The two parties remained civil and through a moderated discussion were able to find common ground and come to a compromise. — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 21 April 2014 (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.
Over the course of the past few months, User:YMB29 has been repeatedly adding some inaccurate information to the T-54/55 article. It's merely one sentence, which I can quote here, concerning tanks in the Angolan Civil War:
"......At a critical moment during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, the Cubans counter-attacked with T-55s. In the skirmish six or seven Cuban T-55s were lost, but the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing 10 Olifant tanks........"
He has cited a single source for this information, which I have repeatedly challenged with up to ten sources of my own. Nevertheless, the user has refused to engage in constructive or particularly intellectual discussion - demanding I cite information already verified by his own source among other ludicrous matters. He has refused to cite any more sources backing up this inaccuracy, and has done nothing to challenge with facts my assertion that it is nothing more than a hoax with no place on the Wiki, aside from vague accusations of invoking "propaganda" when I offer legitimate citations of my own (his source is itself a book of anecdotes with dubious credibility).
This is a serious problem, because his information directly contradicts all the other sources in the paragraph and leads to disrupted continuity. Furthermore, it's a blatant violation of Wikipedia's policy on hoaxes. I have tried to be reasonable, but I'm at the very end of my rope. The disagreement has already come dangerously close to an edit war....and I'm simply unwilling to do any more work for a community member so seemingly irrational and obstinate. Accordingly, I am requesting an authority's take on this.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have attempted to resolve this dispute in a civil manner, by the following -
1) Pointing out the disputed information's hoax status.
2) Establishing that there is a conflict of sources.
3) Providing seven sources to the contrary, and offering more if these are unacceptable.
4) Offering to provide page numbers for each of these sources for the relevant citations.
Each of these attempts at intellectual discussion have been amounted to nothing.
How do you think we can help?
The user's response to my attempts at resolution have been -
Accusing my sources of being 'propaganda', despite their established legitimacy especially in comparison to his, refusing to accept - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary - that my sources contradict his in more ways than one, etc.
I hope that an impartial user with more authority to deal with this unique type of dispute (conflicting sources and verifiability) can reach (and impose) a collective decision for the article.
Summary of dispute by YMB29
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have not edited the article "over the course of the past few months." Before my edits in the last few days, the last time I edited the article was in December, so I don't know what Katangais is talking about.
He has not provided quotes from sources to back up his claims, instead he relies on his own analysis of sources.
The text that I added is directly backed up by a reliable source, but he calls it communist propaganda and a hoax.
It looks like he has trouble understanding wiki policies like WP:NPOV and WP:OR.
Up until now I thought the discussion was going well, but here all of a sudden Katangais started throwing wild accusations at me. And he calls me irrational...
We have been discussing the issues in that article for less than two days. It is way too early for dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
T-54/55 discussion
Part I
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello, I am the DRN volunteer that will be moderating this case. My understanding is that the dispute involves this sentence:
At a critical moment during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, the Cubans counter-attacked with T-55s. In the skirmish six or seven Cuban T-55s were lost, but the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing 10 Olifant tanks
Is there a source(s) to verify the content in this sentence? If so, please provide them. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
On 9 November 1987, the only engagement between South African and Angolan tanks - then manned by Cuban military advisers[42] occurred when thirteen Olifant Mk1As eliminated two[43] T-55s in a nine-minute skirmish.[38][44]
There is no source, at least Katangais has not provided any, that directly says that the Cubans manned the tanks in that particular skirmish or that it was the only tank engagement, so the sentence violates WP:OR.
However, I am not sure if dispute resolution is appropriate now, given the limited discussion on the talk page. -YMB29 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
There has been significant discussion on the talk page[2] and unless I'm missing something I don't see much progress. I can moderate a discussion here if you like but Katangais and YMB29 if you want a moderated discussion you need to stop making posts on the talk page and bring the discussion here for a fresh start. If discussion doesn't stop on the talk page immediately then I will have no choice but to close this case. So please decide what you want to do.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
When Katangais opened this request the discussion on the talk page was going on for less than two days, but if that is ok, we can try to resolve the problems here. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why YMB29 wants a source for "Cubans crewing the tanks", as he put it, above. It's his information supported by his source; surely I don't have to verify it? --Katangais (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I am talking about the engagement on 9 November 1987. The one from my source most likely happened in 1988. -YMB29 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Source? --Katangais (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You are the one claiming that it was the same engagement as on 9 November 1987, so you are the one who needs to find a source.
The source I cited does not mention a date, but the website source you deleted says it was in February 1988. -YMB29 (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a logical case of WP:SYNTH. You can't assume that the engagement mentioned in the Russian source is the same one from the Cuban source, simply because both cite that 10 Olifant tanks were lost. --Katangais (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The number of T-55s lost is also the same and so is the name of the Cuban officer who led the attack.
However, that does not matter since I am not making the claim in the article, unlike you. -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, let's take one thing at a time. YMB29 has agreed to stop discussing on the talk page and move the discussion here. Katangais do you also agree to that? Or would you rather I close this case and allow you to continue to discuss on the article talk page? Please let me know, thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@Keithbob, I brought the discussion here to seek an impartial resolution and close it once and for all. I have no desire to prolong anything needlessly by returning to the talk page - where, as you can see, an extensive debate has already been undertaken.
@YMB29: As it happens that little tidbit may be quite crucial to my perceived conflict of our sources. Can you provide the name of this individual, please? --Katangais (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Part II Fresh start
OK, both parties have agreed to stop discussing on the talk page and instead have a moderated discussion here. Very good. And we have agreed the core of the dispute is limited to the two sentences cited above. Let's start with the first sentence:
Content: At a critical moment during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, the Cubans counter-attacked with T-55s. In the skirmish six or seven Cuban T-55s were lost, but the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing 10 Olifant tanks
Source: Tokarev, Andrei; Shubin, Gennady, eds. (2010). Ветераны локальных войн и миротворческих операций ООН вспоминают [Veterans of Local Wars and UN Peacekeeping Missions Remember] (in Russian). Moscow: Memories. ISBN978-5-904935-04-7.
YMB29, can you please provide a page number and a quote from the source you've cited above to demonstrate that the source supports the content we are discussing? Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
This is the translation (pages 118-119):
I remember I learned about a counter-attack, when seven Cuban tanks were destroyed. A lieutenant-colonel sent T-55 tanks into a counter-attack against the South Africans. Six or seven tanks were destroyed. It was some critical defensive moment; the Angolans, I think, fled. He led the counter-attack and died (he was wounded*).
*It was a Cuban lieutenant-colonel named Hector. He did not die, but received two severe wounds, one of which in the area of the mouth, so later he could hardly speak. The Cuban film about Cuito Cuanavale has a piece about him, and he speaks there himself. In the newspaper Red Star for that year, there was an article about him and his attack... In the counter-attack seven Cuban tanks were knocked out, and only one tank was left with lieutenant-colonel Hector inside having been wounded twice. However, the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing, according to the Cubans, 10 Olifant tanks.
Excerpt from the Russian Site Cuban Aviation, which is apparently describing the same engagement:
On February 14, 1988 the SADF and the UNITA begin the second heavy attack to the Cuito Cuanavale defenses, with forces sized in three SADF and six UNITA battalions, supported by more of 100 armored vehicles of various types, among them 40 Olifants Tanks. By this superiority of forces, they achieve to break the defense of the 59° Angolan Brigade. To cover this place were urgently thrown the unique 8 T-55 Cubans in movement in Cuito, by the command of the lieutenant colonel Héctor Aguilar. They stop the South African, destroying 10 Olifants and 4 armored cars, and losing 6 T-55 (3 by anti-tanks rockets RPG, and 3 by the Olifants). The remainder of the Olifants retires behind march. In this collision die 14 of the 39 Cubans perished in the battle of Cuito Cuanavale, but this sacrifice went not in vain, therefore the attack of its T-55 saves the situation of the battle, that already was in crisis. This is the first collision in the war between Olifants and Cubans T-55, and is a victory for these, which would be the norm until the end of the war. March 23 the Olifants support the last attack to Cuito Cuanavale, that finishes with another disaster, when the SADF lost 3 Olifants in minefields and by artillery fire.
Okay, we have a date: February 14. That gives me more to work with. I need to consult my own sources and find out what exactly was happening on the 14th, if the Olifants were involved, etc. I have a feeling that will go a long way towards clearing up the fog. --Katangais (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I wish I had seen "2/14/88" much sooner. New information is coming to the surface.
Polack states (p. 142): A split attack by UNITA units followed by the 61st Mechanised Infantry Battalion under SADF Commandant Mike Muller and the 4 South African Infantry Battalion made a determined assault on 14 February against the FAPLA 59th Brigade and remnants of 21st Brigade reinforced by other brigades west of the Dala River. After a time, his numerically superior Olifants faced a FAPLA T-55 counterattack led by Cuban Colonel Ciro Gomez Betancourt. The FAPLA lost five tanks but managed to damage a SADF Olifant.
Hamann states (p. 96): On February 14 1988, in a bitterly fought armour battle, the SADF and UNITA effectively destroyed FAPLA's 59 Brigade, which was heavily supported by Cuban contingents. As a result, most of FAPLA's forces were pinned down in a 30 km square just across the Cuito River from Cuito Cuanavale.
Bridgland states (p. 196-197): The first Cuban fighting men entered combat in defence of FAPLA's 59th Brigade on 14 February 1988...Major Andre Retief moved his reserve troop of three Olifants across to the right to deal with the serious position in which B Company found itself. The Olifants came into contact immediately with the FAPLA tanks...but nevertheless, the action in support of A and B Companies ended with five T-54/55s destroyed and one T-55 captured in mint condition with only a few kilometres on the clock. On [pg. 198], he continues: Seventy-five FAPLA dead were counted on the two battlefields and six were taken prisoner. Given the SADF's loss of only seven men killed and two wounded, one Ratel destroyed, one Ratel badly damaged, and an Olifant damaged, the inventory indicates a clear South African victory. But the fact is that the attack was a failure in terms of objectives Colonel Don Ferreira had set - the elimination of 16 Brigade and the cutting off of 21 and 59 Brigades so that they could be destroyed virtually at the SADF's leisure.
George states (pg. 221-222): Early on 14 February, the attack began with a fierce bombardment of both brigades, allowing 61 Mech and UNITA to manoeuvre into positions exactly between them and then simultaneous attacks...faced with the collapse of his forces, 59 Brigade's commander urgently requested reinforcements, and 3 Tank Battalion was ordered to launch a counter-attack. Seven tanks from the Cuban Tactical Group (under Lieutenant Colonel Ciro Gomez Betancourt) spearheaded the force as it moved east towards 59 Brigade's position (one breaking down en route). The FAPLA's signal was intercepted by the South Africans, however, and they sent 61 Mech to intercept the tanks, precipitating the first tank battle of the Angolan war. Visibility in the dense bush war was poor and the Cuban tank force - which according to the South Africans, "arrived in a mob", stumbled into a noisy point-blank firefight with the South Africans. The fighting was chaotic, and the Cuban tanks impressed the Olifant commanders with their aggressive (and often suicidal) sallies into the midst of the South African squadron in search of targets. With the range between opposing tanks down to as little as 100 yards, the Cuban commander was forced to keep his tank on the move, and by the end of the day his was the only tank operational (although it had been hit three times). As dusk fell, both sides started to lose communication between their vehicles, and the South Africans started withdrawing. This allowed the Cuban tank commander (who had rammed a tree and camouflaged his tank under the foliage) to collect nine Cuban survivors scattered across the battlefield - six of them badly wounded - and withdraw to 16 Brigade's positions, arriving shortly before dawn. The attack of 14th February was another overwhelming success for the South Africans, driving the FAPLA off the high ground and, following a weak attempt to re-occupy 59 Brigade's positions the next day, the FAPLA withdrew to its last foothold, the Tumpo Triangle.
Heitman states (pg. 233) in his very lengthy chapter entitled The Attack on 59 Brigade: Almost immediately after the artillery began firing, FAPLA tanks engaged 61 Mech from the west, south, and east. Several of them began manoeuvring very aggressively to attack 61 Mech, and the artillery fire was adjusted to support them. Five of these tanks were shot out by 61 Mech during this fighting. Two more were shot out by 4 SAI; one by an Olifant, another by a Ratel-90....this group of tanks was not very well handled, and they arrived in front of the South Africans "in a mob", so that only the poor visibility in the thick bush saved them from instant destruction. The bush was so thick that some of these tanks were only visible at ten metres. 61 Mech later reported that they had mixed Cuban and FAPLA crews, the commander and the gunner generally being Cubans. At 18h25 61 Mech received artillery and direct fire; one Ratel was hit by a 23mm round which wounded one member of its crew. Unusually, the artillery fire was accurate and was accurately adjusted as the South Africans moved. A second Ratel was hit by 23mm rounds, killing four men and wounding three. Another Ratel was damaged by 130mm shrapnel. 61 Mech now isolated these FAPLA elements with fire and dealt with them. 4 SAI had manoeuvred alongside 61 Mech to support it, and the FAPLA attack soon broke down. Seven T-54/55s, a BTR-60, and three other vehicles were destroyed. Fourteen Cubans were killed in their tanks and about 100 FAPLA infantry were also killed in this clash.
