Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Nivkh alphabets	In Progress	Modun (t)	23 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 13 hours	Kwamikagami (t)	1 days, 4 hours
Wudu	In Progress	Nasserb786 (t)	14 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 22 hours	Nasserb786 (t)	2 days, 18 hours
Repressed memory	Closed	NpsychC (t)	7 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 14 hours
Thunderball	Resolved	Moneyofpropre (t)	4 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 5 hours
Queen Camilla	Closed	SKINNYSODAQUEEN (t)	4 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 10 hours
15.ai	In Progress	Ltbdl (t)	4 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours	Ltbdl (t)	4 hours
Hypnosis	New	Skalidrisalba (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 14 hours
Talk:Karima Gouit	Closed	TahaKahi (t)	1 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours
Asian fetish	Closed	ShinyAlbatross (t)	1 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours
Algeria	New	Monsieur Patillo (t)	15 hours	None	n/a	TahaKahi (t)	13 hours
2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence	Closed	AmitKumarDatta180 (t)	12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours
Tuner (radio)	New	Andrevan (t)	9 hours	None	n/a	Fountains of Bryn Mawr (t)	7 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 01:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

• Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There are a disparity in the sources regarding the numbers of Pakistani armed forces who surrendered during this brief conflict. They range from 90k to 95k. We have solved this by deciding to cite both high and low end numbers. Another disparity are that some people think this number includes civilians who were also interred. The majority of sources I have looked at (see Here) say that the 90k figure were all troops and do not seem to include civilians. Some sources say 90k troops including 15k civilians I am reading this "including" to mean "as well as, or in addition to" Myself and the other editor are now at an impasse and would like a little input.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• Smsarmad (talk · contribs)
• TopGun (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Indo-Pakistani War of 1971}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Talk page discussion, already linked to above.

• How do you think we can help?

Another opinion on the issue might help break the impasse.

Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• The issue is not understood - what exactly is being contested - the figures or the means of depicting them? AshLin (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is weather or not the figure of 90k POW's also include the 15k civilians. It started of like this, the article had in it some 79,700 Pakistan Army soldiers and paramilitary personnel I checked the source and this number looks to have been arrived at by someone subtracting the number of civilians from the troop estimate.[1] though they their figures wrong. So we need a few opinions on, A) Are the academic publishers which state 90,000 odd troops were taken as POW's correct, in that they exclude the civilians? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue First of all, I would like to say that you all seem to be doing an outstanding job of discussing this neutrally and have avoided creating a full-blown dispute. I haven't had time to fully research the topic enough to give a third opinion, but what I would like to say is that this issue may be better suited for RFC; it doesn't seem like we have an argument here - merely a research impasse that could benefit from another opinion (exactly what RFC is for). I'll need a little time to look at all the material, but I'll try to weigh in as soon as I'm familiar enough with the issue. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this seems better for an RFC (as I suggested on the talk), however it will be a good idea to have opinions of users who have dealt with such issues related to POWs and wars. RFC would invite random users, so DRN might be a help from a different angle (hoping that we have users here that have dealt with such issues or can be invited by mediators?). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue I'm currently in the process of searching on EBSCOhost and other research databases I have access to through the college (unfortunately, these aren't available on the general web, but most of them have ISBNs, so we can still use most of them). I'm trying to see what figures are quoted by academic sources (most of these articles are scholarly, peer-reviewed periodicals, so they're definitely reliable). I'll admit there's not a whole lot available (I'm an American, and this is not an historical topic that gets much discussion in our colleges), but I'm going to do my best. The State Department had a little bit on it, but nothing involving casualty figures total capture figures (my apologies; I misread the description and assumed we were looking for deaths, not prisoners). Let me see what I can come up with in the way of sources, and I'll try to quote a few figures here. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay - I've had a difficult time finding any sources other than the ones that have already been discussed on the talk page. However, based on what I can see, I think this might be a case where both points of view are valid assessments of the sources. The question is how to include this in the lede section. After immersing myself in the issue at hand, I can easily see how this has become a bit sticky. Again, though, I think you are all doing an excellent job of keeping your cool. This is quite a puzzle, especially since there seem to be so few reliable sources related to it (perhaps, to my DRN colleagues - if any of you are from across the pond, you may have an easier time knowing where to look) - and the few sources that are available seem to have conflicting figures. I think the best solution to this may be to include the figures together but mention that there is some question as to the accuracy of such a figure. ("Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces were taken prisoner by the Indian Army. Some sources ^{(insert citations here to avoid weasel words)} report that this figure includes up to 15,000 civilians; however, these sources are unclear as to whether that is included in or in addition to the total POWs from the Pakistan military.") I admit, it's not ideal, but based on the sources we have, I'm not sure there is a better option at the moment. Based on what I can see from the sources, I think the civilian total is included in the 90-93k total, but that's obviously not clear-cut, and the point here is to give the most neutral evaluation possible. If anyone has a better suggestion, I'm sure we're all ears. I'll keep looking for additional sources in the meantime, but I honestly don't think I'm going to find any in this ethnocentric American database I'm using. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The case here is that RS state both views, what I feel is that some authors didn't do any research for finding out exact number of prisoners and their composition or didn't consider it an important issue. You will even find sources (of course RS) saying 90k POWs in one para and 93k in the next para (the same source). You may get help from Military History Wikiproject (TG suggested it at talk but we couldn't work on his suggestion), there are some senior and experienced editors who may be able to help us here. --SMS ^Talk 18:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply - I needed a brief WikiBreak, and I assumed someone else from DRN would have jumped in by now. SMS - I understand what you're saying, but if we're all agreed that these are all reliable sources, why not simply say in the article that the reliable sources present conflicting information? After all, we're not trying to draw our own conclusions here - we're just trying to present what can be verified through outside sources. If the reliable sources say different things, then it's not undue weight to present that fact in this case. Do you feel differently? If so, how? Sleddog116 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all! I agree with you and in that case your suggested text ("Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces were taken prisoner by the Indian Army. Some sources ^(source) report that this figure includes up to 15,000 civilians; however, these sources are unclear as to whether that is included in or in addition to the total POWs from the Pakistan military.") will be a good option if we are ending nowhere. Before that, the question here is the understanding of what authors we are quoting exactly mean. Can you please tell us, what do you understand by "some 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war, including 15,000 civilian men, women and children" [2]? Because the use of word including is ambiguous and all of us involved in the issue perceive it differently. --SMS ^Talk 18:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I, personally, don't see any ambiguity in that statement at all. To me, it clearly says that that 93,000 is inclusive of the civilians, not in addition to. The question, though, is do all of the sources present it that way? If not, we need to sort out the disparity. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The view from this side of the fence, (Indian military history) is 90K plus prisoners which excludes civilians which are over and above that. Terms of repatriation of the two were different, if I recall correctly, with civilians ec going home sooner than the Prisoners of War. I did not quite notice this argument as such. Civilians are not considered combatants under Geneva convention and hence treated differently from POWs. Of course, will bneed to locate the refs right to confirm it. AshLin (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for this? If not, I think it might be better to simply give the inclusive figure. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for the info, another view per my original research a family of a Pak Army officer (his wife and children) who were captured after 1971 war from Dhaka told that they were released in 1974 along with military POWs. And I think if we cannot find any other sources that can tell us the exact number of civilian and military prisoners, we should add the conflicting views as already suggested by you. --SMS ^Talk 20:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I have not been able to find concrete figures for troops of non combatants. I do recommend we call the non combatants who were held "civil internees" rather than POW's. It is what they were called in the Hamoodur Rahman Commission. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Just a quick note to everyone here: You may not have realized this, but Wikipedia's Prisoner of War article defines a POW as "civilian or combatant". In my view, that seems to suggest that we should define it the same way here. I'd recommend against changing the POW article without first discussing it on that talk page, but I'm just putting it out there for you guys to think about. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that wiki is not a reliable source non combatants may not be taken a POW's per LOAC. Hence civil internees Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

DS - I wasn't using wiki as a source, merely as a frame of reference for a definition. I wouldn't suggest using Wiki as a source, either. It's clearly not RS. However, whether we consider civilians as POWs isn't really relevant anyway; the point is we have sources - all reliable - that give conflicting counts in terms of total persons captured. What I'm saying is that we probably need to present the disparity - that is, acknowledge the fact that various sources give conflicting claims. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sleddog116, re sourcing, just a little joke. (obviously a bad one) Darkness Shines (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: I have another possible solution. Why don't we avoid using the term "POW" altogether? My suggestion is that we give a range (from the most conservative estimate to the most liberal), and instead of saying "members of the Pakistan Armed Forces," we simply say "Pakistanis". We could then also present the fact that sources disagree on the number of civilians included in that figure. This way, the range that we give can unequivocally include civilians and military but also use all sources accurately. That's not really OR - it's simple math. Does anyone wish to add any comment? Sleddog116 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not all of them were Pakistani. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal #2. See this ref. Pakistan's application to the ICJ - it says over 92,000 prisoners of war and civilian internees. These figures and this wording ("civilian internee") could be used. This figure is further clarified in a breakup provided by the ICRC on page 4 - 81,888 POWs and over 10,000 civilians including 6500 women and children. The range of figures & other uncertainties could be mentioned in a footnote. AshLin (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I could support this, it is roughly along the lines of what I was thinking. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to First Proposal: We need to look how Geneva convention describes POWs and whether they include civilians or not? And I have already shown my consent in support of mentioning conflicting views.

