group are least likely to be counted in any census, survey or research in reasonable percent (which wouldn't show up as 0.00%); same goes for (almost unambiguously irreligious) ignosticims). Answer the forementioned question (in bold) and explain your stance, please. 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My answer is yes, since all the forementioned belief systems clearly state that supernatural stuff doesn't exist, that it can't be proven, and/or that it can't be concluded without the 'more specified' definition (though this is irrelevant, since ignosticism isn't to be found in any study as of today), thus effectively making the Irreligious group a valid one, which, while having some significant belief differences, implicate to the very same thing (already noted in Irreligion article/definition). Also, in case of Religion in Norway (only one including humanism), the information (which include humanism) aren't disturbed by the bar box containing only Irreligion. As it already was said, humanism isn't a religion, so only way (a great one for me) of giving it it's own bar is renaming of article to "Religious and life stances in Norway". I fully support the remaning. So, the 13.6% of Norway is irreligious from the religion point. However, from the life stance point, 12.9% are atheists, agnostics, etc, while 1.7% are humanists. Does that suit its purpose, Erp? I'll get the more stances out if needed (but at the earliest after 16:00 UTC). 178.223.204.153 (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
No (explained above). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The appropriateness of using 'irreligion' is entirely dependent on the reliable sources we have. Our first priority should be to represent the information in our sources as accurately and completely as possible: this is more important than being consistent with the categories included in articles that use different sources. If a particular poll of religious affiliation differentiates agnosticism and atheism, we should present it that way. Whatever the categories provided, and especially if they are not technically religions (regarding the Norway matter of humanism), we should present the information with neutral wording so as to avoid indication of approval or rejection of the sources' chosen categories. To re-label the determinations that poll respondents made is to flirt with intellectual dishonesty, because poll responses depend very much on the exact wording of the alternatives. Let me be clear: we should not speculate on the "actual meaning" of poll responses at all. If it's a matter of massaging the data of one poll to fit the categories used for several other independent and reliable polls, well maybe we ought to apply the spirit of WP:UNDUE: give the poll with non-conforming categories a separate and less prominent mention. BigNate37(T) 01:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
As an aside, my first thought was that WikiProject Religion ought to have a say in the matter if we want to see a definitive consensus that isn't going to need reevaluation in a month's time. However, I'm reluctant to just keep adding people to a dispute, but this does seem to fit the bill of a necessary assumption à la WP:MNA. They should be included if and when it's time to settle the matter once for all as implied by WP:MNA. BigNate37(T) 01:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The third question (humanism)[edit]

The third question is: Do you support the renaming of article "Religion in Norway" to "Religious and life stances in Noway", with making "Religion in Norway" and "Life stances in Norway" as redirects? Answer the forementioned question in bold and explain your stance, please. 178.223.114.175 (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that in the case of Norway it isn't a poll but religious/life stance registration reported by the government which is why the numbers aren't rounded in the tables (and why I think Humanism should have its own line in the bar chart). One addition to the confusion is that the various sources measure different things: self-religious identity (what people identify themselves as), government or organizational definition of identity (what the government or some other entity such as a church state people are such as 99%+ are Muslim according to the Turkish government though surveys seem to indicate the number is a bit lower), religiosity (how strongly do they abide by their religion's rules which is what the KONDA survey reports on), or particular beliefs (e.g., do you believe in a god). The Pew Forum's survey of American religion and beliefs had some interesting results including the number of self-identified Christians who didn't believe in a god either as a personal or impersonal force (there were also a certain percentage of self-identified atheists who believed in a god). Certain religions such as Judaism and Unitarian Universalism have large numbers of people who would also say they are atheists and also large numbers who say they aren't (another reason why you just can't throw 'atheists' into the 'irreligion' category). I do think we should not close the discussion immediately; it is summer still so interested parties may not be checking frequently. --Erp (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I seem to agree with Erp more and more (note (this isn't a typo) that I didn't agree with him at all in the beginning). However, for me, it's against common sense to regard humanism as religion, since it has nothing to do with it (other than the particular stances common to atheism, agnosticism, etc). Even the Norwegian Government groups it, not with "religious organizations", but with "religious and life stance organizations". So, in accordance with Norwegian Government, article should be renamed from "Religion in Norway" to "Religious and life stances in Norway". I'll open this as the third question (talk page was ignored). So, my answers is yes. As for Judaism, hiloni concept is what allows the classification as either (thus never giving us the opportunity to see the real percent of atheist in Israel), which is same as Christian atheism - you're actually an atheist, but no-one can make you not to declare yourself Christian (see PANONIAN's statement on Talk:Religion in Serbia). 178.223.114.175 (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
No way! The fact that the article's content is mainly verified to this specific source doesn't alternate the article's subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The text of this discussion does seem to be rearranging itself. My answer is No we do not change the name of the article and we do include humanism in contents. We go by scholarly consensus (not common sense of a few individuals) and though we can use government definitions to develop a consensus we can't use them alone as that would mean groups like Ethical Culture (which like the Norwegian Humanists are members of the International Humanist and Ethical Union) are religions (which they are under US law) since this means A is a religion in one place but not another. In the case of Norway, other than the name the Norwegian Humanist Association is treated like other recognized religious organizations by the government, people register for it in the same way they register for a more standard religion, it receives revenue from the government in the same way as other sufficiently big religions (other than the state church which has some extra privileges) do (and by ranking it is the 3rd largest), it performs rituals such as naming, confirmation, marriage, and funerals and has the legal authority to perform state recognized marriages (which otherwise only certain state officials or members of other sufficiently recognized religions can do). Note the definition of Religion in the wiki article does not include a requirement of belief in anything supernatural, "Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values". How does Norwegian Humanism not fit that definition? Admittedly the talk page (including archives) for Religion has a lot of argument about the definition (the archives especially). --Erp (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one rearranging it so that there won't be a need for double discussion (repeating what already has been said). I must admit that you got me confused with this one. Do we portray religion as membership in particular organizations or as a subjective view? It it's about membership, article renaming is the best possibility. If it's about subjectivity, face it, (secular) humanists are atheists, agnostics, or whatever (sorry if this was rude; I know it only as a neutral English phrase). Prove me wrong. Also, one of IHEU's strategic aims is "to promote Humanism as a non-theistic life stance throughout the world". Life stance, not religion. 178.223.114.175 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not of much relevance here: the source reports humanists alongside with other categories; given that we are not going to explain the principles and methodology of the source in the article, we should not play with numbers to make them fit any artificial constrains, whatever consistent and practical these constrains may be or seem to be. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I still am skeptical about this one. However, (secular) humanism "isn't" in my domain, so maybe I actually shouldn't "interfere" so much. All the mentioned Humanists are members of the Norwegian Humanist Association, thus effectivelly IHEU, so there shouldn't be confusion about what they are and what they aren't. I'll have to re-think while fixing "no religion". 77.46.175.85 (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There could be a problem about this one since consensus isn't to be reached soon, and article's talk page isn't the most visited one. Still, do as you wish. 77.46.175.85 (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'll actually close tis one and we'll see what will happen on the talk page. 77.46.175.85 (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The fourth question (no religion)[edit]