Obviously I was mistaken about there being only being one tank-on-tank clash in the '87/'88 campaign. I trust these quotes will be helpful. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
These look to be describing the same event, although some of the details are different, like the name of the Cuban officer who led the attack.
The main difference is who was more successful on the battlefield.
However, while saying that it was a victory for the South Africans, both Bridgland and George also say that the Cuban counter-attack saved the situation by preventing the South Africans from cutting off the Angolan units, so in that they agree with the source I quoted above. -YMB29 (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your research and discussion points. Now that some new information has been provided is there any bit of compromise or common ground emerging?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't debating whether or not the engagement was a decided success or failure by the SADF/FAPLA - on the whole Cuito Cuanavale was a series of stalemates and pyrrhic victories for both sides. I'm merely concerned with the hardware. In fact, the main gripe I had with his information was the casualty count. YMB29's source claims that 10 Olifants were destroyed by T-55s in the above engagement. As you can see from the quotes I have provided above, none of my sources support this. --Katangais (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
These sources are mostly based on the South African accounts of the battle.
The Cuban accounts are different, but that is no reason to exclude what they say. -YMB29 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Keithbob: And here we are back where we started. Now can you see where the disagreement is made? I wanted to exclude the Russian account from the article because it's clearly incorrect, but when I removed it YMB29 accused me of "censoring" information. Yet you see for yourself that I've done my research - an overwhelming number of sources clearly point to its inaccuracy. If we allow this preposterous anecdote to remain up, it's a blatant example of WP:Hoax. --Katangais (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You can't remove information from a reliable source just because you disagree with it and think it is incorrect, see WP:TRUTH.
We have to go by what all the reliable sources say, and not only those that represent the South African point of view. -YMB29 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
But see, I don't disagree with it. Heitman, Brigland, George, and Polack do. Your "reliable source" is a book of anecdotes by former Soviet military personnel. And BTW, since when have my sources only represented a South African point of view? --Katangais (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
In general they represent the South African view, and you can't have only those sources in the article.
The source I quoted contains interviews of people who were there and also notes by historians. You can't dismiss it as a book of anecdotes...
It is common for certain sources to disagree with other ones. However, in such cases you can't judge which sources are correct and exclude the ones you think are wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It is a a book of anecdotes as far as the article is concerned - print sources with the appropriate academic research are often much more credible than personal interviews. I can, and have challenged, that publication with sources of my own. But of course that's irrelevant to the likes of you, because any account that disagrees with the Russian one is apparently South African POV. Never mind the fact that my cites include one American and two Englishmen.
Where's the third, fourth, or even fifth party here? It's obvious that I've successfully challenged that tidbit of nonsense, gone directly to the reliability of his source, and want it removed from the article ASAP, per WP:HOAX. It's also painfully clear that he thinks I'm censoring the article to support POV rather than simply calling out dubious information. It's one sentence. This should have been resolved a week ago. --Katangais (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
If someone feels a source is not reliable. Then they can say why and discuss on the talk page (which it looks like you have done already). The next step would be to take that source to WP:RSN for a discussion with uninvolved editors who would comment on the source's merits. If the reliability of the source is not in question then the source can be cited in the article. If there are several other sources who give information that contradicts the first source then that's OK, info from those sources should also be added. So........ assuming all sources are reliable, we add info from all reliable sources to the article. We don't generally discount a reliable source just because other sources contradict it. Now, the slippery part is that sources need to be given due weight (see WP:UNDUE). This means the same info expressed by several sources should be given significantly more weight than info from a single source. WP:FRINGE may also have some bearing in a situation like this but you can read it and see if you think it applies. - — Keithbob • Talk • 04:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Part II (continued)
Seeing as how we've made this much progress here, I really don't see the point in taking this to WP:RSN. If WP:UNDUE holds thus: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable cites, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public, then it would appear that I can be safely amend the information on the T-54/55 page to reflect the facts as already sourced above. It's already about five reliable sources (I can provide several more if YMB29 so desires) against one. --Katangais (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE does not mean excluding information because it is supported by less sources. -YMB29 (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
When sources disagree each view should be attributed to the source (or set of sources) that expresses it (WP:ASF).
It looks like Katangais does not have an understanding of this concept.
Also, WP:HOAX applies to a form of vandalism, which has nothing to do with the dispute...
I doubt Katangais knows how to read Russian, so I don't know how he can be so confident about what the Russian source contains.
In general, US and British authors base their information about the Angolan conflict on South African sources, just like Russian authors base their information on Cuban sources.
The article is about the T-55 and the Cubans used these tanks in the conflict, so we should not only include the South African narrative about what happened. -YMB29 (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:HOAX doesn't merely refer to vandalism. The way this was explained to me by a user involved with Twinkle, it deals with "rubbish input" in general, and may be broadened to include skewed/intentionally misleading terminology in an article or section.
All American and British authors base their information on the Angolan conflict on South African sources, and all Russian authors base their information on Cuban sources? No factual basis whatsoever. WP:Proveit. --Katangais (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not say all. So you are suggesting that the British and US authors you quoted base their books mostly on Cuban sources or on both Cuban and SA sources equally?
Also, WP:PROVEIT refers to information that goes into an article, not an argument that comes up during a discussion...
You need a user to explain to you what a guideline is? You can't read the page yourself? Information from a reliable source that you don't like and want removed from an article cannot be considered a hoax. -YMB29 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You assert nonsense on Wikipedia in defence of alleged information, you must prove it. Otherwise the point is null. I'd be more than happy to do the same for you if there's a problem with anything I've stated.
Why do you insist on seeing things solely through the prism of South African/American/Cuban/Russian POV? It's not the source I don't like, it's the inaccurate information which I've challenged with multiple sources of my own. --Katangais (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the concept that different and conflicting information can exist in an article.
You are also quick to dismiss information you don't like as nonsense, which does not help you. -YMB29 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Some comments on the above conversation:
We are starting to get personal and assuming things about other editors and making comments on their perceived motivations. This is not appropriate per WP:AGF so let's avoid that please
WP:UNDUE does not mean excluding reliably sourced content but it does mean giving more weight and emphasis to content that is widely sourced vs. content that isn't.
WP:HOAX does not apply to this discussion of reliably sourced content and continuing to bring it up is disruptive to this process.
WP:PROVEIT redirects to WP:V which is pillar policy of WP which says WP content must be sourced and verifiable. It has nothing to do with challenging someone's logic in a conversation on a talk page or dispute resolution forum.
As editors on WP we are here to summarize reliable sources. It makes our job pretty easy. No personal opinion. No combining of sources to form a new conclusion. Just summarize what the sources say and in proportion to the frequency with which they occur in reliable publications.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
To come back to the issue at hand..... would someone like to suggest content that summarizes all of the sources cited above and gives both perspectives on the event while giving due weight to the information contained in the majority of the sources?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Does the fact that I have multiple, reliable, sources by recognised academics of three different nationalities disproving the faulty information and he has only one count for nothing here? --Katangais (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
WP is not a battle of sources. If there are two versions of events by reliable sources we present both, but with appropriate weight.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
There's no need to present two versions of events with equal weight - if one version is backed only by a single source, and another by ten then logic dictates we should go with what is clearly the more reliable account. --Katangais (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It is not just one source. I found another Russian book that mentions the same SA losses, and information from that Cuban aviation website comes from Cuban books, such as Cuito Cuanavale, viaje al centro de los heroes[3]. -YMB29 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Part III (suggested text)
This is the sentence change I suggest:
On 14 February 1988, at a critical moment during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, the Cubans counter-attacked with T-55s. Six or seven T-55s were lost, but the attack helped stop the South African advance and save the Angolan units from getting cut off. According to Cuban and Russian sources, the South Africans lost at least 10 Olifant tanks, while South African and British sources say that only one vehicle was lost and a couple were damaged.
10 tanks to one slightly damaged...Christ, that's an unbelievable difference in figures. 10 tanks is an entire SANDF squadron.
I'll agree to the above changes in the article if we can also specify upon citing the figure of "10" that the South African account maintains there were only 3 Olifants involved in this engagement. Per Bridgland's text: "Major Andre Retief moved his reserve troop of three Olifants across to the right to deal with the serious position in which B Company found itself. The Olifants came into contact immediately with the FAPLA tanks..." --Katangais (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This just says that three reserve Olifants were sent into battle, which does not mean that other Olifants were not there.
Also, your quote above from Polack's book says: ...numerically superior Olifants faced a FAPLA T-55 counterattack... -YMB29 (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Very well. In that case, I have no further objections to the proposed revision. --Katangais (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I will make the change to the article. -YMB29 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Glad to see we have found some common ground for compromise.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Additional sentence
Are you also ok if the other sentence gets modified?
Current sentence: On 9 November 1987, the only engagement between South African and Angolan tanks - then manned by Cuban military advisers occurred when thirteen Olifant Mk1As eliminated two T-55s in a nine-minute skirmish.
Should be changed to: On 9 November 1987, an engagement between South African and Angolan tanks occurred when thirteen Olifant Mk1As eliminated two T-55s in a nine-minute skirmish. -YMB29 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
As we've now established that more than one tank battle took place, I think you could safely make that alteration. --Katangais (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I will change it.
So I guess we are finished here then. -YMB29 (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll summarize and close. You've both done a great job! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Lightbreather on 01:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC).
Closed due to lack of participation — Keithbob • Talk • 21:18, 21 April 2014 (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 the talk page, 10-11 April 2014: [4][5].
On this article there are a handful of editors (Ianmacm, Gaijin42, Aoidh) who insist that the words "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" must not be used in the lead. I have had similar disputes on other articles. Overall, I have probably had the same dispute with more than a dozen editors who take the same or a similar stand: that these words, or close variations of, are not real, but simply anti-gun POV. (Please read the most recent discussions' links at top of this notice/request.)
To the best of my knowledge they are all pro-gun editors, who also, again to the best of my knowledge, are a significant majority among active editors of gun-related pages. (Not everyone I've included as "involved" is pro-gun, but all have been involved in discussions re: the disputed words on the article in question.)
I would like to start an RfC re: the use of these words in Wikipedia articles, but I would like to involve as wide an array of editors as possible - not just WP:GUNS editors.
The primary objective of this notice/request is not to address any one editor's behavior on any one article, but to get help in crafting RfCs - one about assault weapon and assault weapons ban, and close variations, another about high-capacity magazine and high-capacity magazine ban, and close variations - to put to as wide an array of editors as possible.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
First BRD, then talk - citing lots of sources - then an "unbalanced" tag (which was promptly removed and called an "attention seeking" drive-by).
How do you think we can help?
Help, please, to draft, place, and publicize RfCs. (Place them under a non- WP:GUNS page/project. History, law, media, politics?)