Response to Proposal #2: Do you consider Pakistan's petition at ICJ a neutral source? Because this issue will be raised sometime later and I am not in favor of any content that may attract disruptive editing and more disputes. I find no other issue with this proposal, if everyone else is in agreement with this, it should be added. --SMS ^Talk 19:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a primary source of sorts. However, the figures are attributed to the ICRC and are in general line with those being produced ie 90 to 93K. Also, the source is much more reliable than books which bandy the figure around and provide no source for the figure. I'm the guy who normally has issues with Top Gun's sources. As long as this source is used for quoting this information only and not for any other reason, I do not think the reliability issue will be challenged by any editor in the context of strength of PsOW and civilian internees. AshLin (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest similar wording but more comprehensive. AshLin - your proposal is good except it sort of presupposes that we would use only that source. Other sources give figures, as well, though the figures are somewhat conflicting. What I would suggest is that we word it to include a range of POW/Internee figures. We give a range of totals - the low range could be the 90,000 inclusive (so, the 90,000 or so), and the high range could be exclusive (105,000; we simply give that number, which includes the 90,000 POWS + the ~15,000 civilians). We cite both with the number. So, for instance, if our high-end source says "90,000 POWS and 15,000 civilians," we simply say 105,000 (the total, and use an inclusive statement with whatever notes are needed). It sounds complicated, I know, but the final statement would probably look something like this: Between 90,000 ^{(include citation)} and 105,000^{(include citation)} soldiers and civilians were taken captive by the Indian Army. Notice the deliberate open-endedness of that quote - that way the need for inclusiveness or exclusivity is no longer a problem. We could even add a note (or a parenthetical statement) that says that sources disagree on the exact number of civilians included in the totals - which is the truth. Any comments? Sleddog116 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would still recommend we go for the ICRC figures which state the PW numbers with confidence and give the range within the footnote but I'll go alongwith the consensus here. AshLin (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason for my proposal, AshLin, is because there are numerous reliable sources that present conflicting figures. The ICRC source is, admittedly, probably the best one available, but it is still not the only source. It would be, I think, more apropos to include a full range. However, since the purpose of this board is to come to consensus, it's ultimately up to the consensus that the rest of you decide. So, to everyone, AshLin has stated that even though it is not the most preferable option, the option I presented above is acceptable if consensus accepts it. Do any of the other involved editors wish to comment with objections, counter-proposals, or suggestions? We've come up with some good ideas here - and thank you all for staying calm and collected - and now we need to decide how to best move the article forward. Sleddog116 (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What if we write conflicting figures as suggested by Sleddog116 and also mention ICRC version separately, explicitly stating that ICRC registered 90,000 prisoners? --SMS ^Talk 17:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Inter-Services Intelligence