The fourth question is (I'll try not to open any more, but this is for discussion's tidiness): Do you support the renaming of "no religion" group in all the Religion in Europe articles to "Irreligion" (Religion in Scotland, for example)? Answer the forementioned question in bold and explain your stance, please. 178.223.114.175 (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My answer is yes, since this one doesn't seem much controversal. Also, everywhere where "no religion" is present, it actually links to Irreligion. 178.223.114.175 (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
No, stick with sources in all cases. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
However, how "no religion" isn't "irreligion"? "I" is one of the negating prefixes, and another "r" is added so it wouldn't be read as I-religion. So, "Irreligion" is a synonym of "no religion". Isn't it? 178.223.114.175 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Having no religion isn't equal to not believing in god, supreme power or something else (see Spinozism for example). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That seem like pantheism and/or panentheism to me?! 178.223.114.175 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Still, these words describe the general views, not any particular religion; in fact pantheists (eg. Einstein) ordinarily call themselves non-religious. That is: non-religious equals to not adhering any particular religion, not to having no religious believes. Non-religious + religious ≠ all. This is specifically valid in statistics, when nobody knows the particular understanding of the term by each respondent. That is why rephrasing and/or refactoring data is discouraged on Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for "further" explaining that to me. I'll start "fixing" "Irreligion" to "No religion" where possible. However, that way, Irreligion will eventually become an (semi-)orphaned article. Thank you also for linking me to the article, since I always thought Einstein was atheist and/or hiloni. 77.46.175.85 (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Provisional Irish Republican Army[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by SonofSetanta on 17:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC).
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 issue is the claiming of the name Óglaigh na hÉireann as the official Irish Gaelic name for the Provisional IRA. My contention, and that of others, is that the name Óglaigh na hÉireann is the official and legal title (in Irish) of the Irish Defence Forces, a state body. This is clearly indicated on their homepage at http://www.military.ie/. A search for Óglaigh na hÉireann on the Wiki confirms my assertion (and that of others) and also that various terrorist organisations have styled themselves as Óglaigh na hÉireann throughout the years. I do not dispute that the Provisional IRA claimed this name as their own and believe it should be included in the article and any other articles concerning Irish terrorist groupings, that this is the case, that they "styled themselves" as Óglaigh na hÉireann. I also believe that the true Irish translation " IRA Sealadach" should be used as the Irish Gaelic translation on all pages concerning the Provisional IRA. This is not being accepted by other editors.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I, and others, have made all editors aware through the talk page what the facts are and have tried to include the information in the article. This has sparked an edit war with several opposing editors.

How do you think we can help?

Dispute resolution can have some experienced and uninvolved editors review the two schools of thought and make a ruling on it which can then be treated as the concensus.

Opening comments by[edit]

FergusM1970[edit]

It seems clear that, as the name is used by PIRA, it needs to be mentioned in the article. However its present place does give it undue prominence; they're certainly not called that in Ireland, where the term is used to refer to the Irish Defence Forces and PIRA is in any case banned, and in the UK they're always referred to as PIRA or just the IRA. My suggestion would be to remove it from its current location and add an explanation of its use by PIRA elsewhere in the article.--FergusM1970Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution. 18:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Provisional Irish Republican Army discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi! I am a dispute resolution volunteer. Before I begin, I want to make sure you understand that this process is non-binding; I can't make anyone do anything. But it seems to me that there is already a compromise solution in your opening statements and in the lede of the article. The current opening sentence says this:

And the current last sentence of the first paragraph says this:

  • "The Provisional Irish Republican Army is also referred to as the PIRA, the Provos, or by its supporters as the Army or the 'RA;<ref> its constitution establishes it as Óglaigh na hÉireann ("The Irish Volunteers") in the Irish language."

It seems to me that if "Óglaigh na hÉireann" translates as "The Irish Volunteers," not the "Irish Republican Army," then the use in the lead sentence is misleading. But you could by all means keep it in the other sentence I copied over, the last sentence of the lead paragraph. Thoughts? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing unusual about the version of a name in a different language having a different literal meaning. From a policy and guidelines perspective, there is nothing immediately wrong with the current wording. For example, on the article North Korea, the korean wording does not mean "North Korea", or "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". The legitimacy or not of the PIRA should also not effect what it gives as it's official name. From familiarity with the topic in general, Óglaigh na hÉireann is by far the more common name amongst the sources, "IRA Sealadach" I've personally never heard of. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Can one of the involved users fill in all involved users into "Users involved". Currently it just contains one user. I notice that discussions only began on the talk pages yesterday; 1 day seems far too early to bring the issue to DRN. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now included the names of the other (proposed) participants.