Summary of dispute by Ianmacm
I am not a gun expert, but agree with other editors that the terms "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" are unacceptably vague. They have been used to mean various things, which means that it is better to stick to more precise language. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting, Senator Dianne Feinstein proposed to "ban the sale and manufacture of 157 types of semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition."[6] This is easy to understand and accurate, which is why it is such a puzzle that Lightbreather seems obsessed with adding the much vaguer terms "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" to articles. This appears to have become something of a personal crusade for Lightbreather, complete with an element of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it becomes clear that consensus is against him/her on this matter. The comments at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting show that there is a consensus against the terms that Lightbreather seems to want to add to multiple articles.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 06:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, the description of me as a "pro-gun editor" illustrates why Lightbreather seems to have missed the point by failing to assume good faith. I am British and have never owned an air pistol, let alone a gun which could kill thirty people in a few minutes. All of the comments opposing Lightbreather have made the point that his/her pet terms are vague. This is the key issue, not being pro- or anti-gun.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me) 06:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather calls anyone who disagrees with her a "Pro-gun" editor. Even me. And I have been to more anti-gun rallys than I can count. Lightbreather's WP:CRUSH behavior on Wikipedia is completely unacceptable. She ignores consensus, and when she does not get her way, creates even more time wasting work, such as what we are doing right here. I don't know what to do about the situation, but something needs to be done. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉ 01:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry if my original notice/request seemed to be about behavior more than content. I have edited it to emphasize what my objective is. As for AGF, I do it at first always with editors I've not worked with before, and with editors I know on new edits and discussions. Also, one doesn't need to own a gun to be pro-gun, just as one doesn't need a uterus to edit for or against abortion. Also, there are many people who own guns who are pro-control... but, again, that's not what my notice/request is about. Lightbreather (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Gaijin42
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Aoidh
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Oh boy...so because I disagree with Lightbreather, I'm automatically a "pro-gun" editor? I am not a member of WP:GUNS, didn't even know that was a thing until I read it here. To my knowledge I only very, very rarely edit gun-related articles at all (the only exception is removing redlinked companies from AR-15, but that's not a "pro-gun" thing, it's a WP:WTAF issue...does that also make me a "pro-Backhoe loader editor" as well?). Putting such an emphasis on calling anyone who disagrees a "pro-gun editor" makes it seem like their opinion has little value and can therefore be discounted, but since everyone who disagrees with Lightbreather is automatically "pro-gun", only those who agree with them should be listened to? That's absurd. I am not "pro-gun", I am however in favor of concise wording in an article, that is my issue with it and that is what I pointed out. Looking at Lightbreather's edit history, I can't find a single edit that isn't gun-related, so this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of "they have an opinion on guns so what they say shouldn't count" comes across as a little hypocritical. I don't appreciate Lightbreather's remarks and accusations and I have nothing further to say regarding this issue. - Aoidh (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
As I wrote to Ianmacm, I am sorry if my original notice/request seemed to be about behavior more than content. I have edited it to emphasize what my objective is. I do edit gun-related articles, but not exclusively. I do so because I believe that a lot of the gun-related articles are, if not blatantly pro-gun POV, than subtly so based on balance or incompleteness. This may be simple oversight or it may be intentional, but that doesn't matter. When I try to edit, I am usually pushed away by "consensus" arguments similar to the one I got on the Sandy Hook article: old and/or weak consensus by a handful of editors. I believe addressing these two terms on a wider scale could help with some of that battleground behavior. I am not trying to wipe-out pro-gun points, I am trying to address balance and completeness issues. Lightbreather (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
"Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. - this is not the article talk page." Your commentary is not needed here, so stop replying to every single person who comments. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of "they disagree with me so they must be pro-gun and therefore can be ignored and it isn't a real consensus" is going to see you blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia; if you're really trying to balance Wikipedia articles it's your behavior that is harming any chance of that, not "pro-gun editors". Saying that getting your way would could help "with some of that battleground behavior" is absurd; you ceasing your battleground behavior would stop the battleground behavior. From what I've seen the issue is you (at least at this article talk page). The content is not the issue here, your behavior in response to not liking the discussion is the issue, trying to shift the focus away from that is failure to accept what the actual issue is. - Aoidh (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Drmies
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Monty845
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by North8000
I don't know what is going on here. I think I've made zero edits on the article in the last year on one passing comment there on the the topic at hand in the last year there. "Assault weapon" (unlike "assault rifle") is a fluid political term, not an actual type of firearm. Statements otherwise should not be made in the voice of Wikipedia. So wording on the order of "define certain firearms as assault weapons and ban them" is proper, "ban assault weapons" is not. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear North, I apologize. I didn't include you here to question your behavior, but for your help. You were in a discussion that another editor cited as a source of past consensus, that's all. The last time I had a dispute about words, after the talk-page discussion went poorly, I started an RfC. I received some flak for choosing that option as the next step. This time, I thought I would start first with this process, that's all. I want to start an RfC, but I know that how they're worded, where they're placed, and how they're publicized is important. Since these words keep coming up again and again in gun-related articles, I want help crafting, placing, and publicizing the RfCs. I am reaching out to editors who've discussed these before for help - that's all. Lightbreather (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment by AzureCitizen
If the desired outcome is to have an RfC, the simplest solution is to work out a wording for that on the Talk Page and just do it. I don't think anyone here would have opposed that. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
-- I have never commented on this and I do not know why I am named. I do not know why I am being included (or targeted) in this, aside from the fact that perhaps there is an ARBCOM on gun control which lightbreather is fully aware of????? I believe this is terribly unfair and unjust to me on the part of Lightbreather, to attempt to bait me into this argument when I have very clearly never commented on these terms here on this article. The last time I edited this article, to the very best of my memory, was to edit the timelines of the first responders where I added a table with the times from the editors and to include the names of the defenders who died valiantly trying to defend the school. Lightbreather, could you very please (and I'm being very polite here under extreme duress from you) articulate where specifically where I "Justanonymous" have attempted to "stop" or "restrict" you (specifically) from using the terms "assault weapon" or "high capacity magazine" in the LEDE against "you" (specifically), in this (specific) article? Please be very specific with difs please.............. Otherwise, I will expect a "full" apology from you here AND on my talk page -- Otherwise, I will be forced to report you for personal harassment to appropriate oversight groups if you are engaging in these activities against others. Please be specific.....this is extremely serious in my mind. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't include you to upset you. I am looking for editors to help resolve the dispute. In the discussion on the Sandy Hook talk page, another editor provided a link to a past discussion "with previous consensus on this matter." You were involved in that discussion, so that's why I included you here. Not everyone I listed is involved in this particular dispute, but some have expressed opinions in other discussions that were brought up in this dispute. Lightbreather (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your motives given the impending ARBCOM and your activities there. I cannot and do not take your activities as "good faith", sorry and I do not wish to participate here given the ARBCOM impending decision.-Justanonymous (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow that's a very significant rewrite on the intro to this DRN! That said, it's still a very one sided DRN that seeks to make the use of certain politically charged phrases admitted by getting more people to weigh in just because Lightbreather happens to think that the editors of WP:GUN are inherently biased??? It's kindof like saying that we don't like the word "stomata" used by botanists in plant articles and then issuing a DRN to have pastry cooks weigh in for their input?! I think it's terribly unfair to label WP:GUN editors "pro-gun" or to use other incendiary phrases and overly broad categorizations here on the Wiki and I think Lightbreather owes that community an apology for her mis-structuring of the initial DRN.
At the end of the day, the WP:GUN editors are the ones who have been editing firearms related articles because they're the ones that understand these terms, the firearms themselves, the ammunition, and technical capabilities of certain firearms. Their editing is to be commended for the countless high quality articles they have created and maintain. When a gun related crime occurs, yes it's generally the WP:GUNs group that provides technical editing to articles - an invaluable contribution. We cannot and should not demonize all WP:GUN editors. It's terribly unfair.
In my case, I made a 4 word edit 18 months ago agreeing that we should not use incendiary phrases when neutral language is available. For better or worse, the phrases "assault weapon", and "high capacity magazine" are politically charged phrases. These phrases are not in the dictionary and there are vast arguments in Wikipedia on these terms. Why would we want to make the encyclopedia more polarized by using these phrases when we can convey the exact same meaning using politically neutral language. Let's use neutral language. -Justanonymous (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting discussion
I'm Theodore, a volunteer at DRN. I've read the comments in the above section, and I'm slightly hesitant to continue this discussion. Several parties have minimal connections to the page in question, and this seems to be a perpetuation of a longstanding, widespread dispute. I'd be happy to work with all parties to resolve this issue, but I think that the idea of an RfC makes sense. An RfC would provide broader community guidance regarding this issue, which I think would be beneficial. Once some "ground rules" are established in the RfC, perhaps this issue will die down. Otherwise, if the RfC falls through, we can come back here and take a crack at resolving it. Any thoughts? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Theodore!. Writing an RfC is exactly what I want to do, but I want help from an outside/neutral party. I actually want to write two RfCs: one about the use of "assault weapon" and one about the use of "high-capacity magazine." Is that something you can help with, or is there a better forum to get help writing and publicizing an RfC? Lightbreather (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Unfortunately, one of the listed parties in this case has left Wikipedia; most of the other parties have not expressed an interest in further discussion in this forum. At this point, I would suggest the following:
1. Draft a brief, unambiguous, neutral RFC for each issue. E.g. "Is the use of the term 'high-capacity magazine' appropriate in articles related to gun control?"
2. Post this in the proper location; you could post a notification at the "Policy" section of the Village Pump, but you should hold the RFC on the talk page of the applicable article.
If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. If you need help posting the RfC, I can be of assistance. If there are no objections, I will close this thread in a few hours. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aurora, Cayuga County, New York
One of two parties has discontinued participation in this thread, and appears to have ceased editing. Please see my closing comment for more information. Also, kudos to User:Kutsuit for your work to help resolve the dispute. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 23 April 2014 (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.
The two editors are battling over the trail on if there should be a picture and if it is public or Private property. all they are doing is fighting each other over it.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Laholland, Greeneyedsallie
How do you think we can help?
By coming to a consensus, calming everyone down, and to stop this bloody madness.
Summary of dispute by Laholland
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Greeneyedsallie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I am a regular visitor to the village of Aurora and I enjoy the village's four milelakefront hiking trail, which begins at Wells College, and continues north to the hamlet of Levana. Earlier this year, I posted a winter photo of what the folks in Aurora call "The Lake Path." I noticed it, and the description of this trail, which was under the Geography section, had disappeared. Thus began this edit war. I know this trail exists as I have been hiking it for many years. Locals tell me the trail is older than the ajacent railroad bed. Many people use this trail. Like many roads and sidewalks in Central New York, itpasses through private property. A lawyer tells me it is technically a prescriptive easement. The description on the Wikipedia page mentions all of this and links to a definition of a prescriptive easement. So yes, this trail passes through many parcels of private property, and has done so since about 1825. Recently one family claiming a right to block public use. Villagers say this is a land grab. It is defiantly a dispute, and it makes walking on that small section of the trail stressful for many people. I avoid that area though I have done my due diligence and learned the legal status quo is that this is a public trail and the police will not block its use. In my attempt to compromise with Laholland, I suggest that he/she add information to the page referencing this controversy and his/her take on it rather than remove a photo and description of the trail. This way, the public can be fully informed about the controversy, and both Laholland and myself will have collaborated in making this page more comprehensive.
Both Laholland and myself were asked not to have an edit war. I have respected that request, yet I see the page was once again edited by Laholland. Also, Laholland is trying to guess at my non-Wikipedia identity. I believe this violates Wikipedia protocol. In this silly case, exposing identity is not dangerous or problematic. But since Wikipedia is global, and people who post often put them selves at risk of various forms of reprisal, I believe we should all respect this. I am not anonymous. I am GreenEyedSallie. Also, I am afraid that if Laholland is not allowed to remove this photo and reference from this page, he/she will create a new identity and continue to do so. The edit history suggest this is his/her third identity. This is why I think that regardless of the outcome here, this page might need moderation. Thank you so much for your valuable time helping us work this out. --Greeneyedsallie (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Aurora, Cayuga County, New York discussion
Hello everyone! I'm Theodore, and I'll be helping out with this discussion. I will wait until Laholland responds to comment further. In the meantime, I want to let everyone know that this is a forum to discuss content, not conduct. If concerns arise over editor conduct, they should be directed elsewhere. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears that Laholland is currently under a 24-hour block. This should expire tomorrow, and we can continue our discussion then. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there still a need for a discussion at this point? There hasn't been much activity lately, as far as I can tell. I'll leave it open for another day or so; otherwise, it may be a decent time to close this. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please, this issue is not resolved. Look at the history for this page. User Laholland, rather than address my proposed edit compromise of including his allegations on the page, or participate in this mediation discussion, went back and continued the edit war, once again removing a photo of the village and a description of the village trail. Because I do not want to participate in an edit war, I have not responded in kind. Hence, we are going through the mediation process. I would like to see the page returned to its previous state, undoing editor Laholland's removal of text and photo. Once again, I am very comfortable including any information Laholland wants to add, but removing a photo and text is not appropriate edit behavior. Appropriate edit behavior would be to make the public aware of what he alleges to be controversial. Also, I would like to see some of the nasty personal attacks against other editors removed from the Village of Aurora Talk page as well. Also, since I believe Laholland is an identity created specifically to remove information from the village of Aurora page, either by a person or entity, and I suspect that this editor has used other names (see edit history), I suggest that this page be moderated to prevent unilateral moves to remove data without consensus or mediation. As an editor, I feel bullied here. Someone is removing my edits, attacking me personally, and refusing to compromise or participate in mediation or discussion. --Greeneyedsallie (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
If I may just intrude here (as a new volunteer), I'll have to reemphasize what user "Theodore!" said in that this is not the right place to discuss the conduct of the other Wikipedia user who you are in dispute with, as it's not relevant to resolving the content dispute between the two sides in any shape or form. If you felt that you were attacked or violated in any other way, you can notify the admins of your concerns in the administrators' noticeboard, which you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard. Now with regard to the matter in hand, it is my understanding -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that the dispute is over the inclusion of a photograph and other details that describe a hiking trail that user "Laholland" claims does not exist. In this situation, it is important that you provide sources to back your claims that this path is indeed a hiking trail, otherwise there's nothing that can stop the other user, or anyone else for that matter, from removing your content from the article on the grounds that the information is false. Could you provide sources to back the information that you've added to the article? It would make this dispute much easier to rectify. --Kutsuit (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
we're moving into philosophical terrain here. How do you prove that a sidewalk exists? This is a small out of the way village. I cannot find an Internet description of this trail. There is hard physical evidence of its existence, however, on the ground. Editor Laholland and I both agree that the photo of the Lake Path that I posted is indeed a photo taken in the north end of the Village of Aurora. So there is no disagreement that the path exists at that end of the village. People walk on it. I walk on it. The village maintains access points and benches along this trail. Should I upload more photos? I think that would overemphasize the importance of this trail relative to the rest of the village. There is a park on this trail. I don't have time to collect affidavits from people walking on this trail for the purpose of defending a volunteer Wikipedia edit. What I can say is a party is trying to stop people from walking on this trail. I think there is agreement on that issue. So why not include that information, noting that there is a move to shut this trail down at one geographic point? The other editor is not weighing in here with any documentation. I have posted a photo, that is not being contested as to its location. If this trail is being closed to the public, is there any documentation? Has anyone been charged with trespass? In New York it is legally difficult to reverse a prescriptive easement like this, especially after over a century of use. Is there any documentation that this has happened? Someone stands to make money if they can seize control of this valuable lakefront asset. What would a volunteer editor stand to gain by defending the integrity of this village's Wikipedia description? I also posted a description of the trail system in nearby Long Point State Park. There is no Internet reference to that trail either. By the same logic it too does not exist -- at leash here --Greeneyedsallie (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I understand that this is a frustrating and unusual situation, and it's clear that you're acting in good faith. Nevertheless, we can't continue a discussion here if Laholland is unwilling to participate; additionally, it appears that she has discontinued editing. Given this development, I wonder if this dispute might die down. Regarding your goal of describing this trail on Wikipedia, it is certainly appropriate as long as it's verifiable. This can be a tricky thing to surmount, but it's a requirement on Wikipedia that all material be grounded in reliable sources. Thanks again for your contributions; if this dispute flares up again, feel free to come back here or try formal mediation. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Davido
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Filed by Versace1608 on 11:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on the talk page already.