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. Inter-Services Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? The ISI's aid to and creation of terrorist and religious extremist groups is well documented. The ISI have close ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008. Pakistan denies all such claims. The ISI have also given aid to Hizbul Mujahideen. The ISI has a long history of supporting groups operating in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests. Pakistan claims to give them moral support only.The ISI also helped with the founding of the group Jaish-e-Mohammed. The ISI also founded Al-Badr Mujahideen who were involved in the genocides in Bangladesh in the 1970s. I added this, it was removed. I want to put it back. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) TopGun (talk · contribs) Mar4d (talk · contribs) The content was reverted out and in the ensuing discussion on the talk page it has been claimed the text has NPOV problems. I do not see any. An RFC was tried but no interest has been shown. I posted on the NPOV board and agin, no interest has been shown. So I guess I have to ry here now. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Inter-Services Intelligence}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Talk page, RFC posted on NPOV board. How do you think we can help? Some extra input is needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Inter-Services Intelligence discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. It will be extremely hard for us to offer any opinions, as the section you have referred to are referenced to books. Are you able to link to online versions of these books, alternatively scan the relevant pages and send them to my email address? cro0016gmail.com. Thanks, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC) [3][4][5][6] Links to online versions of the books in question. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) According to the RfC discussion, one of the issues seems to be whether Wikipedia can describe ISI's support for Kashmiri "pro-freedom groups" or "separatists" (Mar4d) as "terrorist and religious extremist groups" (Darkness Shines). Users are pointing to WP:TERRORIST and WP:OR on either side. Shrigley (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC) When a nation state founds & supports groups for use in a proxy war then they are far from "freedom fighters" I also toned down the text so the groups in question are no longer called terrorists directly. However I will not misrepresent the situation, the first source used says basically what I have written and it is an accurate statement when you look into the ISI activities over the years. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but all I see with those books are references to ISI. I'm looking for passages from the book. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Are you unable to click on the page number referenced? If not I can copy and paste full quotes later on. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Ah, yes, that does work. Do we have Wikipedia articles on the authors of the first book? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 20:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC) No idea, this is one of the editors of the first book[7] He wrote the chapter being quoted from also. this is the second editor[8] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Template:Cue Darkness Shines, I've taken a look at the history of the article in question, and I'm somewhat confused. Do you think you could give me links to specific diffs so I can establish a bit more context here? Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC) I did this, [9] reorganization. It was then protected from editing [10] after TG made a 3RR report on me wherein I had in fact not broken 3RR. Protection expires and I do a minor edit[11]. TG removes the lot[12]. Hope that covers it all. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Clerk Comment: I'm closing this discussion now, as it seems to have become stale (and, looking at the edit history of the article in question, the conflicting editor seems to have dropped the issue for now). Please create a new thread (or note me on my talk page) if you would like this discussion reopened. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC) References 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.