My contention is this: the usage of this name can be found explained at Óglaigh na hÉireann. It is absolutely clear that most Irish armed groupings, especially those claiming the name IRA (in some shape or another) claim to be the only Óglaigh na hÉireann. This is the invention of tradition in true Irish style. (see Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition, 1983, Cambridge University Press). The more support a particular grouping gets the more likely they are to claim the name, however: the Government of Ireland claim it for their armed forces and have done since the inception of an independent political process in Ireland. (c1916) (1st Dail for interested onlookers). It is my firm belief that the Provisional IRA article should reflect all of this and explain that their constitution claimed the name Óglaigh na hÉireann although it is not the translation for their working title in English. Explain to the reader WHY they chose this name and give links to the organisations who claim it now that the Provisional IRA is defunct. My firm opinion is that we should not allow "Invention of History" to become fact on Wikipedia and that the information we supply to readers should be accurate to degree level. In support of this I would ask participants to do a google search on Óglaigh na hÉireann and see how many pages they have to go through before finding a reference to the Provisional IRA. I ask also that the comments here [[7]] be noted. The quotes are by Martin McGuinness, the Deputy Leader of Sinn Fein (formerly Provisional Sinn Feinn). They were the political arm of the Republican Movement and McGuinness himself is a former senior member of the Provisional IRA Army Council. Even he says that PIRA only "styled" themselves as Óglaigh na hÉireann and the only true holder of the name is the Irish Defence Forces (he uses the words "Irish Army"). You have it from me, you have it from the Wiki's own articles, you have it from Martin McGuinness. I put it to the discussion that the only way forward is to clarify the usage and stop trying to make it look as if it was an official, recognised title. It never was. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: @Wolfie - the discussion on the talk page has been ongoing since 19th July. Not just in the last two days. SonofSetanta (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't determine things through googling; (besides what is more of interest is the google scholar results and flick through; many of these sources demonstrates the academic usage). Your reasoning for removing the mention amounts to original research. The legal legitimacy of the naming is irrelevant; as wikipedians we merely report what they are named as in the Irish language. From what I can see Óglaigh na hÉireann is the name for the PIRA as seen in the academic sources (I looked through google scholar). If there are other groups who also referred to as Óglaigh na hÉireann then they can be given the same name in their respective articles in the very same format. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I've never come across anyone who uses the name for any IRA grouping. Nor is it an Irish translation. It is, as Martin McGuinness says, "a styling". As Wikipedians we must note this for the benefit of all readers who seek information. Otherwise all we are doing is perpetuating a myth which is being forced upon the reader in an attempt to make it tradition. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Just because you've never come across anyone who does doesn't mean no one does. Yes, it should be noted that this is a "styling," not a direct translation or the most common name. But if you want to say "and no one actually uses/used it"...source, please. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Jorgath I happen to agree with you although I would contend that a concensus could be found to show that the name was not in common usage by them. My contention is that it should be noted that this is a "styling" and the reasons for that explained. It should also be removed as the official title in Irish as it is only a styling. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
That it is not a direct translation is unimportant (see the North Korea example above). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If there are no objections I'll close this discussion shortly (within the next 24 hours), as only one of the involved parties participated in the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I have an objection. I took the discussion here for resolution and no resolution has been found. I believe the other editors should be encouraged to take part otherwise (with respect) this process isn't succeeding in its intent. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I also object, saying that Óglaigh na hÉireann is an Irish translation of PIRA is just factually incorrect. It is an indirect translation for IRA, and that is why the provos claim it. Members of this paramilitary consider themselves the original IRA and not a split away group, just as the CIRA and RIRA do. Maybe the opening sentence should read "commonly referred to as Oglaigh na hEireann by members". Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Both the RIRA and CIRA articles on wikipedia read "styling themselves as Oglaigh na hEireann", why should the Provisionals be any different from other IRA split away groups? Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that the RIRA article, along with it's opening sentence, has "Oglaigh na hEireann" printed in brackets directly underneath "Real Irish Republican Army" in the infobox, without saying it's an Irish translation. Maybe we could do this with the PIRA page? Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this translation is any different than that for North Korea. Translations usually are not direct translations in any language. There appear to be adequate (it appears to be the Irish language common name for them) sources that give the PIRA the name "Oglaigh na hEireann". IRWolfie- (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
No one else has turned up here besides those who object, hence no consensus can really be reached here. You also appear to be new to the discussion but are not listed as in the initial party. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Discussion is now ongoing. I certainly don't object to new parties joining, all input is good input. The over-riding concern Wolfie is that the etymology is explained on the article instead of just a name grab as we're seeing now. Wikipedia is effectively contradicting itself because there is an organisation called Oglaigh na hEireann which also claims the name as its working title in English and has a page here. There is also a page explaining the etymology of the name and it clearly shows that PIRA don't have exclusive claim to it - notwithstanding the IDF's own page and their webpage. If allowed to go unchecked this could become very confusing for many readers who are seeking factual information. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no doubt that the etymology of the name is important in armed Republican history. Each IRA grouping claims the name as a direct link to the Irish Volunteers of 1916. I think this should be noted but it should be made clear that these Irish words are not a direct translation of PIRA any more than they are of IRA, CIRA or RIRA, and that they are used to gain kudos within Republican circles. If we don't do this we are allowing the article to establish myth as tradition, although it can be argued that there is a tradition of adopting the name. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Zeitgeist Movement[edit]

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by IjonTichyIjonTichy on 17:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC).
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 on whether links should be included in the 'See also' section of the TZM article. (a) Private property, social equality, resource allocation, wage labor and profit motive are phrases that are already present in the article. In the past, I've converted these phrases to links in the body of the TZM article, but my edits were reverted with the explanation that these created a wp:LINKFARM. So I'm including them instead in 'See also' per wp:see also. Buckminster Fuller, Ignaz Semmelweis, Wright brothers and Nicola Tesla are discussed in the TheMarker article on TZM. Buckminster Fuller is also the subject of a recent TZM radio program, and Ignaz Semmelweis, Wright brothers and Nicola Tesla are also the subjects of several lectures by Ben McLeish, a TZM spokesperson. Imagine (song) and Carl Sagan are discussed in the New York Times article, as well as in Zeitgeist: The Movie. (b) I'll be happy to provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent or when the meaning of the term may not be generally known. (c) See this comment by a this comment by a WP editor. (e) Imagine (song) is also discussed in Donavan's performance in the 2011 Zeitgeist Media Festival. Carl Sagan is also discussed by Peter Joseph in his performance. (The translation of the TheMarker article is here (and the same translation but in an easier-to-read format here, at the bottom of the page.)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page, in the See-also section on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

Editors' views on whether these links satisfy or violate wp: See also are solicited. Thank you.