Greetings Administrators, I am not satisfied with the response Diannaa has given me regarding the removal of the "controversial incidents" section that I added to the Davido article. I understand that she has been cleaning up several articles created by another user, and has gotten rid of the several content that are in direct violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. I appreciate her for doing that. What I don't appreciate is the response that I have been giving. In this edit, she removed what she felt was a copyright violation, and left an edit summary, stating: "remove "Controversial incidents" per WP:BLP: poorly sourced negative content about a living person". When I saw this, I went to her talk page and left her this note. I didn't agree with her "poorly source" comment, and told her that I cited two Punch references and a Premium Times reference. (Punch and Premium Times are two notable newspapers in Nigeria for those who don't know). How can she said that the content is "poorly source" when these are notable newspaper references? She also said that the contents of the section are negative. This sounds like a fan of Davido reading his article and removing things that they do not want others to read. A core fan of Michael Jackson cannot come to Wikipedia and read his child rape allegation and remove it simply because he/she thinks that the contents are "negative". Back to Davido. The incidents that happened in Nigeria are factual incidents. I would have understand if she had said that the first incident (him being at the scene of a bar fight) was a bit trivial since he didn't sustain any injuries. I personally don't know how a incident, which is backed by reliable sources, can be considerws neg.....
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have talked extensively on the article's talk page. I took the dispute to ANI, but was told to report it here.
How do you think we can help?
I think that if you guys read my point of view, you will understand the importance of what I am saying. I am simply saying that the controversial incidents of the article, which were removed from the article and are backed by reliable sources, be added back to the article.
Summary of dispute by Diannaa
I don't think that these two incidents belong in the article at all. In the first incident, in November 2013, members of Davido's entourage were involved in a bar fight. Davido was not involved in the fight, though he was present in the bar that night. This incident, which is not even about Davido but about members of his entourage, is not significant enough in my opinion to include in his biography. The activities of his entourage do not belong in his WP:BLP. It's negative information about someone else that could give a negative impression of the subject of this article. That's not allowed per our BLP rules. Please see the essay WP:Coatrack for more information on this topic.
In the second incident, we have newspapers reporting that someone made assault accusations toward Davido in 2012, accusations which he later denied. I can't find a source that says he was ever charged, much less convicted. Per WP:BLPCRIME, which states that we should not include material about possible criminal activity until and unless a conviction is secured, the material has to stay out of the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Davido discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello there, Versace1608. First of all, I must inform you that I'm a new volunteer and this is the first time I participate in a dispute resolution, so please bear with me if I make a mistake with regard to the Wikipedia protocols. Having read your opening statement, I assume that you want to bring this dispute to the attention of the Wikipedia administrators? If my assumption is correct, then you should probably notify the admins about this dispute by clicking on this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard. That's only if you wish to bring this to the attention of the administrators, otherwise I believe you're in the right place for resolving this dispute, but you should know that the volunteers do not have to be admins.
I've examined the whole dispute to the best of my ability and my understanding is that you are allowed to include controversies in a biographical article, provided they are backed by reliable sources. That's generally where the dispute lies, as it is often hard to decide what source can be deemed reliable, especially if it's journalistic in nature and when it doesn't belong to the mainstream international news agencies. In such cases, I think it would be appropriate to find as many news sources that can strengthen the validity of the controversial incident in question. I'm not aware of how reliable Nigerian news agencies are but, given the fact that the musician involved in this dispute is an American national, are there any mainstream American news sources that can at least verify this story?
Based on my experience in Wikipedia, it is my understanding that, generally speaking, any source is better than no source, even if it's in another language. But given the controversial nature of what you would like to add to the article and given that controversial statements in biographical articles are taken very seriously, it is vitally important that you can find reliable journalistic sources in order to avoid breaking Wikipedia policies. With that said, if the information that you'd like to add is verifiable by multiple sources and provided that the sources are trustworthy/well-known, then I see no reason why the information cannot be included in the article, so long as it doesn't become the central/focal point of the actual article. Sorry for the long response. --Kutsuit 13:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutsuit (talk • contribs)
Oh, I forgot to add something... I've been following up with the recent developments in the article's talk page and, in light of these circumstances, I think a consensus could be reached, regarding the inclusion of the information. Once again, however, I would stress the importance of not making the controversial incidents the central/focal point of the article, therefore it's best to keep the information short and simple. Also bear in mind that the reliability of these news sources can be called into question, therefore it would be best if you could find a more mainstream news source (if possible), although that does not necessarily mean that we should discredit the reliability of the Nigerian sources if a consensus can be reached. --Kutsuit (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The section that was removed from the article had two separate incidents. The first one is a bit trivial. If it doesn't get added back to the article, I won't have a fit about it. I have a problem with the removal of the second incident on the basis of "BLP Crime" and "non conviction". I just left a response on the talk page of the article, and I don't think that I should repeat the same thing here. Not every incident one is involve in leads to a conviction. There have been numerous instances where people have gotten acquitted from an incident. There have also been instances where incidents have been resolved outside of court. The second incident is worthy to be included in the article because it received significant coverage in reliable sources. In addition to that, the information is factual. I am in no way trying to diminish the artist or portray him in a negative light. If you read the second incident, you'll see that it is neutral. It can definitely be written and shorten, no doubt. However, I do not agree that it should be thrown out the gate just because Davido didn't get convicted for it. Versace1608(Talk) 19:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Did Versace even note that they had been given extensive advice here? They never confirmed the ending of that thread, especially the parts about wp:UNDUE at the end. As far as ANI was concerned, the matter was closed - odd to see it here the panda ₯’ 09:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Having read Diannaa's replies, I believe she has a point in that the information, which was intended to be added to the article, is not appropriate for the actual article, as Davido wasn't personally involved in the brawl. This is a very vital piece of information as it means that the dispute is no longer about the reliability of the Nigerian news sources. Instead, the dispute is now over the inclusion of information that might not seem appropriate in that article. (After all, having looked at the links, Davido wasn't part of the brawl.) In any case, it seems that the discussion has ended in the talk page of that article, therefore I think it's time that we close this case. --Kutsuit (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not done with this. Give me time, I will write a response. I am gathering all of the sources and will respond to the second incident. Forget the first incident. I am concern about the second. Versace1608(Talk) 18:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay I am ready for my post. First and foremonst, not all incident leads to a conviction. This incident was settled between the two parties. (Here are the reliable sources on thid incident: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]) Here's a nutshell of the full story.
News outlets started reporting that a taxi driver accused Davido of hitting him and seizing his car. The driver said that Davido (and his entourage) slapped him and seized his car after he dropped a girl he believed to be "Davido's girlfriend". He also said that he had N100,000 in taxi cab, and didn't see it upon returning to the car. Up until the taxi cab owner got a lawyer involved, none of the Driver's claims could be corroborated because everyone who witnessed the alleged incident couldn't speak in favor of the driver. The girl who was screaming for help told the police that she's not aware of the incident. She allegedly told the driver that she left a phone worth N175,000, and that if the driver is claiming that he lost money, he must refund her for her phone. The driver's story started to gain substance when the police learned that he actually owed the owner of the owner of the taxi the money which he claimed he lost. The owner of the taxi cab and the driver got a lawyer involved. The lawyer insisted to speak to Davido, but the Adeleke family (Davido's family) denied Davido's involvement in the incident, and offered to compensate the driver for two weeks worth off wages. Davido broke his silence on the case and said that all of the allegations are untrue. Davido released a statement to protect his brand and image. How else could you explain what he said? Davido and his family were able to settle the incident with the taxi driver and the taxi owner; Davido was able to walk free because the incident was resolved. The fact that the incident was settled proves that an incident actually occurred. Are things being blown out of proportion? Certainly. Again, I don't see how all of this can't be added to the biographical article. The information is factual and is backed by reliable sources. It doesn't harm the subject of the article in any way. It doesn't gave the article "undue weight" because Davido is hardly known for this incident. He is known worldwide for his music. Diannaa said that the incident was poorly source. The sources that I have provided proves that the incident is not "poorly source". Also, the incident was resolved; it didn't lead to a conviction because both parties were satisfied with what they agreed on. Diannaa claims that the incident gives Davido a reputation of violence. This is totally not true. Like I said earlier, Davido is known for his music. No one is perfect; people make mistakes all the time. No one should try to paint Davido as an innocent musician who has never been involved in a controversy. Versace1608(Talk) 21:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Information pertaining to the "Death" section of recently deceased public figure/professional wrestler, Warrior aka Ultimate Warrior aka James Hellwig
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on the talk page and we can not come to an agreement or compromise.
Dispute overview
There is a disagreement between myself and several other Wikipedia users regarding the biography of The Ultimate Warrior.
There is a sentence in his death section that reads, "Warrior was admittedly a heavy user of steroids during his professional wrestling career; since the heart is a muscle, steroids can affect its condition." and lists the following articles as reference....
most notably, the following quote from James Caldwell is the main point of reference,
"Warrior was an admittedly heavy steroid user during his pro wrestling career, which affects the condition of a person's heart due to the heart also being a muscle. He had a family history of heart attacks, as his father died at age 57 and one of his grandfathers died at age 52."
Their argument is that they have a source that states "steroids can effect the heart since the heart is a muscle."
My argument is that James Caldwell is a beat writer for professional wrestling. He is not licensed to practice medicine, and as far as I know has no education or expertise in pharmacology, chemistry, physiology, biology or any other practice that would qualify him to give an opinion on steroids and whether or not steroids had any part in Warrior's death.
What we do have is an official autopsy report, and there is no reference to steroids whatsoever. Since the medical professional did not list steroids, I believe no mention of steroids should be listed in Warrior's death section. I have no problem if Warrior's past steroid use is mentioned, but to place it in his death section is misleading and possibly suggests steroids played a part in his death. Since his official report omits any reference to steroids, I believe his official wiki bio should also omit any reference.
Their counter argument to mine is they claim to have covered their bases by saying "we have said that steroids are not a direct cause of death." I further argue that there is NO evidence, either direct or indirect, that steroids had any contribution whatsoever to Warrior's death. So while technically, their statement is correct, it is out of place, irrelevant, and misleading.
If steroids had nothing to do with Warrior's death, why is there a mention of it in his death section at all? I believe if users want to list information about steroids, they need to put that information on an anabolic steroids page. I fail to understand why steroid information and its effects on the human body is discussed the death section of Warrior's biography, and James Caldwell's speculation and/or opinion is not encyclopedic information. User LM2000 disagrees and believes pro-wrestling journalist Caldwell's statement is a reliable source of information regarding steroids and its long term health effects stating, "As a professional wrestling reporter he has seen enough of these guys drop dead suddenly, dying with "enlarged hearts" to know there's a link here. It's no more speculative than saying family history might have been the culprit. I fail to see how "seeing enough of these guys drop dead suddenly" qualifies Caldwell as an expert on the subject. I vehemently disagree with that statement. As I mentioned in the talk section, that qualification would never be sufficient to qualify as an expert witness in court, and Warrior did in fact have a father and grandfather who died of heart disease.
I would welcome any help in resolving this issue.--Jmurdock21 (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)--
I would like to add the following from Arnold Schwarzenegger's wikipedia page..In 1999, Schwarzenegger sued Dr. Willi Heepe, a German doctor who publicly predicted his early death on the basis of a link between his steroid use and his later heart problems. As the doctor had never examined him personally, Schwarzenegger collected a US$10,000 libel judgment against him in a German court.[33] In 1999, Schwarzenegger also sued and settled with The Globe, a U.S. tabloid which had made similar predictions about the bodybuilder's future health.
I believe this shows a precedent that implicating that past steroid has caused/will cause future health problems is a libelous issue, and while the issue at hand doesn't say that steroids were responsible for Warrior's death, it's inclusion is misleading. As @InedibleHulk: stated, things that did not happen are infinite. In the talk section, I asked "why stop at steroids" because we could just as easily add, "Warrior is an admitted past user of pharmaceutical pain killers. Not using prescription medication as prescribed can lead to respiratory depression and death. However, there is no direct link between Warrior's death and pain killers." That statement is 100% factual and true. However, just as the steroid mention, it is misleading and is speculative.--Jmurdock21 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
How do you think we can help?
To settle this situation that neither side believes is incorrect. I feel like I have a very strong case, and I believe Wikipedia has precedent regarding irrelevant information and or opinions and statements from unqualified sources.
Summary of dispute by LM2000
I'm not sure why I'm the only person listed as being in this dispute as I wasn't the only person who responded to this nor did I originally place this information in the article. @InedibleHulk:, @Starship.paint:, and @STATicVapor: should have a voice in this as well. Jmurdoch insisted on a source directly from a medical professional. Caldwell wasn't the only source in the first place; Caldwell (as well as The Independent) weren't pulling their reports out of their rear, they based them on reports from medical professionals, many of which came from wrestlers who have died under similar circumstances. We actually seemed to be making progress in the last couple of responses, with each of us offering amended versions of the current sentence. Jmurdock's proposed version would read: "Warrior was an admitted user of anabolic steroids during his bodybuilding and wrestling career. However, Warrior's death was ruled a natural death and no link was discovered between Warrior's death and anabolic steroids."[15] Although explaining steroids connection to cardiovascular disease does make sense, I don't take much of an issue with this proposed version (It was someone else that replied to you). I would change "no link" to "no direct link" as International Business Times reports officials as saying they "did not play a direct role".[16] Much of your version seems similar enough to the original version which you took issue with, which stated that there were no mention of steroids in his autopsy, that we're a few steps away from arguing semantics here. The steroids issue has clearly been covered by numerous sources, and a certain HLN show caused quite a stir by their misleading coverage. As Hulk pointed out the article read ... steroids can affect its condition; however, Warrior's autopsy did not directly list steroids as a cause of death. There is nothing erroneous or misleading in this statement.LM2000 (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I pointed out that the article said it, but not that I liked it (which is why I removed it). It's not erroneous, but a bit misleading to have any original research "however" tacked on. In Tony Halme, we mention his alcoholism in the death section. In Richard Burton, we mention neck pain and cirrhosis. We don't point out that these things didn't cause the deaths, because if they had, we'd say so. They're just there for context, like a history of steroids and family heart attacks.
Things which do not happen/exist are infinite, and adding them to any article just begs questions. There is no evidence Stephen Harper is a heroin addict, nothing indicating fire cures cancer and no confirmation that the dog from Frasier lives on a big farm. Same deal here. If there's nothing, add nothing. InedibleHulk(talk) 09:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I originally listed Inedible Hulk in this dispute. I did not list StaticVapor or Starship.paint. I must have erased Inedible Hulk as a participant during an edit.--Jmurdock21 (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't seem that way. No worries, though. Didn't hurt my feelings. InedibleHulk(talk) 17:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussion (removed from above section)
Jmurdoch has said two things that concern me. One was that he would continue to edit war"I am removing any mention of steroids from his death section and will continue to do so until..."[17] In a recent post he threatened to notify this subject's relatives as well as their legal team over this issue.[18] I have only edited the part of the article relating to this issue once, to undo Jmurdoch's revert after he threatened to edit war. His edits had been undone once before, then he reverted me, only to be reverted by someone else. Static and I advised him to discuss. I too hope that this resolves the issue.LM2000 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I did say I would revert changes unless we had (in my opinion) a qualified source that mentioned Warrior's death along with steroids. The Nancy Grace show you alluded to is a perfect example why first hand opinions/statements from journalists are not credible sources for topics other than journalism.
When the dispute became a bigger issue and other people joined in, I backed off and discontinued any further revisions to avoid an edit war. I did indicate that I would contact Dana Warrior and Warrior's legal team if all else fails. As you may or may not know, Warrior was very protective of his reputation and of his Ultimate Warrior character as well. There's a video on youtube called "Ultimate Warrior Confession" which is a parody video in which Warrior's words are spliced out of context to make Warrior tell of a fictional past homosexual experience. Warrior had his legal team make the original creator take that particular video down (However it still exists since other users simply posted it again.) I personally think that was overkill, and I don't see anything wrong with a parody, but it does show how serious Warrior takes matters such as these. I don't believe his family would want to look at a biography of their father/husband on the internet and see a discussion of steroids in his death section, if they want to find out information about steroids, I believe they would prefer to go to the wiki page about steroids.--Jmurdock21 (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There are many articles on Wikipedia containing unflattering factual material. Once we start considering people's feelings (whether to attack or defend), we're skating out of the neutral zone. That aside, don't you think the family already knows enough about him (including far more "dirt") to skip his Wiki bio? InedibleHulk(talk) 17:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
You might be interested in this interview a Fox News affiliate did with cardiologist Dr. Ed Fry. Much of the information from his interview is already in the article, such as family history being a risk factor and "shortness of breath and chest discomfort". But he also goes into detail on how taking steroids have repercussions decades into the future. So there's your medical expert. Most sources which covered the autopsy, including IBT as I pointed out above, used the word "directly" when talking about drug use. As Mike Johnson of Pro Wrestling Insider report says, this is because of his past use, and as Dr. Fry, The Independent, and James Caldwell stated it affects the heart. I want to point out Wikipedia is not censored. A lot of stuff on here burns me up, like saying Roscoe Arbuckle's trials outshined his legacy as an entertainer. I'm sure his living relatives aren't happy about reading about things like that in detail, but with plentiful sources to back it up the encyclopedia has to report it. These incidents are separate from the Schwarzenegger issue you raised. There is a policy out there called WP:CHRYSTAL which prevents predictions from being included in the encyclopedia. The statements made about Arnold wouldn't have been tolerated here.LM2000 (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Opening discussion: Hi everyone. I'm Theodore, a volunteer here at DRN. I'd be happy to work with you to resolve this dispute. First of all, I'd like to remind everyone that discussion shouldn't begin until a volunteer has opened this section. Additionally, please don't post replies after other parties' statements. This is just procedural stuff; it's not too big a deal. As of right now, I want to ask a couple of questions of everyone involved here. Please keep responses fairly short and to-the-point. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
1. For the sake of coming to a good, healthy conclusion, can we apply WP:BLP to this article; it is permissible to extend it to recently-deceased persons. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
2. In your view, to what extent is it proper to describe Warrior's possible use of steroids? How would we accord this to the policies at WP:BLP? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
4. Is it OK to describe steroid use separately from the death section? Why or why not? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Theodore, thank you for taking this up and I apologize for the bumpy start. I'm not sure if you mean WP:SYN applying to Caldwell's source itself, or how we used it. At times it has been used improperly, stretched beyond its means, and that constituted the WP:OR which Hulk was referring to, and he fixed that issue. Jmurdoch was correct to challenge the source and perhaps the sentence in question, per WP:BLP (specifically WP:PUBLICFIGURE). Starship then found an additional source, and I have provided even more in the discussion above. Warrior's steroid use was well documented, and is already mentioned in his article in other places as he was fired from the WWF in 1992 as a result of steroid use. This particular sentence involving steroids link to cardiovascular disease would not work in any other section though, it's really only pertinent as a result of his death.LM2000 (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Sorry if the original synthesis question was a little vague; I was talking about how the source has been used. My concern right now is that, by discussing the link between steroids and cardiovascular disease, it is implied that Warrior died due to the effects of his steroid use. Unless this is mentioned in a contextually-reliable source (something with a medical basis), this could be a little troublesome. What do you think about something like, "It has been speculated by [insert speculator] that Warrior's death can be linked to his past steroid use..."? I could be way off target here; what are your thoughts? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I take no issue with that, actually the version I proposed on the talk page looked something like that (second paragraph). It wasn't a well received proposal. Of course we could always swap speculators, cut out certain parts of text, etc.LM2000 (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
1.Theodore!, thanks for your attention. I would like to address an issue. Warrior was NOT fired in 1992 as a result of steroid use. I have a pdf copy of each one of Warrior's drug tests from April of 1992 until his termination in November of 1992. I also have a copy of Vince McMahon's, Warrior's, and Dr. Mauro DiPasquale's (Head of WWE drug testing program at the time) testimony under oath and each one of them say that Warrior never had a positive test for steroid use. For whatever it's worth, Dr. DiPasquale said he suspected Warrior used steroids prior to his 1992 return and could've possibly been taking maintenance doses. However, he said the substances found could've also been caused from certain enzyme deficiencies and/or contaminated diet supplements. That is why it is so important to have some sort of medical expert examine these sort of issues. None of us would have been able to explain any of those differences. He was fired for the attempted purchase of HGH, which is NOT an anabolic steroid. However, there is record showing that Warrior never received that shipment and there is no record showing that Warrior ever used it and he is under oath stating he has never taken HGH. (Of course he could be lying, but I'd say until we have proof otherwise, that is what we should go by.)Sorry for the length, I give this information only to correct LM2000 and his incorrect statement that Warrior was fired as a result of steroid use.
2 & 3. I have read over LM2000's statements, and Dr. Fry is a much better source of reference than James Caldwell who (according to his LinkedIn page (https://www.linkedin.com/in/jctorch), doesn't even have an education in journalism and who works for a website that reports primarily on gossip and rumor.) Dr. Fry provides a quote that says, "steroids can cause side effects for a long time, "such as elevating blood pressure, elevating lipid levels in the blood, increasing heart muscle size, all factors that predispose to later heart risk, even 10 or 20 years down the road." That is the best example I've seen so far that would justify a mention of steroids in Warrior's death section. However, Dr. Fry (and the Independent UK article) did not make any claim or say Warrior's death WAS or COULD HAVE been attributed to steroid use. (However, because of the libelous nature of those statements, I'm quite sure we won't.) To an extent, independent UK and Dr. Fry are indirectly speculating. They are saying "Warrior took steroids. Steroids can cause this. Draw your own conclusion." News outlets have continually been criticized for this type of reporting.
If steroids are mentioned in his death section, then I believe 2 important factors should be also mentioned. 1) Warrior hasn't used steroids since 1991 (I can provide references if necessary), 2) Warrior's autopsy shows NO link to steroid use. I believe that is more fair than both wibc.com and independent uk's article. Because it does say, "Warrior took steroids. Steroids can cause this. But there is no link to his death and steroids, and he last used them in 1991." But again, I can't help but say, if there's no link, why are we mentioning it at all? We could infinitely mention all of the things that MIGHT have attributed to his death but for which we don't have any evidence that leads us to that conclusion for those things. I continually ask why steroids are singled out over a multitude of other possibilities.
4. I do believe his steroid use would be mentioned along with his bodybuilding and professional wrestling career. There is no debating that. It is fact, it is clear, concise and easy to document. We don't have to list facts pertaining to steroids like we do in the death section (i.e. "steroids are used by professional athletes for increased strength, muscle tone, and performance"), because the reason for taking anabolic steroids is implicitly understood by the reader. We are not speculating if, how, or why Warrior took steroids during his bodybuilding and pro wrestling career. In his death section, it raises the questions, if, how and why.
Did Warrior take steroids during his bodybuilding and prowrestling career? Yes. How? By injection, he claims in a shoot interview that he had a doctor in Ft Worth Texas who prescribed him steroids. Why? To improve his physique (the effects of steroids belong on a page about steroids.)
Did Warrior die as a result of steroids? No. Did steroids play a role? Possibly. How? Because Warrior used steroids 23 years ago. Why? Because steroid CAN (not necessarily does) affect the heart (Once again, I believe that information belongs on a steroid page, not a Warrior page.) There might be a way to include steroids in his death section, but the more I think about it and talk it out, it just seems too speculative. --Jmurdock21 (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Jmurdock. I understand that discussing steroids can be seen as speculative. Since the relevant sources basically use original synthesis in their own reporting of Warrior's death, we might well be skeptical of following in their footsteps. At the same time, would it be possible to mention, in a separate section discussing Warrior's steroid use, that some sources have speculated on a connection between said use and his death? If necessary, qualifiers can be added to this description, which could explain holes in the relevant sources. I'm interested to see how LM2000 feels about this; perhaps we can come to an agreement? If not, that's fine also; feel free to offer other ideas/suggestions. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not a terrible idea to mention the steroids in another section. Regardless of whether they played a part in his death, they did in his life. I'm a bit concerned that the implication in Death will then slide from "maybe genetics or steroids" to "maybe genetics". When there's only one maybe, it becomes more a "probably". Narrowing the lines is POV, so I'd suggest that be removed if the other is. InedibleHulk(talk) 02:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I already reached out to Jmurdoch on his talk page, so I should probably mention it here as well, that I was mistaken about his 1992 split from WWF. The WWF was under fire in a steroid scandal at the time, Warrior's HGH use became an issue and caused a rift as a result. Therefore, the steroid use could be mentioned there without issue. I'll agree with Hulk that if we remove the steroid mentions from Death, family history should go with it. I would not be opposed to the early deaths of his father and grandfather being mentioned in his early life section though.LM2000 (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
What Hulk said. By only mentioning genetics seems to me violates NPOV. We provide both sides of the story. Warrior died of heart disease. Many things can contribute to heart disease, including genetics and steroids. Steroids was not mentioned as a primary factor in the autopsy, that does not mean that it did not contribute at all to a weaker heart. It is a possible and significant link. We state the link and let readers decide for themselves. starship.paint"YES!" 06:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Strenuous exercise isn't so great for the ticker, either. It was clear (and he admitted) that he often pushed himself beyond his limits. Just running to and around the ring was more of a workout than many wrestlers got, and then most of his moves were running attacks. Hard to find any footage of him not sweating. Maybe he just ran out. InedibleHulk(talk) 08:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like we've come to an agreement on a few things; primarily, that we don't want to include speculative content in the section pertaining to Warrior's death. How do you feel about 1) discussing the genetics in the "early life section", while removing it from the death section, 2) discussing steroid use in the relevant sections of the main article and 3) leaving both out of the "death" section? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 14:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
There is currently an open RFC in regards to this dispute. Please resubmit if the RFC does not resolve the issue. Maleko Mela (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2014 (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.