Neoclassicism

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. Neoclassicism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Right. So the Neoclassicism article's a bit of a mess. I go in and make some bold edits, and fair enough, some of them get revert. I provided explanations for those edits (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neoclassicism). Apparently these explanations were insufficient. (In fact, given that it was the removal of generally unsourced and unreliable information, I feel they were sufficient.) However, there's one thing that really concerns me: in the second para, the final sentence has a cite. That cite is (a) unreliable and (b) does not back up the claim made in the article (for details, see my edit on the talk page). Now, at this point I can't go and edit the article: 3RR etc. However I do not feel comfortable leaving such a glaring error, so I have come here. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Modernist (talk · contribs) 203.109.211.160 (talk · contribs) PaoloNapolitano (talk · contribs) Freshacconci (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) I have informed all but Modernist, who is unreachable. (uneditable talk page, no email possible.) I've left a message on Modernist's talk page, it's currently semi-protected. -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC) N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Neoclassicism}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I have discussed this issue on the talk page extensively. How do you think we can help? By providing a third party who can actually read the source given and verify it is (a) unreliable and (b) doesn't back the claim made. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Neoclassicism discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The main issue for me is the edit warring (went far beyond 3RR) by the IP and the lack of civility on his/her part as seen in the discussion and in the edit summaries. I wasn't so concerned with the changes, however much of it concerns the IP's claim that he/she is correct in all the edits and blanking whole sections based only on that claim. No alternate sources have been provided as of yet. I don't believe WP:BURDEN applies as this is not libelous material, it involves a great deal of text being removed unilaterally, and the edits are based on claims that may or may not be correct in and of themselves. Yes, the editor in question was WP:BOLD but then immediately began edit warring and being uncivil, giving other editors no chance to respond at all. freshacconci talktalk 15:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC) I really am pretty committed to resolving the particular issue mentioned above here; the other issues I can take or leave, but the use of a source which doesn't say what is claimed is clearly very problematic. And I (obviously) disagree on interpretation of burden; libellous doesn't matter, the burden is on the editor adding or reverting, and alternate sources are not needful if there's no sources to begin with. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC) I should add there was no indication that other editors wished to find sources, or actually wanted to defend the claims made. If there had been, I would have been perfectly happy to hold off until someone could get a book and check things, or alternately I'd've been more than happy to look stuff up. The only reason given was that I had insufficient reasons, which was (a) false, and (b) contrary to the spirit of burden. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC) I reverted one edit, as the IP's other edits had also been reverted. The IP has clearly ignored the discussion and continued to make controversial edits, and has also been making personal attacks and been incivil in general. [13], [14]. Suggest a "cool down" block. As for the content part, I have no idea about what is correct and incorrect. PaoloNapolitano 16:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Oh for heaven's sake. You'll note that I haven't edited the article since, have no intention of editing the article without consensus, and that I have in fact specifically noted that I erred in making at least one edit. Further, I have in fact resolved at least two long standing issues with the article on the Death of Marat, especially given I responded constructively to Modernists' desire for better references. I have specifically brought a dispute on content to this resolution page, in the hopes that the dispute can be resolved, given that clearly nothing useful was going to happen based on the Talk page. A cool-down block would be unreasonable and I think violates good faith in the circumstances, given I have attempted, not always successful, to work within the system to resolve the issue. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC) I welcomed the editor on the IP's talk page; reminded the IP editor to reference his/her additions to the article and tried to help the IP editor. The IP seemed to take it very personally; and in spite of my efforts to explain the IP began edit warring despite warnings and suggestions. The IP issued various personal attacks in edit summaries. When I asked for a source in the lead of the Death of Marat article after the IP added It has been described as the first modernist painting [15] the IP added this addition which was an adequate response to my question - [16] which I wikified here: [17]. The IP would do well to realize that this project is supposed to be a collaborative and collegial enterprise...Modernist (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC) The way to deal with material found in an article that you do not agree with is to improve what you believe to be incorrect with a better sourced and correct inclusion. The wholesale removal of entire sections based on your opinion; without offering the correct alternative is not the way to proceed...Modernist (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC) It isn't `material I disagree with'; it is, as I have repeatedly said, unsourced material that the burden is on you to show is verifiable. You haven't been able to do that, at all. Particularly take the claim in the second para about martial courage. There is no source that says that; that is enough for it to be deleted as unverifiable. You then have to find a source that backs the claim up. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC) What do you mean me? I don't have any burden - you disagree with what's there - correct it, with sources, end of story...Modernist (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC) I refer to WP:BURDEN. I quote: `you may remove any material lacking a reliable source', and that the `burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material' (my emphasis). So it is up to you to find a reliable source for the claims in the article. All I have to do is show there isn't one given. Which I have, repeatedly. The fact I've gone to the length of giving persuasive arguments as to the correct position is supererogatory, not obligatory. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC) No, you went ahead with an edit war and as I pointed out, you violated the other aspects of WP:BURDEN by not giving other editors any time to respond. WP:BURDEN is not a license to unilaterally blank sections and violate WP:3RR which you did within a very short time. As far as any attempts to communicate with others, posting a message on a talk page and then repeatedly reverting edits by three editors is again not in the spirit of, nor is it licensed by, WP:BURDEN. And frankly, whether or not your arguments are persuasive is beside the point: you are to work collaboratively and with civility which you have repeatedly failed to do in any way. freshacconci talktalk 02:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Please ignore the conduct issues. I have no interest in rehashing them, and if it makes you feel better will ritually prostrate myself for my errors. I have no intention of editing the damn page myself. All I want here is a decision whether, under Wikipedia's policies, the final sentence in the second paragraph of the article should stand part of the article. I think it should not, because it is an unsourced claim (worse, it has a misleading reference), and because it has no source one must be provided, per WP:V, before it stands. If you disagree with that, I would be very grateful if you could tell me why you disagree. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Modernists rollbacks were out of line for a rollbacker, and arguably he violated 3RR as well. See the page history. These were not vandalism rollbacks. Finally, the part that was removed is actually unsourced. The IP is right, he just went about it in the worst possible way (Edit summary "Look, please, for the love of god, quit being a baby. please give reasoned, detailed, explanations why those edits should be reverted, and don't just say `reputable sources'" Seriously?). Until the conduct matters are resolved, there's no hope in solving the content dispute. The only compromise I can see right now is to let the unsourced bit go, and keep the sourced bit in. An IP editing does not give you license to rollback their contributions if they're trying in good faith to improve the article. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticism of Thor Heyerdahl is not neutral or literally a legitimate criticism

• Thor Heyerdahl Criticism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Attempt to suggest that Mr. Heyerdahl may have supported national socialism by using a citation from a book by Ragnar Kavm. The quote is rhetorical, and scathing in its inference. It has no basic elements of a neutral point of view and starts with the qualifier " Kavm (historian) has been criticized Heyerdahl for his 'lack objection to...' ". That alone is dubious, then goes on from there.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• DixieDear (talk · contribs)
• Astronaut (talk · contribs)
• Dougweller (talk · contribs)
• Kraxler (talk · contribs)
• GFHandel (talk · contribs)
• Drs (talk · contribs) 

please read entire discussion

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Criticism of Thor Heyerdahl is not neutral or literally a legitimate criticism}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have called for an agreement to resolve in my last post (top)

• How do you think we can help?

Direct me to ways to resolve this so the article can reflect a fair criticism or remove heading completely.

DixieDear (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Thor Heyerdahl is not neutral or literally a legitimate criticism discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.