Opening comments by Youreallycan[edit]

I will open with the detail from the guideline and my comments from the talkpage - Youreallycan 17:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  • - Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. - Its normal that have seen here that we focus on truly associated issues/things - and we keep them down - we dont add all sorts of everything - people that have no affiliations with a subject should not be added imo - they may well object and song and suchlike - imo we usually keep the see also more focused than you are interpreting the guideline

The Zeitgeist Movement discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

There's a ArbCom case requested agaist Youreallycan. I suggest going there. So I will be closing this request and making a note of it at ArbCom. ~~Ebe123

What has that got to do with this report - nothing - stop revert warring to close it Youreallycan 17:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)-
I don't see that this discussion has anything to do with the arbitration case. Unless sanctioned, editors do continue to edit during arb cases. In particular this dispute is more about a technical issue which is somewhat open ended in that the final word, as with much of Wikipedia, comes down to editor judgement and agreement, so when there is contention an obvious and good place to come is a NB where uninvolved editors can add input.(olive (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC))
It doesn't. The DRN can progress pending the result of a case - but this requires all participants to read and agree to the rules of the board. All participants, please indicate you have done so before we proceed. Thanks. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 18:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Where are the rules of the board? - I have just read and accept the explanatory details at the top of the page - Youreallycan 18:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. However, if this is related to user conduct, it doesn't belong here. We only comment on content disputes, not disputes over user conduct. Electric Catfish 18:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
See Guide for Participants at the top of the page. Electric Catfish 18:15,
This is clearly the users desire to add content that has been repeatedly removed and so he has come here - he wants to add lots of tangent see also links - other users objects - that the issue - Youreallycan 18:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah that it - then yes I had read that - Youreallycan 18:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, now that's out of the way...hi! I'm a volunteer here at DRN. This dispute is very clear cut - WP:SEEALSO is as exactly YRC quoted - the entries in the section should be directly related, not just passing mentions. The content in a see also section is deteined by consensus - and consensus on the talk page is pretty clear. My personal opinion is that the extra links don't directly relate to the article and should be left out. The first instance of the words in the article should probably be wikilinked, as long as we are not overlinking and the wikilinked provide some relevance. That's my take on this dispute. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 18:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This has also been discussed many times before with IjonTickyIjonTichy, including at least once here at DRN, if I remember correctly. He refuses to listen, and to me his behavior has now degraded to nothing more than disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The threads involving the user is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 33#Resource-based economy, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 32#The Zeitgeist Movement, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 38#The Zeitgeist Movement. The last 2 are about this subject. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that "refuses to listen" and "nothing more than disruption" are accurate? I don't see him edit warring to re-include the content, and while he seems rather set in his opinion, he's discussing it with me right now on the article's Talk page. Maybe some people are simply reacting kind of strongly here? -- Avanu (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm 100% sure. Yes, he is discussing with you. It will not make a difference. We have had exactly this discussion and said the same things before. He'll give up when he realizes that he can't win, then he comes back in a couple of weeks, and does the same thing again. His adding of completely irrelevant things to the See Also section has been going on for a while. If all the things he added there would have stayed the See Also section would probably be longer than the rest of the article by now. And when everybody (and I do mean everybody) tells him he is wrong, he reacts with accusing us of "groupthink". --OpenFuture (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As has already been noted, OpenFuture, this is not a forum for discussing user conduct, so please stop. And, Avanu, please don't compound the problem by responding. Respect the guidelines of this forum going forward thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Let's close this then. I think there is broad agreement, here and on the talk page, that one user was right and the other was not. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cold Fusion[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Pantothenic on 15:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC).
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

Yes. Went to the page "Cold Fusion". Under the section "Popular Culture" ( at the bottom of the page) I wrote :

" In the 2010 film Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, the Jake Moore character (played by Shia LaBeouf) attempts to find funding for an energy company that plans to utilize lasers focused on a small target, thereby releasing enormous amounts of energy, a process that bears similarity to the idea of Cold Fusion. "

This editing was removed twice. Why? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the information, it is extremely accurate, and the context is very accurate. So why was it removed?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?


How do you think we can help?


Opening comments by Binksternet[edit]

This matter is not important enough for DRN examination. Pantothenic has made two basic errors: his text talks about hot fusion, not cold fusion, and the notional connection between a fictional plot and any kind of actual science is not established by cited sources—it is instead a personal observation. The matter is being handled sufficiently well at Talk:Cold fusion. No need for action here. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


Opening comments by[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Cold Fusion discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hi! 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.