The article Favorite betrayal criterion has been through 12 deletion/undeletion processes, most of them spearheaded by two users: myself (homunq) and MarkusSchulze. Now the same dispute on whether this should be covered in wikipedia has moved to an ongoing RfC on Talk:Voting system. I am concerned that, with a long-term content dispute like this one, the outcome of the RfC might not be enough to resolve it. At the very beginning of the RfC, I promised to respect any outcome, but despite being invited to do so, MarkusSchulze has made no such commitment.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
In the article at favorite betrayal criterion, aside from the formal deletion/undeletion processes (7 AfD, 3 or 4 DRV, and 1 or 2 undelete), I posted a prominent note on the talk page suggesting that deletion processes not be started without notifying interested parties or wikiprojects; and I even discussed making such notification a mandatory policy for repeated AfD's at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy. These suggestions had no visible effect on MarkusSchulze's conduct in the deletion processes.
I think it may be necessary to make some kind of binding decision here. Both of the main parties (MarkusSchulze and myself) have been valuable contributors to the Voting system article in general, so I don't want either of us banned from the page; nor do I think it's a good idea for DRN to pick a permanent "right answer" to the dispute itself. But I do think that we may need some bright lines here; something like 3RR that will work in the case of a dispute that can last for years. For instance: since Voting system is a relatively stable article, I think that limiting the three of us to 1 or 2 reverts for every 50 edits by other users might be a viable rule, and I'd trust all editors involved to follow it voluntarily if they agreed to.
Summary of dispute by MarkusSchulze
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Collect
My entire position is quite clear on the article talk page - and I have naught to add here.
I suppose the "issue summary" is whether every postulated voting strategy should be treated in a discussion of voting protocols, and noted as to how effective each strategy is within each protocol.
In the case at hand, a particular postulated voting strategy has been found to not be sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article, thus there is the sole remaining question as to whether a not especially notable "strategy" is sufficiently important to then be compared with every proposed voting protocol ("system").
My suggestion was that the proposed unimportant strategy should be placed at Tactical_voting#Push-over which quite appears to be the salient and proper place for the non-notable strategy. Collect (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Per rules of this dispute resolution board, I ask that the apparent ad hom attack on me as seeking an "edit war" in any way whatsoever be redacted. Collect (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Voting system discussion
I'm Theodore, a DRN volunteer. I'd be happy to assist with this discussion, but will wait until the other parties have responded before posting further comments. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to respond briefly to Collect's statement above.
Obviously, I disagree with them on several points, but I don't think any of that is the issue here. They has committed to respect any outcome of the RfC, and I trust them to keep that commitment. The only reason I brought them into this was that they had made a single revert in this conflict, which I believe was questionable with regards to WP:EDITWAR. But essentially in this case, "uno es ninguno" (one is nothing).
I want this DRN to address preventing future edit warring. As for the best resolution for the actual content dispute, I think the RfC is plenty, so we don't have to rehash those arguments here. Homunq (࿓) 13:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am Mark Miller (Maleko Mela) and am a volunteer on the board. While I have no special powers or authority I need to mention that DRN does not accept requests while there are other forms of decision making processes open. At the moment there is an open RFC as mentioned by the filing editor.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. My idea was that it would be better and easier to agree to respect the results of the RFC before we know the results of that RFC.
Also, this is on a slightly different question from the RFC. The RFC is about what the page should look like; this DRN is about how we can prevent an edit war between the two of us, given that there's already a history of a (process-respecting, but still disruptive and unhelpful) "AfD war" around this material. Homunq (࿓) 23:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
"The RfC at Talk:voting system is my most recent attempt to clarify" This is unambiguous.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Mark is completely right; I made a fairly basic error when opening this thread. It's not appropriate in any case to commence discussion while an RfC remains open. I would suggest closing this for the time being, allowing the RfC to run its course, and resuming discussion here if necessary. I am happy to continue assisting in discussion, if necessary. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requests for help at DRN requires extensive discussion and as the OP has clearly stated there is none yet. Please discuss this on the talk page for now. Maleko Mela (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2014 (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. No, your GUI added that sentence because I said there was an extensive discussion (I meant about a related issue) on the talk page. That happened long before I was involved. But I'd rather receive a neutral response than waste my time in a reversion war with someone self-assured that they're acting in concordance with a guideline (even though it seems very plain to me that they're not).
Can someone please help me understand how this reversion isn't making the article more POV?: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=606131813&diff=prev As I understand it, "Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." (WP:FRINGE) I edited the article to indicate that ID is "held by much of the scientific community to be pseudoscience." How on earth does that not constitute "properly contain[ing] that information" that ID is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community"? It says so with absolute clarity! It's also much more indisputable than the reversion, whereby my clear and more NPOV formulation has been replaced by a less clear and more POV formulation. (The reversion is less clear because, unlike my edit, it flatly asserts ID is pseudoscience rather than telling the reader who says it's pseudoscience.) I don't see anything on WP:FRINGE that makes it obligatory to edit articles to make them more POV, ever. Also, Pseudoscience says "The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative...." If it can be used in a putatively NPOV way, without qualification, in another article, then that can't be true and, since the term is NOT often considered inherently pejorative, Pseudoscience should be edited. If, indeed, the term is often considered inherently pejorative, then my initial point about making articles more POV stands. Regards, PhilipR (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
None, yet. The reverter seems self-assured that they're on firm ground from WP:FRINGE, even though I see nothing in that policy requiring reversion of a clarification regarding allegations of pseudoscience. Since it seems to be consensus that this is OK, I'd rather ask for help here than waste several iterations of back-and-forth.
How do you think we can help?
Help me understand how this is a legitimate reversion. Help me understand how this reversion fits under NPOV. Help me understand why the article Pseudoscience says the term is often considered pejorative, if in fact Wikipedia treats it as a neutral term and rejects NPOV clarification.
Summary of dispute by Kww
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is a pretty rapid trip to DRN. My response is pretty simple: intelligent design is considered pseudoscience by everyone except intelligent design advocates. There's no reason to qualify it by saying that some consider it to be pseudoscience: WP:FRINGE indicates that we should state, in Wikipedia's voice, that it is pseudoscience.—Kww(talk) 06:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Intelligent design discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
David Camm
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Particpants have resolved the issue. Maleko Mela (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2014 (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.
Another editor is telling me that a BLP violation exists, but will not describe the way in which it violates BLP. I don't see anything wrong with the section involved and cannot fix it or avoid the same problem in the future without knowing what I'm doing wrong.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
discussion on talk page
How do you think we can help?
I would like someone to weigh in on whether the section violates BLP and if it does, explain what the problem is and how I can fix it.
Summary of dispute by Overagainst
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I rewrote the lede. What I took out was a section that read like a personal reflection about prosecution allegations about a living person. This section (which he has given below) is not encyclopedic in tone or content about the molestation allegations. For instance, the Molestation section concluded " the cause of Jill's injuries remain a mystery,". Bbb23 had pointed out to Bali88 many problems with the general tone in Jan 2014, here. The allegation molestation is mentioned in three places in the article currently, my edit, so I'm not objecting to reasonable proportionate mentioning. I just don't think it's right to have a long section, especially with that tone. I have cited WP:ALIVE, and objected to the tone, weight and excessive detail, and I provided quotes as examples. Bali88says that he wants to compromise, but that I am not explaining what is wrong with the article. I think I have done that repeatedly and Bali88's edits are are indeed as as Bbb23 said overly detailed analysis and WP:UNDUE. Overagainst (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Oops, was this supposed to be where he writes stuff?Bali88 (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The following section allegedly contains a BLP violation . It is well sourced, necessary to understand the case, and neutral. I do not see any issue. Can someone give feedback:
The molestation allegations remain controversial and there is little consensus as to the cause of Jill's injuries. In the first two trials, the prosecution accused Camm of causing the injuries. Boney's DNA was subsequently found on the clothing of both Kim and Jill, including an area on the stomach of Jill Camm's shirt. This finding contradicts his assertion that he never touched the victims. It was argued at the third trial that Boney was solely responsible for the substantial amount of injuries they sustained in the deadly attack.[38][63]
Confusion over the nature of the injuries began early in the investigation. The probable cause affidavit listed the injury as a "tear" even though the nature of the injury was listed as non-specific blunt force trauma on the autopsy report and her hymen was intact.[11] Dr. Tracey Corey, the medical examiner who performed the initial autopsy, stated that the injuries could have resulted from a number of causes including a straddle fall, but she believed the injuries were likely the result of a sexual assault. She believed that the injuries occurred within the last few hours of Jill's life, including the time of the fatal attack.[64][65]
Determining the timing of the injuries was crucial to the case and became a major factor in Camm's second conviction. Investigators confirmed that Camm had not seen Jill all day. She had been at school and sports practices and Camm had been at work. During the second trial, the prosecution used the molestation allegations to implicate Camm. An injury sustained at the time of attack could have just as easily been caused by Boney, who admits being at the crime scene, but the prosecution believed that an attack sustained earlier puts greater suspicion on Camm. With Camm's alibi, the varying opinions on blood spatter, and no additional proof that Camm and Boney ever met, convincing the jury that Camm was molesting Jill became the crucial to the state's case to demonstrate motive.[65][66] To attempt to link the injuries to Camm during the second trial, Dr. Betty Spivack, a medical examiner hired by the prosecution, testified that Jill could have sustained the injury up to two days prior to her death. A number of medical examiners testified, but she was the sole medical examiner to testify to the extended timeline and that the injuries happened prior to the fatal attack.[65]
The defense accused Spivack of altering her testimony to appease the prosecution rather than testifying to her own expert opinion. "Dr. Spivack, before in her deposition, told us that the injuries occurred near the time of death due to the painful nature of them. Today, on the stand, she backtracked to fit the state's theory." said Defense attorney Stacy Uliana.[66] Following the verdict, the jurors explained that they made their decision largely on the molestation allegations, specifically, the testimony of Spivack.[67]
Medical examiner Dr. George Nichols, who testified for the defense, disagreed with the state's theory. He said that the lack of white blood cells indicated that the injury was very recent and the trauma was much more likely to have been caused by being hit or kicked. A late addition to the witness list, he testified that he felt compelled to testify after Spivack's timeline for the attack inexplicably changed and she became increasingly certain it was a sexual assault despite Jill's intact hymen.[38][65] The lack of evidence linking Camm to the molestation led directly to the reversal of the guilty verdict. The supreme court stated: "Missing from this record is any competent evidence of the premise that the defendant molested the child."[40]
Complicating matters is an allegation by DNA analyst Lynn Scamahorn claiming the prosecutor attempted to get her to commit perjury by testifying that a specific stain on a comforter from the master bedroom in the Camm household contained vaginal secretions or saliva from Jill to help bolster their claims that Jill had been molested. No such test exists.[68]
The nature and the cause of Jill's injuries remain a mystery, as well does the time frame in which they happened. Camm denies ever abusing his daughter and has never been charged with any molestation-related offense.[69]
David Camm discussion
I think this is resolved now.Overagainst (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I have asked the other editor if they are in agreement with the above conclusion. If I receive no answer and no further discussion is included here I will be closing the filing as resolved after 24 hours. Should the answer be agreement, I will close sooner. If an answer is received in the negative, I will leave the filing open for another 24 hrs so that the discussion can continue. If there is no further discussion within 48 hrs, I will close as "Kicked back to the talk page".--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 36hourblock on 01:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC).
Requests for help at DRN requires extensive discussion. Please discuss this on the talk page for now or request help at WP:RSN.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2014 (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.
The dispute appears to be simple. I've requested the editor who wrote the article (recently awarded GA status) to provide quotes from one of the sources upon which s/he has based the composition of the article. S/he has declined to do so.
User:Midnightblueowl herself questions whether the source may be "factually trustworthy" in other writings, but considers the request both time consuming and inapplicable as applied to this particular article. I disagree.
A third opinion from User:Stfg objected to my request as a possible violation of copyright rules.
I exemplified my request by posting a section of an article that I wrote which includes the kind of quotes in the FOOTNOTES (not in the body of the article) that would satisfy my request. See my recent Texas Annexation for the kind of footnoting I'm requesting. I routinely, in recent articles, provide such footnotes, with quotes to support my compositions.
That's about it.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I also attempted to contact the editor who recently bestowed the GA award to the article in question. The section was immediately archived, and the editor, User:Seabuckthorn ceased editing the day I logged the request for input.
See Archive IV for text of my message to his talk page.
How do you think we can help?
I would consider the dispute resolved if the review panel concurs with the legitimacy of my request, or, on the other hand, convinces me that it lacks foundation as per WR.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Early revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello 36hourblock and welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am Mark Miller (Maleko Mela) and while I do not have any special powers or authority I am a volunteer here on the board. I feel inclined to add a small note here to mention a few things. First, User:Stfg is not involved in this dispute but was only the third opinion editor and should not be listed as a party or participant. For that reason I am removing their name from the filing.
