Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 73

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Chanakya

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Rahuljain2307 on 04:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC).

Algeria

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by WhisperToMe on 19:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC).

Talk:2014 FIFA_World_Cup_qualification

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Catprog on 12:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC).

Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Deadbeef on 04:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC).

International Churches of Christ

Pictogram voting keep-green.svg Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by JamesLappeman on 18:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC).

deadmaus, deadmau5

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 64.45.224.215 on 03:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC).

First Battle of Fallujah

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 68.118.224.252 on 10:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC).

Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by ChrisGualtieri on 01:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC).

Sunifiram

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by IO Device on 05:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC).

1948 Arab–Israeli War

Pictogram voting wait red.png – Needs attention.
Filed by Ykantor on 13:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I will appreciate your advice, concerning what can be done if Wikipedia rules are offended. The section British_diplomacy_in_support_of_the_Arabs was deleted by user:pluto2012. In my opinion , this deletion is offending these 2 rules:

I have complained at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard but no one is taking care. The offender does not find errors in the removed section, but claims for a lack of other views. In my opinion there is no other view, but even if it would exist, it should be added to the section rather than deleting it.

What can be done in order to enforce the Wikipedia rule?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked him to add his view to the article, rather than deleting the section

How do you think we can help?

to convince user: pluto2012 to obey Wikipedia rules, and add his view to the article, rather than deleting the section

Opening comments by pluto2012

  • Regarding the dispute, I find that the best answer is the one of user Nableezy : "As to the question, I largely agree with Itsmejudith's comment on the talk page, that being The section as it was relied far too much on Karsh 2002. The reliability of that source has been questioned, with someone arguing that it is not a scholarly history but a popular work. That question needs to be resolved before any material is restored. Accusations of vandalism should be preceded by the person first reading WP:VANDALISM, and accusations of edit-warring shouldnt be made by a user restoring material over the objections of the majority of the talk page participants. Other than that, keep the discussion here on topic please, that topic being if the material violates NPOV. nableezy - 15:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)"
  • Regarding the content, everything has been said on the talk page of the article.

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Answer to smileguy91 :
To write this section, it must be agreed what to write in. A discussion has started : on the talk page and it is clear that it will take some time because it is a complex topic but it is not possible to discuss with Ykantor : who refuses any discussion. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Nishidani

Several editors objected to kantor's insistance on reinserting a dubious blob of text, tagged as unsatisfactory 2 years ago, into this article. He has singled out here one editor. The judgement of that editor, a wiki expert on the period, was supported by several other editors (Federico,Itsmejudith, Zero, myself ). Kantor is supporting WP:OR, violating WP:NPOV, ignoring WP:Undue, and not listening.

  • Kantor's text has taken one source, notable but notably partisan, and used it to promote a minority thesis, involving highly contentious conclusions, in wikipedia's neutral voice. At glance at what is going is will reveal the problems. I.e.
    • (a)Britain, which at the time was one of the major powers in the Middle East, supported the Arabs. (source:Karsh)
    • (b)it was an article of faith for most British policy-makers that most Jews were Communists (source:Karsh)
    • (c)the British in the months before May 1948 did their best to encumber and block partition (source:Karsh)
    • (d)It appears to me that H.M.G.'s policy is now simply to get out of Palestine as quickly as possible without regard to the consequences in Palestine
    • (e)British officials regarded the prospect of an Arab invasion favorably as offering an excellent chance to overturn the UN partition resolution and cut Israel "down to size". (source:Karsh)
    • (f)British launched a sustained diplomatic offensive to have the United Nations recognize all of the areas taken by the Arabs as belonging to those Arab states, especially Jordan and to reduce the borders of Israel to being more or less what the Peel Plan of 1937 had advised (source:Karsh)
    • (g)In the early days of the war, the British delegation at the UN blocked all efforts at a ceasefire (which was felt to hurt the Arabs, who winning the war at this point more than the Israelis) (source:Karsh)
    • (h)The British changed position on the ceasefire in the spring of 1948 when the Arab armies were in possession of substantial chunks of Palestine with the Egyptians holding much of the Negev and the Jordanians holding a large section of central Palestine (source:Karsh)
    • (i)Finally as part of the diplomatic effort to support the Arab war effort, the British supported an arms embargo, which was felt to favour the Arabs more than the Israelis (source:Karsh)
    • (j)The British reasoning behind the arms embargo was that as long as it was in place, the United States would be prevented from supplying arms to Israel, and if the embargo were lifted the United States could supply vastly greater number of weapons to the Israelis than the British could supply arms to the Arabs (source:Karsh)Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by A.S. Brown