I noticed that some part of this case have not been filled out. There is only one name listed and the "Have you tried to resolve this previously?" and "How do you think we can help?" sections are blank. Could you please go back and correct these problems before we proceed? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! This is Pantothenic. The reason those fields were not filled out is because their was no space in which to fill them out. Meaning, there was no blank field. After scrolling the cursor around the headings, and elsewhere, I found no field of any kind in which to input data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantothenic (talk • contribs) 23:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it, and I apologize for that not working. The form is pretty new and may have some problems I am going to pass this on to our form-making gnome. In the meantime, could you just write down the answer to "Have you tried to resolve this previously?" "How do you think we can help?" and the name of whoever else in involved? Don't worry about where -- I will move it to the right place and then we can get back to trying to solve this dispute. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Binksternet is a very seasoned editor, who is very familiar with WP policies. I'd recommend following up on his suggestion above. Not to say the case should be closed instantly, but it would be appropriate to take Binksternet's suggestion as a starting point. --Noleander (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I am closing this because of [this]. DRN is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion on other forums, and this looks like a pretty clear case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User_talk:Complainer, Felice_Bauer[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Complainer on 21:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC).
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 Br'er_Rabbit, apparently offended at the idea that I deleted my own edit in a minor discussion with another (uninvolved) user, repeatedly vandalized my talk page with name calling and some kind of fake proposal to keep me from applying common sense policies in dealing with my own talk page. I am fairly indifferent to this; however, Br'er_Rabbit resorted to stalking and reverted an edit to Felice Bauer in spite of being explained that the text removed it is both incorrect and badly written. Assuming good faith, I am forced NOT to assume that this is an attempt at making me violate the 3RV policy; it is, however vandalism.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Applied WP:NOR, deleted vandalizing edit. The confrontational nature of the edits prevented me from discussing them with the other party involved, who seems to be very angry for some reason unknown to me. I have had no dealing with him before, neither on wikipedia or otherwise, and the nature of his hostility is unknown to me.

How do you think we can help?

Reprimand Br'er_Rabbit; failing that, block him and his (official) sockpuppets from editing my pagesfrom editing my pages. Reinstate the edit on Felice_Bauer (which I am prevented from doing by the 3RV rule). Suggest forum for inexperienced editors where Br'er_Rabbit can be read about the nature of trolling and the application of WP:NOR.

Opening comments by Br'er_Rabbit[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

User_talk:Complainer, Felice_Bauer discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

  • I'm a DRN volunteer and am awaiting opening statements. Electric Catfish 21:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The parties have not yet discussed this matter on the article's talk page (see Talk:Felice_Bauer). The DRN instructions at the top of the DRN page state that DRN is "not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN." Recommend that the parties be instructed to try to resolve this on the article Talk page; and if a week goes by without resolution, then start a case here at DRN. --Noleander (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The Felice Bauer page is a collateral: the main issue is vandalism on my own page. I will, however, discuss that side of the issue there, as instructed.complainer (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here: (1) a content issue: should the article mention that the person goes by only one name; and (2) behavior/civility issues. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard only handles content issues, which is item (1). That is what needs to be handled first at the Talk page (then come back here later, if needed). The behavior issue (2) can be addressed now, in another forum like Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance or WP:AN or WP:ANI. --Noleander (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Noleader is right. We don't comment on user conduct here. Please first discuss it with Br'er Rabbit and address the conduct concerns at AN/I or WQA. Electric Catfish 21:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prince Nayef Bin Abdulaziz Regional Airport[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by AlanM1 on 14:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC).
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 72.89.35.142 adds incorrect info to airport articles, for which they have been repeatedly warned on their talk page. In the present case, User:AlanM1 edited the list of destinations at Prince Nayef Bin Abdulaziz Regional Airport to correct it back to researched and cited sources, noting the details on the article talk page and those of the involved users. The IP user wasted no time in re-adding a non-existent destination, with no edit summary, and writing nothing in response on either talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

(As described in overview,) posted to both article and user talk pages.

How do you think we can help?

  1. Confirm my objection to the un-sourced and invalid content.
  2. Convince the user that they cannot continue to ignore the community – they have a pattern of this abuse according to their talk page
  3. Revert the edit and block them if they won't play nice


Opening comments by 72.89.35.142[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Prince Nayef Bin Abdulaziz Regional Airport discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

I would like for the IP to respond, but the chances of that are low, due to the fact the user does not have a userpage which is immediately accessible and because the IP can hop easily. If this goes stagnant I would opt for page protection. Removing sourced information is typically a bad thing when you replace it with nothing and never respond. But let's give this a chance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for accuracy, this particular user's part of the issue was to add Doha via Qatar Air as a destination. The first time he did it, removing the existing Qatar Air destinations of LHR, Medan, and Surabaya was actually correct – it's just the addition of Doha (and Qatar Airways) that is wrong :) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Is this a content dispute? or a behavior issue? Is there any question about what the destinations are? Looking at the Talk page of the article, it looks like the IP(s) have not engaged in conversation yet: Alan posted a comment on the Talk page yesterday, but the IP(s) have not yet responded. Should we give the IP the opportunity to engage on the article Talk page first? --Noleander (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Apparently both. I updated Talk:Prince Nayef Bin Abdulaziz Regional Airport#Destinations with the timeline.
  • I investigated the destinations carefully, using the airlines own timetables, a CRS, and a realtime flight status site, and cited them at 2012-08-04T15:53Z. Feel free to check yourself, but I believe this version to be correct.
  • In the following 5 days, 4 different IP editors each changed the table to add/remove something wrong incorrectly, without communication or explanation.
  • About 2012-08-14T22:35Z I posted a note about it on the talk page and each user's talk page and fixed the article.
  • Less than two hours later, User:72.89.35.142 added carrier QR again, with a (non-existent by all sources) flight to DOH, without explanation anywhere.
They didn't respond to the complaint, instead going right ahead and doing it again. Their talk page is full of similar issues, some of which they don't respond to (at least not there). They haven't come here to respond in the (admittedly-short) 7 hours since the case was opened. Let's not let it drag on too long – there will likely be work to do to fix other articles, too, and it's time consuming, with most airlines choosing to use interactive tools instead of easily searched flight lists :( —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
They just responded positively. The problems are likely over. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jason Leopold[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by RavenThePackIsBack on 17:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC).
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've been adding some new info to one of the articles titled Jason Leopold and I also left some comments on the talk page. A user named Bonewah has been scrubbing my stuff and then saying I am banned, which isn't true. The stuff I added is legitimate and follows all Wikipedia guidelines. Please check it out. This is an article that is always biased and no one tries to add new stuff and there's a lot of new stuff on the internet that will make this more balanced. Why isn't the new stuff being used if the article has so many watchers? Shouldn't new stuff be included? Isn't that what makes the article current? I added a new section on the FOIA lawsuit and please review it cause I think that one is important for the article. Here's the section on the FOIA I added. Can someone tell me if they think there's anything wrong with it?

Leopold and the group National Security Counselors sued the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Archives and Records Administration and other government agencies and that they violated a section of the FOIA law for five years by refusing to give people who file FOIA requests a date as to when their requests will be ready as the law requires.[10] In June, in response to Leopold's lawsuit, the FBI and the National Archives and the Office of Director of National Intelligence issued new policy guidelines to their staff and told them to comply with requests about giving estimated dates of completion regarding FOIAs when they're asked for it. FBI's FOIA head David Hardy explained the new policy guidelines in a declaration. RT said, "It might be a small victory, but a victory nonetheless." [11]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I left info on the talk page that's not being addressed.

How do you think we can help?

allowing the new info to stand and telling Bonewah that I am allowed to make additions and edits cuz I am following the rules and that I'm not banned.

Opening comments by Bonewah[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Jason Leopold discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Closing Note: I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. It appears to me that this is not, at root, a content dispute. Bonewah appears to be taking a hard position that RavenThePackIsBack is a sockpuppet of a topic-banned user (probably Jimmy McDaniels) and removing Raven's edits for that reason only. Removal of a banned editor's edits via puppetry, for no other reason than the fact that they are banned, is a legitimate action but such removals and any controversy over such removals is a conduct matter, not a content matter. I would suggest that Bonewah should probably make a ban evasion report at Sockpuppet Investigations before continuing to revert Raven's edits, but should Bonewah not care to do so, or should Raven care to take this matter further at this time, Raven should report Bonewah's action to the Administrators' Noticeboard for investigation. I'm not saying that Bonewah is wrong or right, but one of those forums, not DRN, is the right place for this issue. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Aliya Mustafina[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by JackofDiamonds1 on 21:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC).
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 bringing up the fact that the Olympic Gold Medalist 2012 Aliya Mustafina is Tatar. I have tried to reflect this in the starting line of the article but faced continuous reverting. I have supplied the links, explaining the notability of this achievement for Tatars, given the fact that very few Tatars are/were Olympic Champions. I have also appealed to the fact that virtually all athletes have their ethnicity/background mentioned in the first line. In addition, I have said that Tatarstan is a sovereign entity with own constitution and president. Somebody is trying to deprive her of her Tatar identity which is clearly a breach of rights.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed the matter on user's talk page, explaining the importance and asking not to change it. I have also supplied the links (references) of notability of here being a Tatar.

How do you think we can help?

A person should never be deprived of his/her identity, whatever it is. You can protect the right to state the Tatar identity in the front line.

Best Regards.

Opening comments by Mbinebri[edit]

WP:OPENPARA specifies that ethnicity should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. JackofDiamonds has not established this relevance and the mainstream media has not made Mustafina's ethnicity a point of emphasis. Instead, JackofDiamonds uses the backwards argument that her ethnicity is important because of her career achievements and that there are - supposedly - few other Tatar Olympic medalists. Unless the media has emphasized this, it's just original research and a point of view.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Aliya Mustafina discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

  • Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer and I'm awaiting opening statements before we can begin. Electric Catfish 21:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The parties have not yet discussed this matter on the article's talk page (see Talk:Aliya_Mustafina). The DRN instructions at the top of the DRN page state that DRN is "not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN." Recommend that the parties be instructed to try to resolve this on the article Talk page; and if a week goes by without resolution, then start a case here at DRN. --Noleander (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
He said that he has discussed it on the user's talk page. Electric Catfish 21:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
We have discussed it on user's talk page and exhausted our arguments. Thanks. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see a brief discussion at User_talk:Mbinebri#Aliya_Mustafina. This sort of dispute is very common: what nationality to use in the first sentence of a biographical article. The general rule is to survey the reliable sources and see what is most common: Russian? Tatar? Russian Tatar? Getting some google-hit statistics is a good place to start in these kinds of disputes. Also, if the person self-identifies in a particular way (e.g. in an autobiography; or in an interview) that can be a factor. But counting reliable sources is still the best starting point. --Noleander (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I have supplied the references not only confirming the Tatar identity but explaining the importance of her being a Tatar as a role model for the Tatar population. I was comfortable with Russian Tatar but this was always reverted. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are some google hit stats:
  • "Aliya Mustafina" tatar 7,570
  • "Aliya Mustafina" Russian 436,000
  • "Aliya Mustafina" "Russian tatar" 638
No one is saying she is not Tatar. The question is whether that word appears in the first sentence or not. The stats above suggest that "Russian" alone may be best for the first sentence. The Tatar fact could be later in the lead, and again in the body. --Noleander (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
For comparison, here are a couple of articles on olympic athletes with significant ethnic background: Jesse Owens and Jim Thorpe. Looking at the first sentences of those article: The former does not mention that he is African-American, but the latter article does mention he was part Native American. --Noleander (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking some more, I see that "Russian Tatar" (as suggested above by JackofDiamonds1) is a very commonly used description (not just for this one athlete). If no party to this case objects, that two word description may be a good compromise solution for the first sentence of the article. --Noleander (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Tatars are people of Russia and are not easily distinguished by appearance. As she was competing under Russian flag, the media identified here as Russian, hence the google stats. And then comes the mission of Wikipedia to shed the light :) JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Rustafina is Russian by nationality.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
She is Tatar, living in Moscow. Her father - Farhad Mustafin. How names Aliya, Farhad, Mustafin(a) can be russian, if they have Tatar (Arabic) origin? Here you can read article in Tatar, there here nationality identicated as Tatar.--Рашат Якупов (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Russian Tatar is not actually a compromise: "Russian Tatar" ≡ "Tatar from Russia", not some combined ethnicity as may seem from the first glance. "Russian" without "Tatar" is ambiguous but normally implies nationality, while "Tatar" without "Russian" means ethnicity and is neutral towards nationality; as the name "Aliya Fargatovna Mustafina" itself leaves no doubt about her ethnicity, the actual argument is about appropriateness of ethnicity information in the article about sports person, and "Russian Tatar" is a straightforward "appropriate" answer. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I have suggested the "Russian Tatar" designation from the beginning. So now it seems like we are all on the same page... JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, my comment misled you. I wanted to say that "Russian Tatar" is not a compromise, as this wording implies the appropriateness of discussing ethnicity in the article, while this appropriateness is the subject of dispute. Though I have my position on this issue, I don't want to get involved into this dispute, so I would keep it undisclosed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:LEAD. There should be generally no ethnicity in the lead. And User:Рашат Якупов should stop inserting that she was a Muslim without a citation. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 22:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I dont see any mention of ethnicity in WP:LEAD ... am I missing it? Of course ethnicity may be mentioned in the lead; or are you referring to the first sentence? I do agree that the convention in WP is that nationality is stated in the first sentence, not ethnicity. In this particular case, the question is simply whether the first sentence should contain "Russian" or "Russian Tatar". The latter seems more informative to readers, and seems to have no downsides. --Noleander (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Another compromise solution is this: Use "Russian" in the first sentence, then mention "Tatar" later in the lead, maybe in the 2nd paragraph of the lead. --Noleander (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The issue with using "Russian Tatar" is that it defines the subject in a way not reflected by media coverage. The media has covered Mustafina as a Russian gymnast - not a Russian Tatar gymnast - and it would place undo emphasis on her ethnicity should we include "Tatar" in the lead. And per my opening argument, WP:OPENPARA is where ethnicity in the lead is covered.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
As I said earlier, the media could not possibly identify her ethnicity. How does a news reporter know that she is a Tatar? It is the mission of Wikipedia to shed the light here. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Is her ethnicity somehow related to her sport achievements? How would you comment the appropriateness of mentioning her ethnicity in context of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight Wikipedia policy? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The sources do say she is Tatar, the only question is whether to put Tatar in the first sentence or not. The guideline cited by Mbinebri is on point: WP:OPENPARA guideline says "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening [paragraph] unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." That, coupled with the rather strong google hits statistics, suggests that the best solution is omit the word Tatar from the first paragraph, but include it later in the Lead section. --Noleander (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That is not neutral due to the asymmetric information. The international media could not possibly identify her as Tatar (Russian flag) and this does not compromise her Tatar identity. Andy Murray won the gold medal for Team GB but is defined as Scottish on his page. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
To the contrary, mentioning her ethnicity means placing undue weight on it, as the vast majority of sources choose not to mention it at all. It is not a breach of neutrality, but a long-standing tradition in sport. FWIW other examples of bad practice don't make the practice inherently better, even if this practice is indeed common. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC) updated 23:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
These examples did not come out of the blue - they are the results of hard talks, struggle and public consensus; and therefore may serve as precedent. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wherever these examples come from, they go against unrelated policy and guideline. Another Wikipedia policy — Wikipedia:Consensus — specifically discourage the attempts to use local consensus against the global one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a global consensus in these matters. I was talking about precedent and I took the examples from the UK as one of the most democratic countries, adherent to human rights. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is nothing to think about: policies (WP:NPOV) and guidelines (WP:OPENPARA) are the global consensus, and in this particular case it resolves to omitting ethnicity in the lead section. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, these guidelines do not overwrite the human rights principle of self-identification. I thought that you suggested a Russian Tatar option earlier? JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I said that Russian Tatar is not a compromise, which doesn't imply my judgment on the issue. Note, nobody limits Aliya Mustafina's human right of self-identification, as well as nobody limits your right to report this self-identification once the fact that she exercised it is verified and attributed to reliable sources. You are limited in your right to report this self-identification in the lead section of Wikipedia's article about Aliya Mustafina; this has nothing to do with anybody's human rights and it doesn't stop you from reporting here self-identification in the appropriate place within the rest of article if significant amount of reliable sources consider this self-identification worth mention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Imagine a scenario: Aliya has decided to emigrate to the US or Germany and renounce her Russian citizenship. Would she still be a Russian? No. Would she be a Tatar? Yes, of course. That's why she is a Tatar at the first place, that is a DEFINITION of her. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
How long do these dispute resolutions typically stay open? It looks to me like our two most dedicated volunteers in DDC and Noleander agree that WP:OPENPARA applies here and Mustafina's ethnicity doesn't belong in the opening paragraph.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think that a piece of criteria has a decisive role here? Please refer to the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules page. I truly believe that mentioning Aliya's identity as Tatar improves and maintains Wikipedia. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Jack: Please try to be more specific in your wording. No one is saying that Tatar cannot be mentioned ... the only question is where it is first mentioned. In the first sentence? in the first paragraph? in the 2nd paragraph of the Lead? Or down in the body? Historically in WP, many editors who are proud of a certain attribute (a religion, an ethnicity, etc) have tried to "promote" the religion/ethnicity by stating it in the first sentence of biographical articles (and also by including persons in Lists & Categories ... but that is another story altogether :-). Over the years, the consensus has emerged that nationality goes in the first sentence (based on what the majority of sources state); and that other attributes like religion and ethnicity go later ...I maybe in the 2nd paragraph of the lead. The word "Tatar" already appears in the 1st sentence within the pronunciation/spelling block, so readers will get a clue right there. -- Noleander (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I had to include this "rule" to show that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and hard-line regulation does not work here. We are all working for the public good, using the common sense. I think that the Tatar definition is more CORE as it always stays with the person. Aliya may not always live in Russia (there is a tendency for young people to emigrate these days). However, she will always be a Tatar. I am not opposing the Russian classification as well (for now). My point is that in the interest of full disclosure, improving and promoting Wikipedia, we need to provide the full information on a person. To be honest, I am a bit shocked that we got to the point of discussing this. Could anyone think that in the 21st century, there will be restrictions on stating the ethnicity clearly and proudly? Shame. I need to leave for now, let's return to this tomorrow. Regards. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Given that this is article is on sports person, I see neither necessity nor appropriateness of mentioning ethnicity in the lead. The lead is a summary of the article (see WP:LEAD), and as such it shouldn't contain statements that are not present in article's body. That's not to mention the fact that sports' long-standing tradition is not to mention ethnicity at all, and Aliya Mustafina is only known for her achievements in sport. BTW, it is more of shame that in 21st century there is a word "ethnicity". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it was removed from WP:LEAD, but anyway, I agree that Tatarstan is not a recognized, independent country and there should be no ethnicity in the lead. In this case, we don't need to mention her ethnicity in the lead as it gives an undue weight. If Tatarstan would not be a part of the Russian Federation, then I would reconsider. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to note: this is the essence of the problem — consensus is to report nationality, which is particularly important in sports, as the awards are normally attributed to the countries as much as to the sportspeople themselves. But they are not attributed to ethnicities: nobody states "Tatars won the medal", just "Aliya Mustafina won the medal" or "Russia won 3 medals". The ethnicity of Mustafina may be discussed in the article, if there is enough discussion of her ethnicity in reliable sources, which makes this information worth notice; otherwise her ethnicity is just not relevant, as Wikipedia is not a soapbox for nationalist debates. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hello. I am another dispute resolution volunteer. In addition to the good advice the other volunteers have given above, may I suggest that in the future you discuss changes to articles on the article talk page? You see, it is often the case that someone who is interested in a topic watches the article talk page for discussions. It isn't fair for two editors to go off to a user talk page and discuss the article where anyone watching it won't see the discussion. The general rule is this; if you want to discuss an article, do it on the article talk page. If you want to discuss a user, do it on that user's talk page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that is absolutely valid. In this case, I have discussed this on user's page because for me it was something incontestable and I could not imagine that anyone would question Aliya's Tatar identity. Therefore, I have tried to explain a particular user why it is important. JackofDiamonds1

(talk) 22:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of opening comments by Mbinebri[edit]

Comment below was moved from Opening comments by Mbinebri, as it's not an opening comment by Mbinebri. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I object. I have supplied the references in the article which were quickly deleted.JackofDiamonds1 (talk)
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.

Embargo Act of 1807[edit]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by So God created Manchester on 22:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC).
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:AWhiteC and User:36hourblock are currently in a content dispute over the neutrality of 36hourblock's recent edits on Embargo Act of 1807. A Third Opinion was requested, which brought User:So God created Manchester, a third party editor, into the dispute. The contested wording includes the following sentences:

  • "flagrant violations of U.S. neutrality
  • "a profound insult to American honor"
  • "deliberate diplomatic insults and presumptuous official orders"
  • "particularly egregious example of British aggression"

The dispute is over whether this is acceptable per Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch guideline. No agreement or consensus has been reached.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Wikipedia:Third Opinion

How do you think we can help?

I'm bringing this dispute to a wider audience, and hoping that input from other editors can help to resolve the dispute.

Opening comments by AWhiteC[edit]

I thought parts of the the article had a non-encyclopedic tone. I later found out that this was the result of these edits by 36hourblock. I have suggested changes on the talk page here (see 13 August 2012). In these changes, I tried to leave the meaning the same whilst removing some unnecessary and non-encyclopediac wording. AWhiteC (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by 36hourblock[edit]

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by So God created Manchester[edit]

I was brought into the dispute via a Third Opinion request. My position is that word choices like "flagrant" and "particularly egregious" are not impartial and are discouraged by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The wording is not encyclopedic in tone, it introduces bias into the article, and qualifies as editorializing. There are more impartial ways of expressing the same concepts by using language that is more direct and concise. The descriptions can be used if they're in quotations and attributed to an author, but this isn't the case.--SGCM (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Embargo Act of 1807 discussion[edit]

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

  • Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer and I'm awaiting opening statements before we can begin. Hasteur (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm another volunteer here. I'm just waiting for 36hourblock to make a statement. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, since we have yet to see a post from the opposition to this position, I'm going to propose that we suspend indefinitely this post at 22:14 on the 17th. It should be noted that 36hourblock has been idle since before this post was filed. Pending the suspension, I see a consensus to remove the inflamitory language. Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The comment above from party SGCM is the correct thing to do. The Talk page of the article conveys 36hourblock's position: they seem to be misunderstanding the Words To Avoid policy. Just because a source uses a non-encyclopedic word does not mean that WP should repeat those words in the encyclopedia's voice. The words in question should not be used in the article. --Noleander (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ The New Oxford Dictionary Of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998. p. 1341. ISBN 0-19-861263-X.
  2. ^ a b Owen, H. P. Concepts of Deity. London: Macmillan, 1971. Cite error: The named reference "Deity" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ Encyclopedia of Philosophy ed. Paul Edwards. New York: Macmillan and Free Press. 1967. p. 34.
  4. ^ The New Oxford Dictionary Of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1998. p. 1341. ISBN 0-19-861263-X.
  5. ^ "Judging scandal rocks Olympic boxing competition", AFP, August 23, 2008
  6. ^ "French cry foul over Vastine controversy", AFP, August 22, 2008
  7. ^ French boxer Vastine rages after defeat BBC News 8 August 2012
  8. ^ Olympic Boxing: Results & Schedules NBC Olympics August 2012
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Steven_Crossin/DRNsize&oldid=1142409286"