The other issue I feel compelled to mention is that, while it is true that requesting the direct passage being used to support a claim is a common practice on Wikipedia, it is generally only done when the source is not easily available or accessible. As the third opinion stated, that doesn't mean a trip to a library may not be more reasonable. You are not asking for one or two passages....you are asking for something like 12. To be blunt, that is unreasonable to ask another editor. The reason why the inline citation is listed is so that editors can verify the content. It would indeed be a copyright concern to require that every editor supply the exact passages of every claim. There is some responsibility you share as the editor that is doubting the content. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability the burden of demonstrating verifiability rests with the editor who adds or returns content and is satisfied by supplying a reliable source.
In reading through the dispute there are a few things I have concluded. First, you don't doubt that there is a source provided, but you doubt that it is a "reliable source". For that reason this may well be better referred to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Noticeboard where the general community there can help determine if the source and the author are reliable. So, while on the face of it, this may appear to be a content dispute, it is really a dispute of the source itself. DRN may not be the right venue.-- Mark Miller (Maleko Mela)
Also, I will be closing this filing for lack of an extensive discussion. As stated above only one editors has responded and this really should be discussed much more on the talk page. I will leave this filing up a for a small amount of time so that the OP has a chance to see this note. Mark Miller (Maleko Mela)
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.
Closing because one of the major participants chose to not participate. The other editors should consider following the advice found at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2014 (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.
Chealer continues to add a request for reference tag in spite of a 3 person WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page to leave it out. The source is none other than the company's official blog, describing themselves as vulnerable to the bug. WP:PRIMARY I think is pretty clear that this is sufficient.
I think that you people could make it calmly known to leave it out, to calmly explain WP:CONSENSUS as well as other policies that this user should just drop the issue.
Summary of dispute by Chealer
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The point at issue: there is a company called LastPass, and a product called LastPass Password Manager. Chealer (who disputes the reliability of the reference) says "What is missing is a source for the part of the paragraph stating that LastPass Password Manager was vulnerable", making a distinction between the company and the product. (S)he compares this to saying that if Microsoft (company) is affected, it doesn't support the statement that Microsoft Windows (one of many products) is affected).
The LastPass company Web site discusses whether "LastPass" is vulnerable. On that page they also give the description "LastPass (sic) is helping the world remember their passwords and better manage their online life. It's a browser-based password manager and form filler". Other pages on their site such as this one make it clear that they use "LastPass" and "LastPass Password Manager" interchangeably for the software. This would also apply if LastPass Co. had several products (software, services) all dependent on the same security techniques, unlike Microsoft - security flaws in Windows obviously don't relate, e.g., to their software development products such as Visual C. A more appropriate comparison would be with the Opera Web browser developed by Opera Software: a "security flaw in Opera" is, in my opinion, unambiguous.
Heartbleed discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Where would this be taken if this is solely about user conduct? The user has had the dispute explained to him by three different editors, and still doesn't seem to get it. There is a 3 person consensus about the content in this. Tutelary (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I will engage in this process willingly and if it isn't solve here, I will go to one of the noticeboards for user conduct. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I wrote an essay for just this situation. It is at WP:1AM. Also, while I like to wait until everyone has commented before opening up a discussion about the dispute, discussions like this one -- about how best to approach the dispute as opposed to being about the dispute itself -- are fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Chealer has indicated (User talk:Chealer#Engage in WP:DRN) that he won't be participating, which of course he has every right to do. I am going to wait until he edits Wikipedia again and sees my message, and if he doesn't change his mind, I will give those who are participating detailed advice as to what to do next.
In cases like this, I do my best to not take sides, saying things like "if you think that there has been misbehavior, do X" and "if you think you are being unfairly accused of misbehavior, do Y". It isn't my place to comment on whether an accusation of misbehavior has merit. As I said before, solving the content dispute often solves any (real or imagined) conduct issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that Chealer is going to participate here, so I am going to wait 24 hours and then close this as failed. It may turn out that there are no further conflicts, but if there are (and without me passing judgement on any conduct issues), WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE is the best place to start. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Closing now. The other editors should consider following the advice found at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requests for help at DRN requires extensive discussion. Please discuss this on the talk page further for now.--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (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.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Thebusofdoom
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Williams Landing railway station discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We do not require a membership to any site to open or advance a DRN filing and the OP has made it clear, they and others have no time for this filing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2014 (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.
This pertains to the criticism section of the article on research gate. It is too long, it is out-of-date, and inaccurate it some cases. It needs to be truncated and balanced with objective views. One of the complaints that are being brought up is the inflation of RG scores (by questions and answers), but they never attempt to define what the RG score actually is. They also reference a blogger and a non-peer reviewed paper. Although the RG scoring system has its flaws like other indices, I think it could serve as an additional useful measure of scientific contribution in the future. A second opinion by the anonymous editors of Wikipedia is that ResearchGate automatically adds papers to the member's profile, but to my knowledge this never happens unless the user accepts authorship. A third point that is brought up is that unsolicited emails are being sent to co-authors, but there is a opt-out box in our profiles. Basically, we decide on our own if this happens or not. Lastly, the editors complain that there is a risk of unintentional copyright infringement although the users themselves are the ones that upload the actual papers. So, on the whole, the critique seems out of line as of April 29th 2014. Hopefully, it will change to reflect a more balanced view soon.
Again, if the citations used are not correct in their content it is irrelevant if Wikipedia is under the impression that the sources pass WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:BLOGS. It is an overstatement to say that Chire has been objective (we agree that he/she is verbally abusive) and this is clearly shown in the discussion page where he is stating that he "dislikes ResearchGate" and "ResearchGate is a piece of crap". Bias cannot be allowed to keep content objective. Neither can the content be out-dated because Wikipedia is constantly evolving. Blue Moonlet was invited for the very reason that Chire is not professional and Blue Moonlet is supportive of the critical content. It leaves the entire article unbalanced and first and foremost it is outdated/inaccurate. The additional editors to this Wikipedia article must be willing to do some serious legwork unlike the current editors that apparently have an agenda. Critical members of ResearchGate and established researchers would be ideal for conflict resolution.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I suggested we would go for cup of coffee, but I have received no answer.
How do you think we can help?
We need 3 objective reviewers on the topic that are willing to read up on the subject to the same extent as we have. Also, the history needs to be re-read in detail.
Sorry but, if you are expecting a particular number of volunteers here....you are expecting too much.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Well Maleko Mela, are you willing to do the research that is required then you are welcome to do it! The critique section needs to be objective and up to date and that requires effort that the current editors do not have. I simply do not have the time to explain it in more detail. They are missing the point that the sources are outdated content and accuracy wise and therefore the critique is quite unfair. It needs to be tempered. It will require membership on RG to solve this dispute and to understand the inappropriateness of the current references a research background would be helpful. Too much to ask for experts? Perhaps ;-). Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
If you don't have the time...why did you open this case filing? Also, please be aware that membership as a requirement for sources is not acceptable.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
If you cannot login to the website you cannot check if the critique is valid in the first place. No, I do not have a significant amount of time to spend on this subject matter. In that case I would have kept on discussing on my own until Doom's Day. My thoughts are clearly outlined in edits/talk sections of the article and it is pretty transparent where the bias lies (i.e. Chire). Ok, enjoy your evening. Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by BlueMoonlet
It appears to me that User:Sjuttiosjuochfjorton is a newbie with strong opinions. He is vociferously in favor of the article subject and has a tendency to repeat his original points (at great length!) rather than engage with the arguments of those with whom he disagrees. For example, despite repeated explanations of why the "blogger" and the "non-peer reviewed paper" both meet the criteria of WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:BLOGS, User:Sjuttiosjuochfjorton has never cited those policies to support his arguments against said sources.
The other two editors who have been involved over the past few days are User:Chire and User:JNorman704, though User:Sjuttiosjuochfjortonjust told me that his reasons for citing only me here was because of his positive view of me. In my view, User:JNorman704 is inclined to favor the article subject but has been very responsible. I will admit to an unfavorable view of the article subject, but people seem to appreciate my efforts to be fair. User:Chire is quite critical of the article subject and has occasionally been intemperate in his language, but overall has also been a very responsible editor. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
ResearchGate discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Abiogenesis
Closed as consensus already reached by other means (Note: close to the time of filing; on talk of article) - It seems as though there are multiple users against a lone user in this dispute. I consider this a consensus and am therefore closing this thread. Please see the essay One Against Many. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:25, 1 May 2014 (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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by ReallyFat B. on 18:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The topic sentence of the page is false in that it pronounces abiogenesis as a fact. No evidence of it having occurred has been found. It has never been reproduced in a lab. Under these criteria abiogenesis is a theory, not a fact, and should be labelled accordingly. I ask for a single word to be input - "theorized". If the day comes when abiogenesis is proven, I will have no objection whatsoever in calling it fact. But until then, it must be labelled as a theory.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We've spoken on the talk page, but neither of us agree on the subject.
How do you think we can help?
Perhaps pass a conclusion on whose definition is correct and should be placed in the topic sentence of the article.
User ReallyFat B (IP 86.21.101.169) disputes mainstream biological science. He is openly a religious creationist trying to convince us that there is a scientific controversy regarding evolution vs. creation. Such religious movement is well known to employ the tactic of informing the public that science is fatally wounded by the "evidence" presented by creation science. The key point is that the controversy (if any) exists only in their socio-political camp, not in science (see: Creation–evolution controversy). He follows the tactic of demoting evolutionary biology and abiogenesis to "untestable hypothesis" (WP:WEASEL) so that he can later squeeze the religious "hypothesis" of life by magic as if it was an equally scientific hypothesis.
The topic has been dealt with all the way to courts of law (USA), where invariably, judges rule that creation science is not science but religion. (See: Creation science#Court determinations).
Finally, abiogenesis is not more hypothetical than evolution, expansion of the universe or gravity. The current understanding of evolutionary biology is not if abiogenesis happened, but how. Hypotheses on its possible mechanisms are listed, and it excludes magic. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Abiogenesis discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hi, I'm MrScorch6200, a DRN volunteer. I believe that there was a strong enough consensus (four users) that developed around the time that the case was filed. I am tempted to close it but I would like to ask another volunteer to quickly review it and see if they agree with me or not. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, you can add me as a fifth user. I'm also a regular editor on this article, but when I first saw the discussion it looked like other editors already had the issue in hand. I'd be happy to add my comments to the discussion if necessary/requested (though I see that the original thread has already been collapsed as soapbox/forum). Sunrise(talk) 05:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Consensus isn't decided by majority vote, is it? I'm asking you to review this. I am not, as BatteryIncluded implies, a 'religious creationist'. I'm not asking for him to include anything related to religion over here. Furthermore, what he's said is all unsourced claims. Scientifically, if a process has not been observed taking place, nor evidence of it found, it is not fact. To make everything perfectly clear:
Abiogenesis has NEVER been OBSERVED nor any evidence of it FOUND.
Why, then, is the world's largest encyclopedia calling it fact? It clearly is not.
As per these definitions:
Collins: Also called: autogenesis the hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from nonliving matter
Encyclopedia Britannica: the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter
And the Spanish, French, German and Italian Wikipiedias.
Why is it only English Wikipedia - and a few editors, at that - fail to provide evidence of their claims and yet dogmatically calls Abiogenesis fact? The topic sentence MUST be reevaluated. We haven't reached consensus, I'm still trying to prevent misinformation from being posted on Wikipedia. And for the record, whoever that IP is, it isn't me. ReallyFat B. (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
You keep repeating that there is no evidence while the article has a list of references describing all kinds of evidence. Denial for denial is an obtuse attitude. Accretion of the Solar System from cosmic dust and ice was witnessed by nobody, yet is a fact, our understanding is self-corrective and derived from evidence. Same with abiogenesis. You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, winged people, zombies, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories. You believe a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree and we are born guilty of that. To you, those stories are factual and not one bit hypothetical. And you say that we (science) are the ones that need help and correction?
Ever heard of reaching a reasonable conclusion from evidence? One that is coherent and in harmony with the natural forces around us? That is what abiogenesis does, and it is supported by data from many fields of science, not just biology and chemistry. Simply denying the listed references and conclusions from a multitude of scientific disciplines is not a valid argument in Wikipedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not Christian. Secondly, I have not put down any of those things as fact. This may be fact to you, but until such time as they are PROVEN, they are not for the rest of the world. What you call our 'socio-political camp' makes up around 85% of the world's population and a blatant dogmatic declaration of hypothesis as fact on Wikipedia is absolutely unacceptable to the rest of us. So there. ReallyFat B. (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
To add to Drbogdan's comments on the sources, I would point out that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, so referring to articles in other languages isn't very useful here. But looking at the four languages you mention, at least through Google Translator, they all seem to treat the origin of life as factual. Only one of them, itwiki, uses the term "theory" (note this is different from "theorized" here, as the word "theory" has a different meaning in science than it does in general discourse - given your "theory not fact" comment above you should probably do a bit of research on this). Eswiki and frwiki use "the study of the origin of life from inorganic matter"; dewiki refers to the mechanism itself like we do, except adding "largely unknown," which I would argue against but isn't blatantly incorrect.