I am not familiar with these procedures, but I think that is where I should be posting my comments here. If I am not, mea culpa and please remove to a better spot. As the author of the content that is in dispute, I suppose that makes me a participant. If I understand the rules of Wikipedia correctly, Wikipedia is supposed to present the consensus viewpoint of the majority of the relevant savants in one field the article is about. Thus, the article on Earth should say that the Earth is the round, not flat. It is common in the field of history for historians to be in dispute in their interpretations of various events, and thus in many areas of historiography there is no consensus viewpoint to summarize. The historiography of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war is an area where there are starkly differing and incompatible viewpoints by various historians. I do admit that writing an entire section using one historian might had made things a bit slanted, but the same can be said about countless other articles in Wikipedia, so I see no reason why my work should be singled out in this fashion. I propose as a solution that the content in question be restored to the article, but then expanded by taking into account the views of different historians and explain where their interpretations differ. It is rather awkward and cumbersome to do things that way, but it seems the most fair solution. --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Zero

To answer Smileguy91's question: the section hasn't been rewritten yet because it's a complex topic and needs time. Also, some of the possible writers, such as myself, dislike writing under fire. To reply to A.S. Brown, nobody is arguing against the inclusion of Karsh's opinions. However Karsh is on the edge of the debate and is widely regarded as an activist; moreover his 2002 book is not a scholarly text but a popular book of a polemic nature, full of black and white statements about grey events. (That is, I do not agree that the section was well sourced.) Karsh's place in the section should be a few sentences that are sourced to his scholarly works, and most of the space should be given to mainstream historians. So I do not think that restoring the section first is on the path towards a good section. Zerotalk 02:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1948 Arab–Israeli War discussion

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 Smileguy91, a dispute resolution volunteer. I have pored over the old revisions, and, though the section was well sourced, it did seem biased. But, as already stated in WP:NPOV, the section should be rewritten to reduce bias. I would like an explanation of why the section hasn't been neutrally rewritten yet. Regards, smileguy91talk 16:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As for your question "why the section hasn't been neutrally rewritten yet" my reply is that unfortunately the section is kept deleted and there is no access to it. Anyway, I would like to summarize some points:

  • None of the offenders have provided an error or biased point of Karsh. Thus, Karsh is not the issue. The issue is whether to add more views to the section.
  • The offenders claim that they are exempted from Wikipedia rules (do not delete but re-write, majority of the talk page participants are not necessarily right). Unbelievable.
  • It is better to avoid lies, half truth and misleading information, like the writing here of the main offender. ( a lot of such cases can be highlighted if asked for)
  • I suggest to add a different section: "British policy within Palestine" to the current section: "British Diplomacy in support of the Arabs". May I explain why? Ykantor (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
You're evidently unfamiliar with some simple procedures. The section is 'accessible'. Go to the history page, click on a version in the past containing the section, copy it, and either remove it thus, repasting, to the talk page or work on it downloaded at home.Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I provided several 'biased points' above. Karsh's position is a minority view. You have summarized his minority position as though it were a fact. The section, on a minority view, would occupy at a minimum 8% of the article's length (WP:Undue). It might warrant two or three lines at most. Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
"lies, half truth and misleading information" — this is a fine illustration of Ykantor's way of writing about other editors, from his/her own mouth. Zerotalk 03:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are interested, I will write a list of those "lies, half truth and misleading information". Since it is preferred not to over write here, will you accept this writing in your user talk page? Ykantor (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Ykantor,
All these contributors know me and know that I don't say "lies, half truth" or provide "misleading information".
On your side, you have been warned on your talk page to stop making insinuation on others : [4] but you deleted it : [5] and reiterated your accusations : [6].
You was also already informed of the principle of WP:AGF : [7].
Pluto2012 (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: The editor who offered his opinion at NPOV/N stated that he agreed with talk page comments: "The section as it was relied far too much on Karsh 2002.", "The reliability of that source has been questioned, with someone arguing that it is not a scholarly history but a popular work. That question needs to be resolved before any material is restored." - I will not be getting involved beyond this post at this stage. -- Nbound (talk)