You're correct that consensus is not a vote, but in this case you're a WP:SPA trying to overturn a pre-existing consensus and still haven't managed to get any other editors to agree with you. Sunrise(talk) 18:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
OP has agreed to the requests closing. No available time to participate. Maleko Mela (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2014 (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.
I seeded an historical image of Port Jefferson, NY to the Port Jefferson Wikipedia page. It is a museum quality photograph from the 1870s of the downtown area. The other use took it down with the explanation that they did not like the image. It went back and forth a few times but never revealed any legitimate reason why the image did not fit within the article. It was also revealed that this user has been controlling this page and has added all the images currently there which I believe shows a conflict of interest. The Port Jefferson page does not have extensive information about the town, so a historical image adds substance to the article.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have given possible vandalism warnings twice for disruptive editing and written multiple times on Iracaz's talk page.
How do you think we can help?
I would not like to get into an editing war. I would like an outside party to judge the image placement. One user cannot control a page to their liking with no legitimate reasoning.
It appears to be to late for that statement.[19].--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Iracaz
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Inclusion of the photograph overcrowds the page, which already includes the building that is the subject of the photograph in clearer, more revealing, and more aesthetically appealing form at File:John Roe House in Port Jefferson, New York.jpg . Little is discernible in the subject photograph, especially in thumbnail view, made worse by the unnecessary tan background that surrounds the actual photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iracaz (talk • contribs) 20:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Viewing the article will reveal that it already has an uncommonly high quality of historical material and diversity of images for a village of this size. As a village resident who wrote most of the article with no prior disputes, I hand selected these images out of hundreds of available historical images, from both local historical texts and the Port Jefferson Village archives. I supplemented these historical images with relevant photographic angles to produce a comprehensive image of this Long Island village with which I have decades of familiarity.
Three pictures are below at right. The first is the subject image, with the insisted upon caption and tan background. Second is the image on the page of the same building that I already included on the page. I believe this image to be superior, and to suitably override the need for, the subject image in that the house is at the forefront with no background or caption issues, is not disrupted by vegetation overgrowth, and additionally shows the house in its important contemporary roles as Chamber of Commerce and oldest house remaining in the village. The third image is a postcard that was already on the page showing the same street intersection during the same time period as the subject photograph. This postcard, though a drawing, shows a variety of historical structures in the town and represents the active village lifestyle of the era better than the depopulated photograph. I thus believe that the disputed photograph is a positive presence on Wikipedia but that its inclusion on the Port Jefferson article would detract and unnecessarily overcrowd the page.
George Bradford Brainerd. Street View, Port Jefferson, Long Island, ca. 1872-1887.Brooklyn Museumc.1682 home of John Roe, the first settler in lower Port JeffersonHotel Square, corner of Main and East Main— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iracaz (talk • contribs) 21:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Both Talk pages discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello and welcome to the Dispute resolution Noticboard. I am Mark Miller (Maleko Mela) a volunteer here on the DRN. While I have no special powers or authority I do need to make a note here before we beging. First, both editors seem to be acting badly. Simply adding an image is not "un-constructive" and just removing an image is not vandalism. Please assume good faith.
To be honest I am half inclined to close this filing due to the amount of edit warring that began on the 28th and seems to have run to this day non-stop. Both participants have crossed the bright line, 3 Revert Rule in a major way so, part of me feels this needs to be referred to the edit warring noticeboard. I request that both editors refrain from further editing on that page for now until this dispute is settled.
I would like one of the editors to please place the thumbnail of the image in question in this discussion section. I would then like to see the editor that added the image give an explanation as to why they feel the image has context to the article or section, what, if any historic relevance it has and why you feel the argument is strong enough for the image to remain. I would then like to see an explanation from the disagreeing party as to why the image fails image use for the article per policy and guidelines. Aesthetically appealing is not an argument. That is simply what you like or do not like and has no real place in a content dispute.
One last thing, as I understand it there was mention that one of the editors is an employee of a museum that the other editor feels may constitute a Conflict of Interest. Please explain this further so we can either get that out of the way quickly or discover if that is part of the problem.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, to start the ball rolling here I will give my initial opinion. The first image with the matting needs to be cropped per image use policy:
Crop the image to highlight the relevant subject.
If you create an image that contains text, please also upload a version without any text. It will help Wikipedians translate your image into other languages.
My opinion of uploading a black and white image in color formatting for the matting seems a waste. I also don't see that the text is really needed and its removal would not be a loss of any EV. But having both gives editors a choice. ( I think the image could use a bit of photoshopping to fix the contrasts that seem a bit extreme and dark). The caption is also a tad off as it doesn't really explain who George Bradford Brainerd is or why he is being mentioned. It is also this image page that shows that there is a claim by the uploader, Tracield, that the image was uploaded by the Museum itself, which gives the perception that the user has a COI pertaining to the image and edit warring over its use on the article.
I don't see the value in using the postcard. It is blurry and does not seem to have relevance to the section. If it were a choice between the first image and the post card, I would chose the first image as it is a superior image for that reason alone.
The general compromise with these types of image disputes is to move all excessive images below the body of the article in a gallery. Would editors be willing to consider this as an option?--Maleko Mela (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The postcard is relevant in that it showcases the atmosphere of the village in the late 19th century along with a variety of structures from the period and the sorts of characters that inhabited them. This contracts favorably to the desolation of the photograph in dispute. Bluriness is not a major issue excepting on closest inspection.
A gallery section would detract from the article. Such a section previously existed in this article and I've already worked to incorporate it's contents into the article.
My arguments standing, I would certainly look more favorably to the disputed photo if it were properly cropped and captioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iracaz (talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Per image use policy, images most have relevance to the section and really, that post card has no prose or text that supports any context to the section or article other than a slight mention of the location, which isn't enough. Should the image stay, it would indeed require more contextual text. By the way...I am not seeing a major issue with COI so I hope the editor is not staying away over that. There certainly seems to be some bias about the uploaded image but I see that with the other editor as well and we need both parties to discuss the subject. While the OP has opened the case, they are required to add further input if the case is to remain open.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The general rule of thumb on DRN is to give 48 hours for both parties to begin discussion. If the other editor has not returned by that time I will be closing this filing as failed. As an aside, should either party make any further reverts within the next 24hrs, I will be closing earlier and referring the case to the Edit Warring Notice board ( I don't foresee that happening however...hopefully).--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the postcard was not as integrated into the article as would have been ideal, and have now added the history of Hotel Square and an explanation of its importance to the appropriate section of the article. I have been expanding the history section piece by piece in the past months, and this was on my to-do list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iracaz (talk • contribs) 00:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I like what you added. Just my opinion of course.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
24 hour closing notice
If the OP of this filing does not join the discussion there is little left to do but a general closing in another 24 hours.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears the OP has decided to decline their own DRN filing and has resumed edit warring. As I stated I will be closing this filing and referring the matter to the Edit war Notice board.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
This is the first time this has actually happened and it dawned on me not to jump the gun and close until the outcome of the 3RR report. Both editors have been warned and if the OP can return to the discussion, we can continue.--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
It's fine to close the DRN filing. You can take the image down. I am not available to be on Wikipedia on a constant basis to engage correctly in this conversation. Tracield (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lack of participation from listed editors. Suggestions made here have been left on the OP's user talk page. Maleko Mela (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2014 (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.
The SPLC monitors antigovernment patriot groups. I wanted to add a hyperlink to antigovernment because I found the term confusing. However initially antigovernment was just a redirect to anti-statism. We mostly agreed that was not the meaning SPLC had in mind. So I researched it and made antigovernment a disambiguation page. Two issues came out of this: (1) Is antigovernment a proper disambiguation page or is it a short article (does it have the right style for a disambiguation page?). (2) If it is a disambiguation page does the edit fail because WP:D (linking to a disambiguation page is bad style?). Mrdthree (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
argued. Read rules. INitially it was called an overlink but I think that might be resolved. Currently linking to antigovernment is being called WP:D.
The SPLC monitors antigovernment patriot groups. I wanted to add a hyperlink to antigovernment because I found the term confusing. However initially antigovernment was just a redirect to anti-statism. We mostly agreed that was not the meaning SPLC had in mind. So I researched it and made antigovernment a disambiguation page. Two issues came out of this: (1) Is antigovernment a proper disambiguation page or is it a short article (does it have the right style for a disambiguation page?). (2) If it is a disambiguation page does the edit fail because WP:D (linking to a disambiguation page is bad style?). Mrdthree (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, a disambiguation page "lists articles associated with the same title". I'd say that it could be edited into a short article, and you should try it or at least let WP:Wikiproject Politics know about it. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 16:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a poor choice for disambiguation ... I suggest a link to Wiktionary where the term is defined. Collect (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I find it a poor definition. Or if it is meaningful then its a meaningless word; because it incorporates everything from opposition politics to open rebellion and anarchism (socialist libertarianism). Plus the same could be said about a great many simpler words... say greenMrdthree (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
If we were to link it would be to "antigovernment patriot group", because that is the term they use. Similarly, we would not link "United States of America" to "United", "States" and "America." The linked article would then begin, "'Antigovernment patriot group"' is a term used by the SPLC to describe groups that...such as...." But that is unnecessary. Most readers understand what "anti" means, and that in this context the government they are anti is the U.S. government which they believe is run by traitors or even enemy foreigners and does not have legitimacy under the U.S. constitution, the supreme law of the United States. TFD (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I like your explanation much better than the present one. The present one doesnt actually state that. IT states that: The SPLC describes these groups as parts of an extremist Patriot Movement characterized by anti-government doctrines, conspiracy theories or opposition to the New World Order. This phrasing says it is the entire Patiot movement that is anti-government. However the Patriot Movement webpage makes no such claim. Mrdthree (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
If this meaning of the term is principally used in this article, why link at all? Why not just define the term later in the same article? Homunq (࿓) 15:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This is most agreeable however it would inevitably result in edit-warring as even an attempt to hyperlink a word causes an edit war. Mrdthree (talk)
Summary of dispute by The_Four_Deuces
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Malik_Shabazz
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Southern Poverty Law Center discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
(Note: I've consolidated two separate sections on this down to 1. Homunq (࿓) 15:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC))
Are you still interested in pursuing this, given that the term is not currently used in the article? Homunq (࿓) 18:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes I want to know: is antigovernment a stub or a disambiguation page? Mrdthree (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The two questions I was hoping for senior editor input on are: (1) is the antigovernment page a Stub WP:Stub or a properly formatted disambiguation page WP:D?, (2) If it is a disambiguation page is it a violation of the most cases style rule of such pages to link a word in the Southern Poverty Law Center#Anti-government patriot groups article to it? WP:INTDABLINK. Sorry not clearer earlier. Mrdthree (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
48-hour closing notice
This discussion appears rather stale. I am willing to help continue discussion if it would be useful; if no further activity occurs in this thread, I will close it in 48 hours. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that, and thanks for reminding me of this. The comments you provided above were made in the last couple of days; the thread had seemed stale prior to that, so I offered to close it if necessary. Generally, the goal here is for an uninvolved editor to work with disputing parties to come to a resolution. I'd be happy to offer advice regarding both of your questions, but I want to make sure that the others involved in this dispute are involved in the discussion, as well. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 11:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
OK advice welcome thanks. Mrdthree (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally, my feeling is that the antigovernment page is accurately classified as a disambiguation page. It provides a list of separate terms for which the phrase "antigovernment" can be substituted, rather than treating the phrase as a subject to be discussed. Given this, I would be somewhat hesitant to hyperlink from the SPLC page; nevertheless, since the SPLC uses this phrase to designate certain groups, it might be appropriate. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me. Ill remove junk on antigovernment dab and let users do as they will with link. Mrdthree (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Wait please Mrdthree and Theodore!. I think that should be rethought. Per WP:INTDABLINK: "With few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he or she is looking for." Now, there are some exceptions but none that allow links in the body of the article to a specific word as it won't clarify anything really, as I believe is the concern of the OP (who, by the way is the only particpant from the list of involved editors). You'll simply get an automated message delivered to your talk page and is likely to be reverted and would be considered a policy/guideline based revert and would probably be considered edit warring if you were to try and keep placing it back in. I advise strongly against linking to the disambiguation page.--Maleko Mela (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The answer here is actually pretty simple, and one I highly suggest. One, if the term is the one which consensus holds is right for the article and you still feel a link is needed here (and i happen to strongly agree one is needed) then simply add whatever page you feel is best suited to define the usage here. Here is just an example (although it could work) It would be linked in the following manner: [[Sedition#United States#Civilian|antigovernment]], which would then just appear as this: antigovernment. There is of course the very good possibility that an actual article may need to be created boldly. That should be a lot of fun to create I think. This, of course may need to be discussed but could also be boldly added as advice from DRN, but remember we have no authority or special powers. If reverted discuss what page should be linked, if at any at all, but I believe this is something that truly needs a link.--Maleko Mela (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Having said that, I have to close this request for lack of participation. While there were several outside editors who weighed in above in the opening section commentary.....they are not the listed participants and DRN does require participation of the listed editors.....other than the OP.--Maleko Mela (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.._Street_View,_Port_Jefferson,_Long_Island,_ca._1872-1887..jpg)