It is a strange situation. On one hand, "The reliability of that source has been questioned. On the other hand, the section is kept deleted so there is no way to add more sources. However, before it was deleted (against Wikipedia rules)I have already added 6 parallel sources to the 15 initial Karsh based citations, and more parallel sources are queuing in the talk page. Anyway, no one has found any Karsh error. Ykantor (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
To repeat, there is a way to add more sources. Make a copy from the earlier version available on the history archive page, and work on it. You really should listen more closely. No one found any Karsh error=the Karsh material is not 'factual' but interpretative. Karsh's generalizations are his opinions, to which he is entitled. Whether or not they deserve a full section, being eccentric to the mainstream, is another matter.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The book in question The Palestine War 1948 is strictly speaking not a scholarly work, but it is meant to be a summary of the subject written by a prominent historian in less than 100 pages. The section is based upon the records of the British Foreign Office. If material from works by other historians supporting the same conclusions were brought in such as books, articles, etc were brought in, might that improve the section. I not believe that it is the case that viewpoint expressed by Karsh, namely that British supported Jordan against Israel in 1948 (anybody heard of Glubb Pasha commanding the Arab Legion?) is an "eccentric" thesis outside of the mainstream. This debate might be helped by more specifics of what is alleged to be wrong with this section. --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In response to mine: "no one has found any Karsh error", Nishidani wrote: "No one found any Karsh error=the Karsh material is not 'factual' but interpretative". This is not correct. e.g. :
  • Karsh has 7 quotations (British staff memo, Troutbeck, Trygve Lie, Alan Cunningham, Burrows, Bevin, Campbell) in this page. No one claims that something is wrong here.
  • Karsh has plenty of factual sentences, but no one have challenged them. for instance:
  1. ...British policy-makers that most Jews were Communists
  2. Ernest Bevin assured the Jordanian Prime Minister Tawfiz Abu al-Huda of British support for a Jordanian invasion
  3. In the early days of the war, the British delegation at the UN blocked all efforts at a ceasefire (which was felt to hurt the Arabs,
  • It is not easy to understand how come that Karsh is so bad, when there is not even one problem with his writing. Ykantor (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The problems of Karsh are even explained in wikipedia : Praise and Criticism : he focuses on minor points and disregards main evidences and he is biaised (a revisionnist zionist, read : right-wing). In wikipedia there is a policy to take care of this : WP:WEIGHT and the problem of giving 'undue weight' to some points is critical. That's why contributors must be opened to gather different points of views on a topic and introduce all them (whatever their own opinion) and not to come and defend one precisely. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems that indirectly you agree that Karsh is accurate , but is missing some points. Is it possible for you to be specific about those supposedly missing points? (note that the issue is "British diplomay" and not "British policy inside Palestine") Ykantor (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
It's hard not to be accurate if you quote sources. That is not in dispute. What mainstream historians criticize is Karsh's interpretation, which highlights the cherrypicked quotes, and ignores everything that counters them, the 'everything' that mainstream historians use to contextualize these same comments, and to draw conclusions diametrically opposed to Karsh. This is an elementary principle in evaluating historical books. We simply accept the mainstream scholarly judgement on Karsh, and on his theory. It is marginal, and cannot be exploited, per WP:Undue, to tilt the article with an additonal ballast of 8% devoted to a pet theory. You consistently fail to see this, and you wish to make a potentially huge thread discussing this pet theory. Editors aren't obliged to engage in this if the opposing editor signals that she is not au fait with key policies like WP:Undue. Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
But what is so difficult to show at least 1 occurrence of Karsh supposedly missing view?
  • yours: "mainstream historians use to contextualize these same comments, and to draw conclusions diametrically opposed to Karsh." Who are these historians? what are their diametrically opposed conclusions? I do not remember that they were mentioned at all. (again-note that the issue is "British diplomay" and not "British policy inside Palestine").
  • The situation starts to remind a Kafkaesque situation, where there is no way to know what is supposedly wrong. Ykantor (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
That was already done on the talk page on the article several times. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems that reasons for rejecting Karsh are a matter of top secret, and I am not eligible to know it. I have just read the talk page again, but I have not found the reasons you claimed. I am not sure whether the situation is a farce or a Kafkaesque Ykantor (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
See Pluto2012's post above from 09:33, 16 June 2013 for example. --Frederico1234 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for lack of participation in this dispute so far, since I opened it... It is correct that undue weight should not be given to opinions, and opinions found in only one source may not be prevalent enough per WP:WEIGHT... smileguy91talk 22:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Welcome back. Hopefully Pluto will expose now the still top secret Karsh's errors / mistakes. Ykantor (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:American Dad!

Pictogram voting keep-green.svg Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Doniago on 13:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC).

List of_Mystery_Science_Theater_3000_episodes

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 71.228.233.195 on 20:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC).

Sykes Cartoons(Lundeen and Cartoon sections))

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jghapher on 18:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC).

Michael Gambon

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by ÓCorcráin on 17:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC).

Coat of arms of Syria

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by APerson241 on 20:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC).

TALK pages for CORINA (Singer)

Pictogram voting keep-green.svg Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Yes Behind The No on 01:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC).

1948 Arab-Israeli War

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Ykantor on 22:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC).

Tamilakam

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.

The Hindu

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Rohufish on 16:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC).

Morgellons

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 198.199.134.100 on 07:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC).

Chudurbudur

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.

Glenn Greenwald

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.

Legal Aid in New Zealand

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by JaggerAgain on 07:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC).

TV Land

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Digifan23 on 03:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC).

Acupuncture

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Mallexikon on 02:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC).