Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:37, 25 August 2011

Skip to open disputes
skip to newest thread
(purge cache)

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

Shortcuts

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
Neith	In Progress	Potymkin (t)	27 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 hours
Defense of Sihang Warehouse	New	Adachi1939 (t)	8 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 15 hours	Adachi1939 (t)	2 days, 11 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 02:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Example case

Spore (2008 video game) (Example case)

(Example post)

Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

Me and Example (talk · contribs) are having a bit of a dispute about an article, Spore (2008 video game). Some of the references in the article support the genre being a god game, others support the genre being a life simulation or a simulation game. I think we need to come with a way to have both listed in the article, as all references seem reliable.

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Steven Zhang (talk · contribs), Example (talk · contribs)

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

I have tried talking about the issue with Example on the article talk page, but I need some extra input on what I can do here to move forward with resolving this dispute, as there are numerous sources supporting the different genres.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?

Direct me to ways to resolve this dispute, or where I can get assistance in resolving the dispute. We need to come up with a compromise as how to move forward with the article. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....}

Discussion

Resolution

The dispute at hand seems to be to me that there are multiple possible genres to the article, and many sources backing up the different genres, however the issue of which genre best fits is still an issue. A mediation cabal case might be useful here, the assistance of a third party editor could assist in working out a compromise that works well. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....}

Heroes in Hell, Gilgamesh in the Outback

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.

Heroes in Hell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gilgamesh in the Outback (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?

A large, ongoing debate on ~~copyright ownership~~ issues regarding the usage of the terms "reprint," "first serial rights," and "originally published in" to describe a few stories (specifically Gilgamesh in the Outback and Newton Sleep) in a larger series called Heroes in Hell is occurring at its talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz argues that these stories were reprints from a prior magazine publication based on the sources he has found (some unreliable like this: [1], but others reliable like this: [2] and the author of Gilgamesh's own website). On the other hand, several other editors have argued that the use of the term "reprint" or saying that it is "originally published" in the magazine is misleading and wrongly suggests the original copyright is not owned by the series author, Janet Morris. Editors argue more accurately would be to say that the magazine had "first serial" rights. However, as of yet, no source points to the magazine having any such rights. They also argue that the story was intended to be written for the series, and as such, the magazine article is merely promotional, but not copyrighted. All of these arguments, however, lack sources. It is unclear whether it is standard for primary sources to provide this kind of "first serial" copyright information. Edit warring related to the above issues have occurred in the past week on both pages: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Guarddog2 has said she is Janet Morris, the author of the series (Wolfowitz has challenged this claim)
Bluewillow991967 has said she is Julie Cochrane, an author in the series
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, UrbanTerrorist, Bluewillow991967 have engaged in very, very lengthy debates. UrbanTerrorist's comments have sometimes been unreasonable "...I think you have are in a Conflict of Interest situation. I have no idea why you would be in a conflict of interest situation, but your irrational actions leave me no other conclusion." or just uncivil, "Wikipedia is always inaccurate until people like me step in and fix the problems. There's just too many idiots who think that they know what they are doing, and they to edit things.". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Bluewillow991967 have generally kept things cool, although it has been difficult to follow their arguments because of their sheer length and the number of other issues that are at hand with the article that I do not wish to discuss here.
I Jethrobot is me, and have done my best to remain neutral in this argument. I am, however, responsible for merging the individual Heroes in Hell book pages to the main series page due to a lack of notability of the individual books and general consensus to do so. I do not claim to be have any expertise with the publishing process or of contract/copyright law.
NebY, Hulcys930, and Knihi are only involved in so much as they have offered fair opinions on the discussion page and appear to have an interest in the page. Hulcys930 has made some edits that were justifiably reverted by Wolfowitz, but the edits were made in good faith.

Resolving the dispute

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

This issue has been debated endlessly at the talk page, among many other topics. I attempted to search for sources myself to support either side and also tried to clarify Wikipedia policies to participants (see [8] and Guarddog2's talk page. No resolution is in sight after I have attempted to make multiple proposals that were intended to avoid the contentious issues about copyright, the contentions over the use of "reprint," and even the order in which the story was published. These proposals had some initial consensus, but in my opinion, were appropriately rejected by Wolfowitz because of sources that support that these stories were originally published in magazines, then later printed within the series.

How do you think we can help?

I would like some consensus to be formed about whether it is important enough to include this copyright information, what information about Gilgamesh and Newton Sleep's prior magazine publications should be on the article page, how it should be phrased. Also, this issue seems to have been blown way out of proportion by several parties involved (myself included), and I am hoping that we can all work on trying to stay a little cooler in the discussion. There are so many issues involved with Heroes in Hell, that I cannot conceivably address them all here with any brevity. But I would like some help resolving this (and perhaps other) so that we can prevent any possibility of ongoing edit warring.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes in Hell, Gilgamesh in the Outback discussion

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

I happen to have a story in one of the recent volumes, but that's not at issue here. What most of you think you know about publishing is incorrect, and perhaps an article should be written to address that. You'll find that one of my three works for hire lists me as the (c) holder, even though Bill Fawcett and Assoc. owns the copyright. Publisher made an assumption and went to print. No one caught the error. It is also common for excerpts/shorts to premier in a magazine before official publication. In those cases, even though the periodical date is earlier, those are in fact reprints of the (later) original, with permission secured per contract. This happens all the time. I am constantly amazed at how many WP editors and staff are completely clueless about publishing, and toss around sales figures, numbers and money and try to attach significance to them. During the webcomic deletion debacle for example, one of the comments raised was that a certain comic "couldn't possibly have more than 100K readers," as if such a number were insignificant or not notable. I will go on record here that the WP community embarrasses itself publicly with these issues (such as regarding James Wesley Rawles, with hundreds of thousands of books in print, the go-to guy on disaster prep for CNN, the NYT, Fox, etc, whom a couple of editors persisted in WP:MOVINGTHEGOALPOSTS to try to claim was "not notable"). This is a repeat of that. Janet Morris is most certainly VERY notable in SF, and well-respected. Most, at the very least, of her works, are notable due to content, awards, sales figures, etc--certainly more notable than any of mine that have been contested and retained. There is certainly a personal bias here, which may be simply stubbornness on the part of certain parties. OrangeMike, despite his denials, has a very definite bias against her and should recuse himself from any discussion about her. To accuse her of not being who she says she is without checking first is hypocritical, self-aggrandizing, and pompous. Is it possible some of her lesser known works should be combined? Yes. Should any article be stomped on and erased within hours because some WPean can't be bothered to either aid in improvement, or do a little fact checking (rather than any BS about "consensus" from people demonstrably ignorant of the subject)? Not if this increasingly burdened and irrelevant bandwidth sink wants to retain any shred of credibility.Mzmadmike (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"even though the periodical date is earlier, those are in fact reprints of the (later) original". So reprints can take place before the original publication!? And TV shows can be rerun before they originally air. Let's do the time warp again! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I am Janet Morris (Janet E. Morris, Janet Ellen Morris) and I opened a new editor account only to deal with problems arising from the re-editing of a venerable series listed on Wikipedia entitled Heroes In Hell(TM). This series and franchise is my property and is a shared universe. I am not certain that it is appropriate for me to be here, although Jethrobot says that it is, since I am the proprietor of the Heroes in Hell series. I do feel it inappropriate for WP to be questioning my copyrights, contracts, and the terms and conditions of those contracts, some generated two decades ago and previously uncontested by principals. A debate over notability of various books in the series has morphed into one focusing on the articulation or purposeful obfuscation of the attribution of first serial rights, the deletion of a page called Rebels in Hell containing an award-winning story, and various disturbing and disparaging comments and unsupportable speculations from an editor called Wolfowitz: "By the way, Morris' ownership of the Heroes in Hell property couldn't have stopped Silverbob from writing the story without Morris's approval. She doesn't own all stories set in Hell, after all, just the original details that trademark the franchise. What she really owns via the franchise are some infernal bells and whistles and the occasional designer pitchfork." that show an intent to decouple certain works from the series that generated them (award-winning or nominated works with first serials) and minimize the importance of the series, which is listed on WP as "low" as opposed to some stories commissioned by me from various authors and written for the series, such as "Gilgamesh in the Outback" listed as importance "mid." Part of this dispute for me is whether or not editors with obvious, expressed biases (whether these biases count as COI in WP terms, I cannot say) against the series (or me) should recuse themselves from editing Morris/Hell pages. Please remove this comment if my participation is unwelcome. Guarddog2 (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a neutral/clerk in this matter. The listing editor has limited the issues in this process to "whether it is important enough to include this copyright information, what information about Gilgamesh and Newton Sleep's prior magazine publications should be on the article page, how it should be phrased."

1. Do the other disputants have issues which must be resolved here? If so, please state the issue as succinctly as possible and say how you think that we can help. Please keep in mind that the primary function of this noticeboard is to offer neutral analysis, comment, and mediation and that we have no power here to issue penalties, orders, or binding judgments.
2. As for the copyright information issue:

A. In looking at the diffs provided in the Dispute Overview section, above, I don't see any discussion of copyright though there is an obvious dispute over whether certain material was first published in one source or another. Does the dispute revolve around whether the specific words used in those edits imply, suggest, or have some legal effect upon copyright issues?
B. Is there any dispute over where or when the works in question first appeared in print, in a strictly first-time-anyone-could-lawfully-acquire-them chronological sense? If so what is the dispute?
C. Is anyone suggesting that there is no possible way to indicate their chronological printing order in these articles without having a potentially adverse legal effect on copyright issues? If so, why do you believe that, and why should Wikipedia, which is not a legal brief, contract, nor law journal, care about that implication, so long as it does not make an express allegation about the copyright? (And if no one is saying that there is no possible way to do it, then can any of those opposed to the current statements suggest a wording which they do not feel has that effect?)

3. Or have I entirely missed the point?

Note to other neutrals: By requesting this clarification I am not "taking" or "reserving" this dispute to my care, but am merely trying to get some clarification for whoever eventually chooses, if anyone does, to work on it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the questions by TransporterMan that I am able to address:

In looking at the diffs provided in the Dispute Overview section, above, I don't see any discussion of copyright though there is an obvious dispute over whether certain material was first published in one source or another. Does the dispute revolve around whether the specific words used in those edits imply, suggest, or have some legal effect upon copyright issues?

While the diffs do not explicitly mention copyright, the talk page of Heroes in Hell certainly does. See this section and this section for the copyright disputes.

Is there any dispute over where or when the works in question first appeared in print, in a strictly first-time-anyone-could-lawfully-acquire-them chronological sense? If so what is the dispute?

Yes. Wolfowitz had this to say in this diff...

There is no longer any dispute that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" and its two sequels, as well as "Newton Sleep," the other award-nominated story, were not originally published in the HiH series, but instead first appeared in magazines.

...whereas UrbanTerrorist has not agreed per this diff...

In your mind there may not be [any dispute]. In words that even you can understand, a story doesn't exist without a market. Benford and Silverberg could not have written those stories without Heroes in Hell as a market. My understanding from Janet is that they were given permission to take the stories to the magazine market by her. In the magazines there was a good sized blurb about the anthology. It's called advertising. Free advertising. Do you understand the concept?

...and Knihi also responded to this saying the following in this diff, citing that we should not avoid differentiating between first serial rights & reprints, and also is concerned that the individual book articles were merged because of this concern over reprints (though there were other reasons why the merger occurred):

I'm not sure why an encyclopedia would shy away from explaining terms like "first serial". The fact that it's little known outside the industry -- isn't that an argument for explaining it? To the point: I'm not sure "originally published" is the issue. Author is hired to write a story for an anthology. Author requests permission to pre-publish the story in another periodical. Permission is given. Story comes out in book for which it was originally contracted. Years and years later this discussion happens. "Aha," says an editor, "Story is a reprint! Strike the article on the book in which it appears, as without this story I feel the book is non-notable."

Is anyone suggesting that there is no possible way to indicate their chronological printing order in these articles without having a potentially adverse legal effect on copyright issues? If so, why do you believe that, and why should Wikipedia, which is not a legal brief, contract, nor law journal, care about that implication, so long as it does not make an express allegation about the copyright? (And if no one is saying that there is no possible way to do it, then can any of those opposed to the current statements suggest a wording which they do not feel has that effect?)

I feel this is an optimal solution, and prior to your suggestion, have already made changes on Gilagamesh reflecting the chronological publication order without reference to copyright. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, it's late and I may not be writing very clearly, but I feel I need to put on record that I don't think the listing editor should have identified this as a copyright issue. Another editor thought the question could be answered by looking at copyright, but that was a red herring.

The question is whether it's appropriate to use terms such as "reprinted" or "originally published in" to describe the work in question. Such terms may be at least neglectful and even denigratory. Yes, some books are collections of reprints, such as Best SF of the Year or Nebula Winners. Others such as Thieves World and its sequels contain work written for inclusion in those books. Such books are created with care in a creative process in which the individual authors knowingly collaborate, at the very least by working within parameters; they are not "mere" reprints.

Yes, works are sometimes published in periodicals, in full or in abridged form, before they're published in their final or originally intended form. That does not imply that the later publication merely reprinted the former. It's normal practice and good money if you can get it. NebY (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think this better captures the debate here. I apologize for not quite correctly describing the solution, but there is so much going on here, my head is in a fog whenever I begin to write about it. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has become a mess, because as with other recent ones involving editor-writer Janet Morris, a cadre of COI editors/SPAs has arrived to muddy the waters. There's been a significant amount of off-wiki canvassing going on, on Facebook, on a message board operated by Baen Books, the publisher of much of Morris's work, and elsewhere. None of these editors cite any Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or practices, or any external standards, relevant to the disputes. Several of these editors, including User:UrbanTerrorist and User:Guarddog2, who identifies herself as Morris, have advanced demonstrably false claims and engaged in lively invective about Wikipedia and its editors, always unsupported by facts or citations.

The basic questions here are simple. First, is it fair to use terms like "reprint" or "reprinted" to describe publications which meet standard dictionary definitions of those terms, the Wikipedia article's definition of such terms, and the relevant professional writers' group's explanation of those terms? I think the answer should be clear, and the (neo)editors who argue otherwise present nothing but vague expressions of dislike. Second, should the Wikipedia article on a fictional work identify its original publication? Again, I think the answer should be self-evident. This is a basic piece of encyclopedic information which is generally included in such articles; the articles on novels typically identify the first edition (excepting, of course, the out-of-compliance articles which consist only of plot summaries). As a relevant sample, I reviewed all the articles on works which received the Hugo Award for Best Novella, the award won by "Gilgamesh in the Outback." There are 24 such articles. 21 of the 24 identify the first publication (sometimes only in the infobox). Two do not include the information. (One is ambiguous; it lists a publisher in the infobox, but that could refer either to the story's original appearance in an anthology or its reprint appearance in a collection where it was the title piece.) A full list follows; the titles in normal type identify the first/original publication; those in italics do not (or might not) do so. Wikipedia practice is clearly established, and no one has explained (or even attempted to explain) why this story would be a special case where original publication -- in a more prominent source with a larger circulation -- should be expunged from the article.

List of relevant Hugo Award-winning stories

Riders of the Purple Wage by Philip José Farmer(1968)

Nightwings by Robert Silverberg (1969)

Ill Met in Lankhmar by Fritz Leiber (1971)

The Queen of Air and Darkness by Poul Anderson (1972)

The Word for World Is Forest by Ursula K. Le Guin (1973)

The Girl Who Was Plugged In by James Tiptree, Jr. (1974)

Houston, Houston, Do You Read? by James Tiptree, Jr. (1977)

Stardance by Spider Robinson and Jeanne Robinson (1978)

Enemy Mine by Barry B. Longyear (1980)

Lost Dorsai* by Gordon R. Dickson (1981)

The Saturn Game by Poul Anderson (1982)

24 Views of Mt. Fuji, by Hokusai by Roger Zelazny (1986)

Gilgamesh in the Outback by Robert Silverberg (1987)

Eye for Eye by Orson Scott Card (1988)

The Last of the Winnebagos by Connie Willis (1989)

Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress (1992)

Down in the Bottomlands by Harry Turtledove (1994)

Seven Views of Olduvai Gorge by Mike Resnick (1995)

Oceanic by Greg Egan (1999)

Coraline by Neil Gaiman (2003)

The Cookie Monster by Vernor Vinge (2004)

Inside Job by Connie Willis (2006)

All Seated on the Ground by Connie Willis (2008)

Palimpsest by Charles Stross (2010)

We're dealing with organized promotional editing on behalf of Morris and her works, and quite a few of the users involved are writers who have sold stories to Morris, or hope to do so.

Over the last few months, I've created dozens of articles concerning science fiction short stories and collections, and expanding scores if not hundreds of other articles concerning fiction in the genre. In virtually every case, if the information regarding original publication was not included in the existing article, I added it; and provided it in every article I created. Over many months and hundreds of articles, this has been entirely uncontroversial, because it represents basic encyclopedic information. The dispute here is manufactured for COI editors to disrupt normal editing and WP:OWN the articles involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfowitz, you assert that canvassing has been taking place on Baen's Bar. I'm a member there, and have not seen such canvassing. Further, several searches have failed to show any sign of it. Would you please show which thread in which sub-conference contains such canvassing, since I have been completely unable to find it myself? Thanks - Luke Jaywalker (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's Madhouse Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a former moderator of Baen's Bar, I have to take issue with the totally unwarranted attempt to drag them into this mess. Personally, I'm a tad insulted that anyone would think that if there was actual canvassing of Baen's Bar there would be this poor a turnout. Don't drag them into this, it's not their mess. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. And if the thread should somehow disappear, I've got screencaps. Now do I get another apology? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my not asking you where you were getting that, yes. For my thinking you're reaching looking for conspiracies, no. I feel you've overreacted to a simple issue of neutral point of view. The relevant stories were clearly developed in and for a shared universe and any neutral POV article would need to be consistent with that. Why that basic fact--that the stories were developed in and for a shared universe--seems to upset you I've no idea. All I can do is try to stay as civil as possible while we all look for some NPOV resolution. This will be my last comment on the matter. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I cannot debate armed with the intricate rules of WP, I want to bring up one point that has been missed that does relate to copyright. Heroes in Hell(TM) is a shared world or shared universe. This is stated on the original Heroes in hell WP page and elsewhere and no one has ever contested it. Shared worlds/shared universes are complicated collaborative undertakings and WP has an entire page on "shared universes/shared worlds. I recommend that anyone evaluation my concerns over copyright look at the shared universe/shared world page on WP, then check to see that live links between Heroes in Hell series page and that shared universes/shared world pages do in fact exist today. WP is an adequate source on how shared worlds work. Additionally, here are quotes from Heroes in Hell with citations from accepted sources quotes on the HIH page: "The shared world premise of Heroes in Hell is that all the dead wind up together in Hell, where they pick up where they left off when still alive.[1] The Encyclopedia of Fantasy states "In the long series of shared world adventures begun with Heroes in Hell, Hell becomes an arena in which all the interesting people in history can come together to continue the relentless pursuit of their various ends."[2] Brian Stableford commented that the series "adapted the backcloth of Dantean fantasy as a stage for violent adventures with ironic echoes of infernal comedy". [3] See Heroes in hell series page for live links.

I have asked someone from the SFWA grievance committee to look at this issue, so I hope this discussion will stay open for at least a few days. My concerns that my copyright and franchise will be diluted by imprecise wording of rights issues remains: a first serial (please see: http://www.asja.org/pubtips/wmfh01.php) which is a one-time use, is not the primary source of a shared worlds piece of fiction: the fiction is developed with the proprietor specifically for that shared world: the publication in the shared world first edition for which the collaborative fiction was written is the primary source. Such a story is not the creation of someone acting independently. The fact that both first-serialized stories from Heroes in Hell had copyrights for the first-serializing magazines does not change the fact that the stories were commissioned for a shared world series and under its rules and guidance, long before first serial rights were sold. As for awards, awards ballots commonly take the first publication cited, if not asked to ignore it for a later one.

I hope this helps. Guarddog2 (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about copyright, but even if it were, you're still misrepresenting an essential point. The Silverberg stories -- and as you've acknowledged elsewhere, there are three of them, not just one, all originally published outside your anthology series -- are based on his own original work, the novel Gilgamesh the King, conceived, written, sold, and published well before the Heroes in Hell franchise came into existence. The stories "cross over" between Silverberg's pre-existing copyrighted IP and your "franchise", and the claims made by you and your partisans denigrate his intellectual property and dilute his copyrights to at least as great an extent as you claim my comments do to yours. And what do you have in mind for the SFWA Grievance Committee to do? Griefcom exists only to handle disputes with "your editor, publisher, agent, or other writing-related business associate." I can't imagine they're going to be very impressed if you've shown up on their doorstep asking for them to expend their resources to take your side in a content dispute on Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has become a mess, because as with other recent ones involving editor-writer Janet Morris, a cadre of COI editors/SPAs has arrived to muddy the waters. There's been a significant amount of off-wiki canvassing going on, on Facebook, on a message board operated by Baen Books, the publisher of much of Morris's work, and elsewhere. None of these editors cite any Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or practices, or any external standards, relevant to the disputes. Several of these editors, including User:UrbanTerrorist and User:Guarddog2, who identifies herself as Morris, have advanced demonstrably false claims and engaged in lively invective about Wikipedia and its editors, always unsupported by facts or citations.

That is a total misrepresentation. I have been an editor here on Wikipedia for a long time. I have never had any problems with any other editors in all of the years I've been here, until I set up the original Lawyers in Hell page and Orangemike decided to step in. I had never seen anyone break rules the way that Orangemike did. I think that he set a record that may never be beaten. I may have had some disagreements with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, but compared to Orangemike, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz looks like Miss Congeniality.

That said, the paragraph above is essentially incorrect. To the best of my knowledge the only Single Purpose Account is Guarddog2 which is Janet Morris herself. Much has been made by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz of the fact that I know Janet. What Hullaballoo Wolfowitz doesn't take into account is that I'm a writer, and that I have the contact information for about three or four hundred writers in my electronic address book, and I'm in regular contact with about sixty or seventy of them.

Why would we cite Wikipedia policies, when the issue isn't a policy issue? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wants to decide things by consensus that are not properly the domain of consensus. This isn't an exact analogy, but the equivalent would be to try and decide the solution of a mathematical question. It's not the correct place to use consensus.

I would also like to see Hullaballoo Wolfowitz prove where I've used invective. That would be interesting. Its an easy claim to make. As to the demonstrably false claims, what he means is that we wouldn't fall down and play dead to his superior knowledge.

The basic questions here are simple. First, is it fair to use terms like "reprint" or "reprinted" to describe publications which meet standard dictionary definitions of those terms, the Wikipedia article's definition of such terms, and the relevant professional writers' group's explanation of those terms? I think the answer should be clear, and the (neo)editors who argue otherwise present nothing but vague expressions of dislike.

The basic question is not simple. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does not seem to understand that specialized fields use language in specialized ways. Writers and publishers have their own variation of English, as do Lawyers, as do Doctors. Because of this standard dictionary definitions are nonsensical when applied to those fields.

Second, should the Wikipedia article on a fictional work identify its original publication? Again, I think the answer should be self-evident. This is a basic piece of encyclopedic information which is generally included in such articles; the articles on novels typically identify the first edition (excepting, of course, the out-of-compliance articles which consist only of plot summaries). As a relevant sample, I reviewed all the articles on works which received the Hugo Award for Best Novella, the award won by "Gilgamesh in the Outback." There are 24 such articles. 21 of the 24 identify the first publication (sometimes only in the infobox). Two do not include the information. (One is ambiguous; it lists a publisher in the infobox, but that could refer either to the story's original appearance in an anthology or its reprint appearance in a collection where it was the title piece.) A full list follows; the titles in normal type identify the first/original publication; those in italics do not (or might not) do so. Wikipedia practice is clearly established, and no one has explained (or even attempted to explain) why this story would be a special case where original publication -- in a more prominent source with a larger circulation -- should be expunged from the article.

Since I haven't got the time to go over the list you've provided tonight, I really can't comment here. I'm behind enough as it is. However I would strongly suggest that you send the list to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, where you will get an unbiased opinion from experts in the field. You could also ask them at this point what the difference is between First Serial and Reprint, and again get Expert help. I would think the fact that you are getting so much opposition from people who know something about the field should be causing you to start wondering about what exactly is going on.

You might also want to consider your consistency. You aren't willing to accept information from Janet Morris, but you are willing to accept information from Robert Silverberg. You have a choice. Either accept information from neither, or both.

As to the book Concise Major 21st-Century Writers: A Selection of Sketches from Contemporary Authors which you've been quoting at length, I'd like to remind you that it is only accurate, if the information that the writer had is accurate. If she had been using the current Heroes in Hell and Gilgamesh in the Outback Wikipedia articles for research, it would be inaccurate. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Note that this reference does not say "first published" or "originally published" for the Asimov's July 1968 publication of Gilgamesh in the Outback. It only says "published." The same holds true for the other sources cited by HulaballoWolfowitz. He/she has made a logical error in assuming that because the Asimov's publication is listed first (perhaps because it's in alphabetical order by title) or that it is listed solely, that this shows it was the first publication. As I have patiently tried to show, all the remains certain is both versions were published in July 1986. Under the rule of "Which is most reliable?" all that can be said is both publications appeared in July 1986.Dokzap (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap[reply]

I am going to ignore all the personal comments and conspiracy theories from Mr. Wolfowitz, since they do not relate to this narrow discussion, except one issue, and on that one topic I will explain why his comments are immaterial: the fact that the mythical Gilgamesh character AS A CHARACTER WHO IS ALIVE was written by Silverberg in another book; and I will add that Benford used a fictional character he had previously used, when the fictional character was alive, elsewhere: previous stories about these characters when alive outside of Heroes in Hell are immaterial to this discussion: mythical characters cannot easily be copyrighted; rather, some specific version of them may be protected; mythical and fictional characters are often better protected by trademarking and then protection may extend only to a specific version of the character that some author has written.

On a much happier note, I endorse the solution and edit made by Jethrobot, who says earlier today in this debate, and I agree, "I feel this is an optimal solution, and prior to your suggestion, have already made changes on Gilagamesh reflecting the chronological publication order without reference to copyright.

So perhaps we have a happy ending. Guarddog2 (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Characters cannot be copywritten"? Are you kidding? If anyone wondered why I've been skeptical about Guarddog2's claims to be a certain notable editor/author, that comment ought to demonstrate why I have my doubts. "Copywritten" isn't even a word. And just to flesh out the shorthand, the copyright protection afforded an author under the Copyright Act extends to the exclusive right to create derivative works based on the characters in their original works. And if you can convince me I'm wrong, I'll quit Wikipedia and write a series of torrid novels about the heated romance between Harry Potter and Sookie Stackhouse. Maybe they'll have a threesome with one of those blue dudes from Avatar. Or at least a love triangle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wolfowitz, it would be very helpful if you would consult a legal professional or an agent who represents authors in order to have someone non-biased in any way explain to you the legal terminology first serial and reprint since these terms are not used in contracts with the common usage definitions. I realize you have a great deal invested in making sure Mr. Silverberg in not "denigrated" in any way, so you argue this point illogically and endlessly when the issue could be solved very simply. It is entirely possible for you to learn the legal definitions of the terms you use incorrectly. It would also be helpful if you would stop the personal attacks, insinuations and sarcasm as that does not benefit yourself, WP or certainly this discussion. You might also look up the definition of "good faith." Hulcys930 (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - General apologies for being too quick and sloppy with delete key while seeking brevity. There was errata in the text above, that Mr. Wolfowitz caught. Text should have read, and does read now: when the fictional character was alive, elsewhere: previous stories about these characters when alive outside of Heroes in Hell are immaterial to this discussion: mythical characters cannot be copyrighted; rather, some specific version of them may be protected as written; mythical and fictional characters are often better protected by trademarking and then protection may extend only to a specific version of the character that some author has written. Please see: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm#P55_7616 Please also see on wipo: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/faq/faqs.htm: Is a character protected by copyright? A character could be protected under copyright if it is an original expression of an author. Merchandising items such as toys, interactive games, books and clothing including characters can also be protected by intellectual property rights in certain circumstances, mainly copyright and trademarks, along with other areas of law. See the WIPO Report on Character Merchandising (Adobe PDF).

Mr. Wolfowitz, it would be to your benefit if you were to consult a legal professional or an agent who represents authors in order to have someone non-biased in any way explain to you the legal terminology first serial and reprint since these terms are not used in contracts with the common usage definitions (please do not attempt to portray this as a legal threat, since I am simply telling you how to obtain information that you lack). I realize you have a great deal invested in making sure Mr. Silverberg in not "denigrated" in any way, so you argue this point illogically and endlessly when the issue could be solved very simply. It is entirely possible for you to learn the legal definitions of the terms you use incorrectly. It would also be helpful if you would stop the personal attacks, insinuations and sarcasm as that does not benefit yourself, WP or certainly this discussion. You might also look up the definition of "good faith." Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These definitions have already been presented in the talk page by Wolfowitz, where this contract publishing information by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America and the Illinois State Bar Association delineates the definitions quite clearly (on pg. 15). Wolfowitz's comments appear to be consistent with those definitions, and any differences between his interpretation, common usage, and the legal terms seem unsubstantial. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply going by the fact that Mr. Wolfowitz seems to continue to insist that the chronology of the printing of a story controls what constitutes a reprint regardless of the actual, legal definition of reprint and first serial. I have searched the talk page (by that I assume you mean the Heroes in Hell discussion page) and do not find any reference to the SFWA/Illinois State Bar definition posted by Mr. Wolfowitz. Please give me a link so I can find what you are describing. I'm not trying to be difficult - I'm not sure I understand where you say this information was posted. Thank you.Hulcys930 (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfowitz added it in this diff, right after "SFWA's presentation." I'm sorry it's a long page, but it's there. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reference. As it plainly states in Mr. Wolfowitz' citation, "In SFWA's presentation "An Introduction to Publishing Contracts," online here [9], on page 15, "first serial" is limited in meaning to publication "prior to publication in book form," while "reprint" covers later publications in book form, including "collections."

1) The Heroes in Hell volumes are not "collections" (which infers gathering various stories together, stories not connected to one another, after previous initial publication.) All stories were written for and published in the "Hell" universe.

2) Stories written in and for a specific shared universe, using the individual milieu and rules of the shared universe, with the collaboration of all authors of each volume, are NOT "collections." Therefore, the "first serial" publication of Gilgamesh is in Mr. Asimov's magazine which was published contemporaneously with the initial Heroes in Hell publication in book form.

3) The month of publication in a magazine that actually sends out that issue of the magazine some weeks before the "issue date" is completely irrelevant.

I am sorry this very simple definition is the subject of so much contention and I doubt this explanation will silence those who disagree. This issue is controlled solely by the legal contracts between the publishers and authors and is not subject to a "consensus" or "opinion." (That's why contract lawyers make so much money and Contract Law is the most hated subject in law school.) Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - This is what I wrote in the Gilgamesh In the Outback discussion page: Both publications of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" have a July 1986 publishing date. To call a work as "originally published," one would need citations of such things as printing and distribution records, appearance dates at newsstands and bookstores, all of which would be difficult. I would suggest avoiding this unnecessary controversy by simply stating the facts: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1986 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell, published in July 1986 by Baen Books." I have listed the works alphabetically by title. To claim that the work was "originally" published in Asimov's implies that Silverberg wrote it for Asimov's first and then Janet Morris, the Rebels in Hell editor, reprinted it in her anthology. This allegation requires a citation. To support a reprint in Rebels in Hell one would have to look at Silverberg's Rebels in Hell contracts and his Asimov's contracts - again, another citation. But why go to this unnecessary work when for WP purposes a statement of the actual publishing history is sufficient? To belabor the "originality" claim raises issues of intellectual property and even libel, since they raise questions of the editors' skills. This article should state the facts simply and avoid potential legal claims. Dokzap (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokzap (talk • contribs)

I agree with and endorse Dokzap's solution. I would also like to point out that it preserves notability, as I believe is appropriate, should one wish to recreate a distinct Rebels in Hell page. I also suspect he meant for this to be in the discussion section. :) Knihi (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with and endorse Dokzap's solution, which is appropriate as it lists both the first-serial publication in IASFM and the shared universe/shared world book publication in Rebels in Hell as having occurred in July 1986, which is the correct date and seems to fall within the Wikipedia rules. To do less would be incomplete. As for Wolfowitz's assertion that the July, 1986 date is wrong for IASFM's publication, at worst this is fabrication, at best it would be original research if it could be proved. I also urge all involved here to look at the Heroes in Hell series page where it says shared world and then go to the Wikipedia page about "shared universe/shared world." Not even Wolfowitz has dared to claim that these books were not shared world volumes. To be compliant with the shared world rules, no story could have been independently conceived and merely reprinted as a second serial. Guarddog2 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, "Janet," you're providing easily disproved misinformation. For virtually the entire duration of its existence, IASFM has provided "on-sale" dates for each issue in the pages of the one preceding it. It still does. Here's a link to the online posting of the "next issue" page from the current issue [10]. Here's a link to a Google scan for an issue from 1992 [11]. Here's a pair of GScans from 1989 [12]. While I can't turn up an online scan, I'll tell you that the June 1986 issue declared the on-sale date of the July issue to be June 3, 1986. You've just reported, from your personal knowledge of the book you edited, that the book itself actually went on sale in July. That should pretty much establish which came first. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - - It would be interesting in a court of law, as in a statute of limitations regarding libel, whether the on-sale date or the publication date would be accepted.Dokzap (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap[reply]

I disagree with the solution. The earlier agreed solution was a complete merge of all articles including all of the Heroes in Hell books and stories, and this is what I was trying to implement, and is what I think is still necessary. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - In the case of asserting which of two publications with the same month and year publication date appeared first, the burden of proof here is on Mr. Wolfowitz. In both the magazine and paperback distribution system at the time, publications with a month date of July could have been physically placed on a newsstand, mailed by subscription, or appeared at a bookstore prior to actual date of July 1. But which appeared first? And where? An advanced reading copy of Rebels in Hell could have been sent to reviewers before the Asimov's publication. A bookstore in Topeka might have received a carton of Rebels in Hell books in May. Who knows? Mr. Wolfowitz thinks he knows, but logically he has a heavy burden of proof here. For the purpose of the best scholarly accuracy, rather than expend useless energy counting demons on the head of pin, the better, and objectively least controversial solution is to state the best known facts. Both versions of Gilgamesh In the Outback have a July 1986 date. Move on.Dokzap (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap.[reply]

Okay, here's what I think, as a neutral:

(a) The resolution of this dispute needs to center on Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, not on extraneous issues.
(b) As I previously noted, Wikipedia is not a contract, law review, publication copyright page, or other legal instrument and is not making legal representations by the particular wording it uses. Even if words have some specialized meanings in those contexts, if they have a generally-accepted English language meaning then that is the meaning used and meant here unless there is a clear and unambiguous indication that the specialized legal meaning is intended.
(c) Moreover, even if some particular formula of words were to be used to avoid certain legal implications, there are significant practical problems with keeping it in place due to the wiki model, and that is especially true if the preferred locution is unwieldy or "clunky," in that there is no mechanism provided here to lock it in place and prevent it from being changed by the first WikiGnome who comes along and says "that doesn't read right." (And before someone jumps up and says, "We'll just watch it and make sure it isn't changed!" they need to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and also realize that the language must be inserted by consensus in the first place, that consensus can change at any time, and that arguing that "to change it the way you want it is illegal" is a disfavored, if not prohibited, argument at Wikipedia, which leads us into my next point.)
(d) While certain legal issues such as (but not only) use of copyrighted materials without permission, defamation, and threats of violence are dealt with in Wikipedia policy, dilution of trademark or copyright is not, so far as I can find, and the Wikipedia community should not take it into account in making editing decisions. Indeed, there is strong Wikipedia policy discouraging the making of legal claims within the Wikipedia online framework because, among other things, the legal uncertainty of such claims are "show stoppers" which interfere with the free flow of debate here. That does not mean that someone who feels, as Ms. Morris may now or in the future, that her legal rights have been injured should just go away and forget about it. Instead, it means that those specific concerns must be directed directly to the Wikimedia Foundation by email (the best address is probably info-en-c@wikimedia.org) and not be discussed here, per the just-cited policy.
(e) Whatever is introduced into a Wikipedia article must be, if challenged, documented with inline citations to reliable sources. That includes any representations about the sequence in which published works are printed. The editor who introduces or reintroduces material has the burden of providing and defending those citations. If reliable sources are not provided, then the information must be removed from Wikipedia, though the best practice is to give the introducing editor a reasonable amount of time to find and provide sources.

In light of the foregoing, if the printing order can be established through reliable sources, then a locution which states something like "first printed in x, subsequently printed in y" is probably preferable (and would appear to have some consensus support here), but "originally published in x and reprinted in y" is in no way forbidden or improper because that is, indeed, what happened when that locution is taken in its common English sense. I have some doubt about whether the "printed ... printed" formula will, however, survive in the long run here, but it might. Whichever form is used must be established by consensus. (And at this point, I don't see any consensuses being particularly affected by the alleged canvassing, but if anyone feels differently then they need to, first, read the canvassing rule carefully to verify that what they're seeing falls within the Wikipedia definition of canvassing, then report it to administrator noticeboard/incidents [here's my shorthand version, but your interpretation may vary: soliciting third parties to join in a discussion in a substantial way: fine, soliciting them to come in and just say "me too": bad].) Finally, I was writing this response when Urban Terrorist posted his note about merger and didn't see it until it came up in the edit conflict. I express no opinion about that subject, except that I suspect that it may well be a case of consensus can change in the light of the fact that no one has mentioned it here until now and that merger might well just move the dispute to a single location rather than solving it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Order - Please note that deciding whether something is a reliable source is very much a judgement call. A source may be reliable on one subject, but unreliable on another, due to the author's lack of knowledge of the subject matter, or lack of appropriate source material, a point which I was trying to make to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz earlier, and which he/she/it totally misunderstood. Consider for example Wikipedia's article on ISBN which is inaccurate because it is mostly about the American system, and does not cover the ISBN system in other countries. I'm very familiar with the Canadian system as I am a Canadian Publisher and it doesn't work the same way. Almost all books which you can find on publishing are about the American system, and therefore not reliable sources for publishers in other countries. The book that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is using as his bible may be accurate on some details, but may not be accurate on others. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As briefly as I can, two independent reliable sources for publication history, reporting the magazine appearance as first/primary: reference work [13], anthology permissions page [14]. Corroborated by Silverberg's authorized bibliography [15], by ISFDB [16], the Locus Hugo listing [17], and the Locus Nebula listing [18], even by the official awards site [19]. I have found no similarly reliable sources contradicting these reports. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

- - - - If the assertion is first/original publication, the references cited contradict that point. Nothing in them says "first" or "original." The Silverberg website lists the citations in alphabetical order by title, for example, and the presumption that this indicates "first" or "original" publication is wrong.Dokzap (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap[reply]
        If anyone had any doubts about Dokzap's lack of good faith and disruptive intent, this should dispel them. All you have to do is click on the anthology permissions link I provided, immediately above, where it says, plain as day, "Gilgamesh in the Outback" by Robert Silverberg. Copyright © 1986 by Agberg, Ltd. First published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, July 1986. Reprinted by permission of the author and Agberg, Ltd. As for Dokzap's claim that an academic/library reference bibliography is an unreliable source for determining original publication -- for God's sake, that's what the bibliography is for. He might as well argue that the (1899-1961) following Hemingway's name don't necessarily indicate birth and death, since the text doesn't say that in individual entries. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Thank you for that additional citation. This comment by Robert Silverbeg on his web page may be helpful and more clearly explain how the work came to be. I would recommend adding this to the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" page: "This fits (more or less) into the shared universe of Hell lorded over by C.J. Cherryh and Janet Morris, though it's not mentioned in this book (probably due to somebody's contracts with somebody else). It continues the adventures of the mythical king into a strange version of the afterworld. I call it strange because it does not fit completely with any religious vision of an afterlife. In the other Hell books, there is a basic Christian slant, with demons presiding over the dead and occasional references to a satanic being in charge, but Hell is not just for sinners. Everyone is there, from Hitler to the saints, from the beginning of the human race to sometime in the 21st century. Silverberg takes a more general view, and the Christian elements of Cherryh and Morris's scenario are not present, and in fact this book stands a little outside the general tone of the rest of the series.

"One of the basic ideas of the Hell books is that once a person is there, it's forever. If you get killed you come back in a new body after a short time. Another basic idea is that there is no way out. Gilgamesh makes it his quest to find a way out of Hell, a way back to Earth. The irony is that in life, his quest was to make it to the land of the dead to be with his friend Enkidu, and now that he's there, he wants to leave, though he still seeks Enkidu. "The book started as the novella Gilgamesh in the Outback in Rebels in Hell and in that form was nominated for Nebula Award for best novella, 1987. Chapters 1-5 are that novella. Chapters 7-11 were published as The Fascination of the Abomination in Angels in Hell. The title character of Lord of Darkness features prominently in this book as well. I've read a number of the other books in the Hell series, and while they're sometimes enjoyable, I'm not sure I can recommend them. Cherryh's stories are particularly grating to me (which is unusual as she is one of my favorite writers), with their idea that only the famous people of history are important and ordinary people don't even rate bodies in Hell (this is not the way it works in Silverberg's Hell stories, or even many of the other writers in this shared universe)." (Robert Silverberg, http://www.majipoor.com/work.phgp?id=1190)

- - - - In Silverberg's own words, this clearly shows that Nebula nominated version of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was the vesion written in Rebels in Hell. I offer this paragraph and citation as an amendment to my original suggestion as a resolution. Dokzap (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap.[reply]

Well, first of all, we can't drop a large block of cut-and-pasted text like that into an article; it violates WPs nonfree content policy, and is likely an outright copyvio. Second, it's quite apparent that Silverberg didn't write that, and it shouldn't be attributed to him. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfowitz quotes these citations above as if they are all equal, which they are not, and equally applicable, which they are not. The DAW collection permission page quotes the first serial of GITO as its source, because it is a second serial and someone chose the attribution -- but this citation shows that any reprint MUST have an attribution and be used by permission. Rather than proving what Wolfowiz thinks, it proves that Rebels in Hell was not a reprint, since the copyright page of Rebels in Hell bears no such notice, but only Janet Morris' copyright and the statement A Baen Books Original. If Baen Books/Simon and Simon & Schuster had lied about the book being an original, they could have been sued. The quote from Silverberg's website is inadmissible by definition: it is Silverberg's website, and at best contains an error of omission or at worst purposely omits the fact that the story was created in a collaborative environment: I doubt Silverberg created his own website, so this is probably just lack of familiarity by the website text creator that a person as old as Silverberg did not notice. The ISFDB citation above makes no errors: It lists the two publications in the same year alphabetically, and lists them as having occurred in the same month. So a good number of those citations are inadmissible, and the ones derived from the awards information are incomplete: by choice or because of alphabetization, only one of the two relevant citations for that year were represented. This doesn't mean that the second attribution is not correct.

Can this debate be widened to include possible COI or overzealousness or editorial hounding, in whatever terms WP phrases these, on the part of Wolfowitz, who seemingly has an agenda to strip the relevant award winning and nominated stories from the Heroes in Hell(TM) series so he can then delete the Heroes in Hell(TM) series page and all individual book pages (except, it seems, my good friend CJ Cherryh's, which remains untouched with only one review from Locus cited)? Wolfowitz has stated his intention to prove that the Benford and Silverberg stories were not written for HIH (a "low rent series," said Mr W.)in a collaborative environment, but are instead the individual and pre-existing product of Benford and Silverberg's imagination, a premise that is unprovable without original research and which is incorrect. We have explained earlier that having used those characters while the characters were purported to live does not dilute the fact that when dead in hell they were created subject to the rules of the Heroes in Hell(TM) shared universe/world and both authors agreed to these conditions before writing the stories, which were commissioned for the various volumes in which the authors wrote. Under these terms and conditions, both authors wrote more than one story for the series. If the authors didn't have a problem writing for a shared universe/world, why does Mr. Wolfowitz have a problem that they did so? These continued assertions by Wolfowitz that because a first serial MAY have appeared earlier in July than the shared universe book and that the earliest date confers some primacy are getting tedious. Alls tories for a book are turned in, copy-edited, and processed long before the publication and copyright date on the volume. Please see the Wikipedia site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_universe, which has NEVER published a reprint, but only originals contracted for each volume. This site explains why no first-serial publication date in any way contravenes the collaborative nature of ALL stories written for the HIH series. The series is, multiple places (some cited above), and in reviews and on some volumes, clearly identified as a shared universe/world. Silverberg contributed not only once, but three times to this shared universe/world. Quoting from Wikipedia's shared universe page, we find: "A shared universe is a fictional universe to which more than one writer contributes. Work set in a shared universe share characters and other elements with varying degrees of consistency. Shared universes are contrasted with collaborative writing, in which multiple authors work on a single story. Shared universes are more common in fantasy and science fiction than in other genres. Examples include the Star Trek, DC Universe, Marvel Universe, Star Wars, Forgotten Realms, Babylon 5, Foundation series, Power Rangers, Man-Kzin Wars, and Cthulhu Mythos. A teen summer camp called Shared Worlds, started by author Jeff VanderMeer, is based around this concept." Is HIH listed there? No, but it could have been. Not all shared worlds are listed. As a matter of fact, many books are listed that are NOT shared universe volumes: A "List of CJ Cherry books" linked there in references shows group of titles on her website that can be purchased on Amazon from that link on WP's "shared universes" page, and very few of the Cherryh books being sold there are shared universes, if any. (Is this Wikipedia's vaunted neutrality? Or in business with CJ?) Since so far there has been no debate that HIH is a shared universe/world, the very fact that it is one and listed so on Wikipedia and in citations from several sources quoted on the HIH page on Wikipedia and stated elsewhere in Wikipedia, should end the debate about what the primary source of the work was: it was HIH, with a magazine serialization in IASFM that was required to list that the story "will be published in Rebels in Hell" -- a citation required if the story in IASFM was a first serial. As a matter of fact provided by Wolfowitz himself, the absence of a permission citation on the copyright page of RIH PROVES it to be the primary source of the GITO story. I strongly suggest that the attributions in Wikipedia for GITO be Dokzap's solution of both July 1986 publications being listed in alphabetical order with no use of the word "reprint" or "reprinted" or, failing consensus on that, that ALL related works, including CJ Cherry's Legions of Hell and the GITO page, be merged into the HIH series page as suggested by Urban Terrorist. And I ask once again for protection from this overzealous editor, Wolfowitz, so that those with an interest in expanding the pages aren't chased away by continual fear that he will unilaterally delete any contributions he doesn't like without giving editors the opportunity to improve their contributions. Guarddog2 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This diatribe hurled in my direction is so breathtakingly inept that, even more than earlier ones, makes it exceptionally difficult to believe that this is Janet Morris, or anyone else with significant professional experience in the publishing business. I'll be brief, and just give two examples. "Janet" challenges the anthology permissions page I linked to (the "DAW collection"), saying that as a "second serial" it's somehow appropriate for it to attribute only the first serial. This makes no sense in terms of applicable law and standards, of course, but that's not the most important flub. The anthology, a book edited by the late Brian Thomsen and published by DAW Books, isn't a "second serial" publication because second serial publication refers to publication in magazines, newspapers, or similar periodicals. You don't have to take my word for that. Take the word of the Authors Guild, the leading US organization for professional writers. It says that right here[20] in section 2, "Subsidiary Rights". "Janet" also says that "first serial publication" in a magazine is "required" to list the upcoming book publication for works like these. There's no authority cited for that, because it's just not true. Here's a scan (from the Silverberg-authorized site) of the first two pages of the Silverberg story which appeared in Angels in Hell [21]. You'll noticed that although it carries a copyright notice on behalf of Bob Silverberg (aka Agberg Ltd), it doesn't credit, or even mention, you or Angels in Hell. Though there isn't a scan online for it that I've turned up, the same is true for the third Silverberg novella, "Gilgamesh in Uruk." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUGGESTED RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE

I would like to suggest that the verbiage used on the Gilgamesh in the Outback Talk page by User:Dokzap here[22] be adopted as the language on the Heroes in Hell pages and stop this unnecessary waste of everyone's time. The quote from User:Dokzap is accurate and appropriate. Quote: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1987 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell (July 1987)*, published by Baen Books."

Would everyone who is willing to accept User:Dokzap's wording for the Heroes in Hell page, please note that below this post? If so, possibly we might be able to conclude this discussion. Thank you. *(Publication date added in the interest of total accuracy) Hulcys930 (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to accept the User:Dokzap's wording for the Heroes in Hell page and for the Gilgamesh in the Outback page. Guarddog2 (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Wikipedia is not a vote, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Second, you have a clear COI and shouldn't be participating in discussions on what sort of credit you're entitled to benefit from. Third, it's been pointed out to me that you were indefinitely blocked last year for abuse of multiple accounts and related offenses, and shouldn't be participating at all; by creating a account after multiple unblock requests were refused, you've grossly abused access to this project. According to at least one of your associates, you've been canvassing off-wiki. And the flood of SPA's who've surfaced, arguing in concert and principally or only editing articles related to you and your works, indicates your abuse of multiple accounts has resumed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have such solid proof of malfeasance provide it with documentation. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't know what you are talking about. I can barely manage to get around on WP. I was given this address by another editor who said it would be perfectly fine if I participated. I set up Guarddog specifically for the purpose of providing fact for HIH discussions: I said that on the page. You know that. You went there. You saw the disclosure I put there. Having seen the disclosure, I was told it would be fine if I participated. First you say I'm not who I say I am, and now you say I'm some sort of WP mastermind? Please make up your mind. As I said, I support the Dozkap proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guarddog2 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Wolfy, if you read the post you so kindly cited, you'll note that Mike (who is, by the way, not Janet; he clearly identified himself as the author of that post) was not canvassing for support; he was looking to gather *information.* Luke Jaywalker (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Dozkap's wording as well, for the record. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept User:Dokzap's wording as well. We've wasted too much time on this, let's get back to being productive. I need to re-write the catalytic converter article again, some idiot who doesn't understand chemistry has messed it up. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - It seems to me that the core issue here is when a given story was first published. All this talk about copyright and publication rights is a load of hooey as I see it. We don't adjudicate legal or contractual issues here. That's the realm of lawyers and contracts - we describe what the reliable sources say in public, not what lawyers and their clients argue about in conference rooms and court rooms. The fundamental questions here here is: where could a science fiction fan first purchase and read this story? It seems to me that the evidence indicates that the answer is in Isaac Asimov's magazine. If so, the article should say so. And if the story then appeared shortly thereafter in a book, then the article should say so. If the story was, in effect, commissioned for that book, and fits in with the scenario and theme established for that book by the creator of that series of books, then the article should say so. When the article says such things, those statements should be backed up by references to reliable sources. This is especially important when, as in this case, (for some bizarre reason) the matter is contentious. All this commentary about how "clueless" Wikipedia editors are about publishing and that "the WP community embarrasses itself publicly with these issues" is really over the top. This is not a journal about publishing rights, and this article isn't the place to discuss such topics. I am a moderately experienced editor, and I'm not embarrassed by this kerfuffle, except vicariously for those who have expelled so much hot air here. Wikipedia is roughly the fifth or sixth most visited website in the world, and is number one in terms of original written content. Billions of people rely on Wikipedia, not because it is perfect (it isn't) but because it is based on what reliable sources say about notable topics, not what axe-grinders with obvious conflicts of interest are driven to say about those topics. So, to those new editors who are so hot and bothered here, I would advise you to get involved in the editing of 20 contentious articles on a wide variety of topics. When you return to this debate, perhaps you can see how inconsequential the issues here really are in the grand scheme of things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Cullen328 for your input. Hopefully, it will be followed... and by long-time editors with obvious "issues."

Mr. Wolfowitz: You seem to feel free to bandy about accusations of wrongdoing and impersonation with regard to Janet Morris (first, you accused Luke Jaywalker of being Janet Morris, second you accused me of being Janet Morris, but when Janet Morris signs on and identifies herself, you firmly insist she is NOT Janet Morris {oddly convoluted reasoning}). Then you make the following statements with no citations or backup of any kind as if by you asserting the accusation, it is automatically to be taken as gospel: "it's been pointed out to me that you [Janet Morris] were indefinitely blocked last year for abuse of multiple accounts and related offenses, and shouldn't be participating at all; by creating a [sic] account after multiple unblock requests were refused, you've grossly abused access to this project." So, as you insist others do, add the appropriate citations of the discussion/procedure in which SOMEONE was blocked for inappropriate behavior on WP, along with whatever evidence you have used to determine that person is, in fact, Janet Morris, or please withdraw the accusations. Hulcys930 (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has presented the evidence, which I find persuasive, on the Administrator's noticeboard Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to read my remarks as any criticism of Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's role here. His "issue" here is Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The talk page for this article is packed full of false accusations that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has a conflict of interest here. He doesn't. In fact, the editor claiming to be Janet Morris and the editors claiming to be contributors to the series are the ones who have a demonstrable conflict of interest here. Who knows if that editor really is Janet Morris, but if that's true, the conflict of interest is bald. Who knows if those other editors really are the authors, but if so, their conflict of interests are exposed by those disclosures. We have a procedure here, called WP:OTRS which allows editors to verify their real world identity in confidence. Any editor wanting to assert such a real world identity needs to go through that process, or be prepared to have their identity questioned and discounted here.

If the editor claiming to be Janet Morris denies connection with the indefinitely blocked editor mentioned by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, then we have highly experienced checkusers here who can determine whether or not those claims are true or false. Until then, experienced editors are likely to accept, at least provisionally, the assertions of an experienced editor like Hullabaloo Wolfowitz. All further arguments should be based on a deep and nuanced understanding of Wikipedia's over-arching policies and guidelines, not on the self-interested assertions of single purpose accounts and editors with a genuine conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to let everyone who hasn't received an Administrator's Noticeboard note that some of use have been accused of being sock puppets by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I checked the pages of everyone who I remembered as being involved here, and only some people got the notice, and curiously almost all of them were in opposition to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. It appears if he cannot win one way, he's going to win another. If you disagree with this type of gamesmanship I suggest you tell him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanTerrorist (talk • contribs) 06:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even for UrbanTerrorist, this an exceptionally weird complaint. As no one disputes, I notified everyone I was required to notify regarding the ANI complaint. To notify people not mentioned or otherwise involved in the subject of the complaint would probably have been a WP:CANVASS problem. I don't believe I've ever seen before an objection to an ANI for notifying only editors on the "other side" from the complainant. As a result of the complaint, Guarddog2 has admitted being an alternate account of the indef-blocked user Harmonia1, demonstrating that the complaint was valid and correct. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is technically true, in that the people he had made the complaint against were notified. However there were other people involved in this discussion, and they were not notified. I believe that they too had an interest in what was happening, as the outcome would affect them as well, so I made certain that they were notified by visiting their discussion pages and posting the notice directly to them. I also posted this on the discussion pages of other people who had been involved with the issue in the past. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you might deduce from my prior comments I, too, think that Dokzap's language is fine and you can add my support to the consensus growing in its favor. However, in light of the discussion ongoing at ANI, it would be inappropriate under the guidelines of this noticeboard to continue any further discussion here of the issues raised there, broadly construed, so I am asking as a neutral in this matter that all further discussion here be limited to the issue of the language to be used to relate Gilgamesh in the Outback to its various publications either to discuss the Dokzap proposal or to propose and discuss other language which an editor finds more suitable. I express no opinion about the matters raised at the ANI discussion, but would respectfully request that all further discussion of them take place at that forum, not here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I respect your efforts, I think you are dead wrong here. The templates and related documentation for WP:WikiProject Novels (which ought to be called WikiProject Fiction, since its scope has widened since it was named) call for identification of the first publication of each fictional work which is the subject of an article. In particular, the "Infobox: short story" template [23], which is used for all shorter-than-novel-length fiction, makes such information a standard infobox data field. There are no reliable sources contradicting the multiple sources I have provided and cited for the actual first publication. This dispute, to put it simply, is over the principle that Wikipedia is not censored to promote the economic interests of anyone, even if they recruit and cohort of their friends and colleagues to support their demand for a special exception from a general consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, any time someone edits a page of someone whom they know, even peripherally, they are attempting to use Wikipedia to sell something? Perhaps this is the fundamental problem - you BELIEVE that anything that even hints of a COI means someone is trying to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, even if that was not their intention at all, and you respond in a knee-jerk manner attempting to "protect" Wikipedia from people you assume are using it for profit, instead of contacting the person to determine their intent and, if they have made mistakes in editing, help them do it properly. It is really very sad that attitude has caused all this sturm and drang. Hulcys930 (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing of the kind. My comments relate to the particular circumstances of this case, and to Guarddog2/Janet Morris's comments thsn presenting the accurate, verifiable information reported in independent reliable sources about publication chronology would have an adverse impact on her eceonomic interests. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the sources cited do not show "first" or "original" publication. I apologize for repeating this observation, but I am trying to be thorough here in challenging an assumption which, on examination of the evidence, is wrong.05:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

Guys, a few things. First, if it's that much of a sticking point, you can just leave out the field in the infobox; it's not a big deal. Second, regardless of what you decide to put into the infobox, you can still use Dokzap's proposal for the article text. Third, seriously, if you look at which was published first, ignoring who may or may not have owned the story at the time (which isn't something our readers are going to care about anyway), it shouldn't be difficult to figure out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes in Hell, Gilgamesh in the Outback resolution

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.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (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?

I created an image gallery of the people on the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, including a scanned copy of their 1999 report on OTC Derivatives. Wizardman deleted this gallery. I restored it. He deleted it again. We exchanged messages on our talk pages. We disagree about the importance and/or appropriateness of the gallery. There may also be an issue with one of the 5 gallery pictures is a placeholder as there are no easily obtainable free images out there yet of one of the PWG members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000&action=historysubmit&diff=438444523&oldid=432115146

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000&action=historysubmit&diff=414095848&oldid=413237270

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Decora (talk · contribs)
Wizardman (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

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

We exchanged talk page messages.

How do you think we can help?

Decide if the content is appropriate, and whether it benefits the article or not.

Decora (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 discussion

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

I don't think zero posts on the talk page and a single user talk message entitled "Notice of intent to file arbitration dispute" can be reasonably construed as an attempt to resolve the dispute.

what kind of discussion could have been possible? he deleted the edits several times with no explanation, ("cleanup") and when i ask for an explanation, he basically said that the gallery was 'palceholders', something that i dont even understand, because only one of the 5 was a placeholder. not sure what more i am supposed to do before coming here. Decora (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But since we're here anyway, galleries are generally frowned upon, since they tend to be unnecessary and to clutter the page. This particular gallery does not, to me, appear to be a good use of images; the people pictured aren't even mentioned in the text and what they look like isn't relevant to the article. The gallery is also not well conceived: one of the members lacks a photograph, and one isn't a person at all. It appears that you might be confused about how sources are used at Wikipedia. A pdf does not have to be linked to as an image to be used as a source. Usually the citation of a document links to an online version of that document. The proper method of citing sources is described here. So list the members in the text and cite the report like one would with any other source document. Danger (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the people are, in fact, mentioned in the article numerous times. the whole article is about the arguments they made and the results of their work. Every time the articles references 'the PWG', it is referencing those four people - but there are no pictures of them in the article. The one man does not have a picture, but the same was true of the 1933 German Election page for several years, until someone added the missing pictures of the other candidates. the picture of the document is not a citation, it is a picture of the report they produced, the report that heavily influenced the creation of CFMA, and a report that is heavily referenced in the text of the article. Just as an article about a book might have a picture of the book, or a film would have a picture of the one sheet, or an article about a painting would have a copy of the painting, or an article about the nuremburg laws would have scans of the laws, or articles about the wannsee confereence has scans of the conference notes. it is illustration, not reference Decora (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misunderstood your intentions regarding the report scan. It's true that articles about artistic works usually include an image of the work. However, the report is not an artistic work and there's nothing distinctive about its appearance. Further, as far as I can tell, it is not the subject of the article. It might be appropriate to insert an image as normal (i.e. not in a gallery) in the article, but it certainly shouldn't be in a gallery of the members of the PWG. Regarding the images of the members, it might be appropriate to include images of individual members if their actions–as individuals, not the group as a whole–are discussed in the text. Otherwise they seem to be just decorative. --Danger (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a gallery seems necessary, I'm sure there's a way to make it without needing to add the placeholder. Having the pictures of those members split up throughout the article could help the article read better, since it is quite long. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decora, is splitting the gallery into individual images distributed through the article an acceptable solution for you? --Danger (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 resolution

Nazism

Nazism (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?

An editor (Darkstar1st), occasionally joined by others, is intentionally soapboxing and trying to destroy the integrity of both the article and the talk page, filling it up with obscure theories, non-RS comments, cherry-picked sentences taken out of context, and then deleting the actual RS in the article. When confronted on this, he talks in circles, and apparently does not understand the concepts of RS or Wikipedia in general, even though he's been a member for some time. I've had enough with him...as he is clinging to these wacky ideas that Nazism=Left Socialism...which is completely opposite of the accepted scholarly view of pretty much every educated person on the planet. He obviously has an agenda, and will not stop until there is some kind of "intervention." I've never had to ask for help like this before...but things are getting way out of hand.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

One user noted that Darkstar1st is also doing this in other related pages, such as Strasserism.

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)

I'm probably the user who noted the Strasserism issue. These articles aren't my usual turf, but in less than a day I've already seen some relentless POV-pushing by Darkstar1st, with cherry-picking of words from sources and no account of their context or meaning. It's not an impressive sight. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving the dispute

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

Both I, as well as TFD and Saddhiyama, have attempted to discuss these issues with him, but he is both unwilling and frankly...possibly "unable" to act in a rational manner.

How do you think we can help?

Anything would be great. He's ruining the work of a lot of people, and wasting all of our time by making us go through and undo all of his edits.

Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism discussion

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

I have come across Darkstar1st in the past. In this case he is persuaded that nazism is a form of socialism and has set up multiple discussion threads across a number of articles and presented numerous sources, none of which he has apparently read, that he believes supports his views. With his lengthy experience, he is aware of Wikipedia policy yet chooses to ignore it and waste the time of other editors. TFD (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism *is* a form of socialism. This is a historical and ideological fact. The article clearly states this several times, so this can hardly be what the dispute is really about. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is 'fact' according to some ideologies. If the article states this as fact, it is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is fact, full stop. Sorry. Seems like a dogmatic Darkstar1st has run into some dogmatic socialists that doesn't like the truth. This is as such not a content dispute but a failure of people to compromise because of dogmaticism from all sides. The best resolution here would probably be a topic ban for all of you, but I doubt that is going to happen. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd need to go to sources. The National Socialist Party is considered by the sources with which I am familiar a fascist rather that socialist organization, but I would not be surprised if other sources disagree. --Nuujinn (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that OpenFuture misunderstands the problem. 'Socialism' isn't a fact, it is an ideology (an idea in people's heads). There are no 'facts' regarding socialism beyond the fact that people believe in the concept - or don't. 'Truth' doesn't come into it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism is also sprung out of socialism. I think I have understood the problem spot on. Dogmatic people with opposing dogmaticisms, who all are right in some way, and therefore refuses to listen to the other side, who are also right in some way. Start listening to each other and you'll undoubtedly come to a consensus. It is as factual as any social science issue can be, but yes it is of course possible to view tat as not being factual at all, you are right. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is that supposed to help anyone "come to a consensus"? Insisting that anyone who disagrees with you is 'dogmatic' is hardly a constructive approach. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so stop doing that, is what I'm saying, and start listening to each other instead, as both sides here have valid points. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Socialism=Fascism or that Fascism/Nazism is in any way connected to the Left...is nothing but pseudohistorical gibberish, and is not accepted or promoted by any reputable sources. It's a modern Newspeak myth created by uneducated American Conservative talk show hosts to redefine the worst villains of the Far Right as being "really" Left-Wing, and is not even remotely applicable to Wikipedia standards. It would be funny if people weren't so gullible as to believe this kind of nonsense, which is comparable to Holocaust Denial. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And regardless of the indisputable fact of DarkStar1st being completely wrong in terms of history and politics...what he's done to the page, and also the talk page, is inexcusable, and a clear violation of a multitude of Wikipedia rules. These rules have been pointed out to him, but he continues to spam up the talk page with mountains of cherry-picked, irrelevant nonsense, treating it like a forum, and trying to drown out any dissent to his obscene conspiracy theories. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I thought the point was that Nazism is connected to socialism, not that Nazism is connected to "left". Those are different concepts. 2. If Darkstar1st is such a horrible vandal, what is this doing here? Start an RFC or an Arbcom case or something. This is for helping to settle disputes, not dealing with vandals or disruptive editors. I'm not sure where is best though, although it sounds like you need an RFC. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens when an editor is enamored of a particular source and demands to use it regardless of logic. Hayek's book was highly controversial even at the time (see this critical review for an example) and has very few supporters today. If the article has a section for discussing unorthodox viewpoints, it is not impossible that Hayek could be mentioned. However, citing him as a source of fact in the starting paragraphs is completely unacceptable. WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT both apply. Zero^talk 06:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is related to misuse of reliable sources in a large number of political articles, and the fault is not only on the side of Darkstar. When "quoting out of context" is used by one side, it is bad, by another side it is good, there is a continuing problem on many articles on Wikipedia. The issue of "fringe" is also a continuing problem, indeed, but in many articles, and this article is by far from the most problematic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to comment on Darkstar1st's behaviour as I have not been paying attention to his specific edits. What I would like to do is give some more general comments concerning the problems we have on these articles.

For as long as I have been vaguely keeping an eye on some articles related to Fascism and Nazism I have been seeing a regular stream of IP editors and disposable accounts who take it as almost axiomatic that Nazism, and sometimes also fascism, are of the political left. The root of their apparent belief seems to be a non-mainstream understanding of the nature of the concepts of left and right in politics from which they extrapolate their line on Nazism by a mixture of non-mainstream sources and outright original research. Admittedly the concepts of left and right have shifted throughout the history of their use and are not perfectly defined. There is legitimate disagreement on their precise definitions and usage but this attempted radical redefinition of left and right, which turns established usage on its head, is not part of that legitimate disagreement.

The editors pushing the POV have been, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively from the USA and it seems to me that there is a deliberate programme of language change going on there which does not seem to be a natural language shift but one driven by an American right wing political agenda. The agenda is to reassign all odious historical movements of the right to the left so that the left is tainted and the right gets to cover itself in flowers and kittens and never admit that it has a dark side, just as all things have. Wikipedia is not meant to be at the vanguard of language change, particularly not one that seeks to encode political assumptions into the language and render existing terminology useless/meaningless in a manner comparable to Orwell's Newspeak. The one thing I have found very hard to work out with the hit and run editors is whether we can assume good faith with them. Are these editors aware that they are engaging in propaganda or have they simply never read any mainstream history about Fascism and Nazism until they stumble over it on Wikipedia? Is somebody pointing them in our direction? The steady stream of IP editors makes me wonder. Each one turns up pushing the same arguments as the last, has the consensus explained to them on the talk page, argues for a bit and then melts away to be replaced by another IP editor. It is a bit of a Groundhog Day experience and it consumes time that we could be spending on more productive things. Intentional or not, it is disruptive to Wikipedia. Looking at this from the outside, in the UK, it is all very bemusing.

It is interesting to see some longstanding editors making similar points. I am happy to assume good faith with them although that doesn't stop me regarding OpenFuture's comments above as very fundamentally mistaken. I don't want to pick him apart line by line but he is entirely wrong to suggest that those who disagree with him are all "dogmatic socialists". Mainstream thinkers on the right recognise Nazism and Fascism as the darkest side of the right but as the left has learned to accept that Stalinism and Maoism are the darkest side of the left. I respect his right to hold a non-mainstream opinion but he should read WP:TRUTH.

The line on Nazism, which I was taught at school and which is followed by mainstream academics of varying political hues, is that Fascism and Nazism are of the right although they also incorporated some elements from the left. This the line taken by the Nazism article (except when it is being messed up) and is the line it should continue to take as its main thrust, unless academic consensus changes, which is highly unlikely.

Notable, non-mainstream views can be included with appropriate weight but must not be over-covered or passed off as mainstream. I suggest that this is where more discussion would be productive, rather than constantly, fruitlessly, revisiting the broad thrust of the article.--DanielRigal (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)"Mainstream views of left and right" is indeed one of the primary issues - with many current authors from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. on averring that the "left-right spectrum" is not easily applicable to some groups. In fact, the debate about the linear spectrum is mainstream. Schlesinger, by the way, is not generally associated with the "American right." So Wikipedia should, indeed, note that the whole idea of a simple spectrum is now questioned widely, and such questioning is mainstream and not "fringe." [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] and on and on. With the mainstream now questioning the use of a linear spectrum, I suggest that its emphasis be depracated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, talking about "left" and "right" is in general pointless as it doesn't have any meaningful definitions. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again: I agree that claiming that Nazism is on the left is complete nonsense. But that is very different from saying that it is a form of socialism. Those claims are not equal at all, and must not be treated as equal. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources I have read categorize nazism as form of socialism. TFD (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have provided you with plenty of sources on the topic, which reasonably should close this. The issue here isn't the view of Nazism, but the failure to keep the debate constructive on Talk:Nazism. Darkstar1st is only one of the culprits in that failure. IMO this can be close d now. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no reliable sources. You seem stuck on the Communist theory that Nazism developed from German Conservatism and are confused by the fact that liberals called Conservative policies "socialist". You are even providing Lenin as a source for your opinions. TFD (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism resolution

Nsibidi, Igbo language, Efik language

Nsibidi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Igbo language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Efik language (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?

A user is challenging whether nsibidi, an ideographic writing system, should be considered a writing system because in their opinion ideograms are not considered writing by some author or book. This is despite the fact that ideograms are considered writing here on wikipedia and on dictionary definitions; nsibidi is considered a writing system by every reliable source that is out there; there are other ideographic writing systems on wikipedia that are considered writing; and nsibidi itself has logographic elements, such as the character for the script itself.

The origin of this dispute is when the user edited the Igbo language page and, in their opinion, claimed that nsibidi should not be put into the writing systems section of the infobox because "nsibidi is not writing", when challenged about this the user went on to impose their opinions on the main article of nsibidi itself, despite editing it before all the disputes took place, back then they apparently didn't see a problem with it being called writing.

The user has used all the references they can get (2) to support their opinion that ideograms, and therefore nsibidi, are not writing. On their user talk they used a reference for nsibidi on the Igbo language page from the Smithsonian website that read:

Nsibidi is an ancient system of graphic communication indigenous to the Ejagham peoples of southeastern Nigeria and southwestern Cameroon in the Cross River region. It is also used by neighboring Ibibio, Efik and Igbo peoples. Aesthetically compelling and encoded, nsibidi does not correspond to any one spoken language. It is an ideographic script whose symbols refer to abstract concepts, actions or things and whose use facilitates communication among peoples speaking different languages.

When the user dug up this quote, they failed to read where nsibidi is described as a "script", can the readers please tell me of a script that is not considered writing? When I pointed this out, the user then dropped and forgot this reference and moved onto to a book that they had read where writing is supposed to be a certain way in the theory of the author. I didn't know wikipedia is the place to introduce new theories and opinions to argued over and disputed. I showed this user what the reliable sources defined writing as after they proceeded to describe to me what writing is, and how nsibidi could be a "writing system" but not "true writing".

First reference was Websters dictionary definition for writing which reads: "2 : something written: as a : letters or characters that serve as visible signs of ideas, words, or symbols" Just to be sure I gave wikipedias definition: "Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium through the use of a set of signs or symbols (known as a writing system). It is distinguished from illustration, such as cave drawing and painting, and non-symbolic preservation of language via non-textual media, such as magnetic tape audio." I explained that a body of symbols which includes a symbol for the name of the system itself is not cave drawing or illustration. The person started talking about road signs and 'no parking signs' being considered writing if nsibidi is considered writing, which is nonsense as road signs aren't used by the society to record their stories, court cases, and family matters.

All the points I have raised differentiating nsibidi from road signs can be argued, but on the nsibidi page there is this symbol: which was recorded with the specific name "Etak Ntaña Nsibidi" by Elphinstone Dayrell in 1910, just like the sign/symbol/character for nsibidi, and just like hundreds of others in these early 20th century MAN journals that were recorded with Cross River languages. I do not know a road sign in which its existence is to be linked to a specific word, unless there is, of course, writing on them, which many of them have. Again, why would a system like nsibidi have signs such as tortoise, such as sex, such as chief, killed, kill, will kill, solitary man, talk, and others, and place them side by side in order to narrate a story but are just 'road signs', are road signs known to be used to record court cases or love stories and letters? If so they should be investigated to see whether they are writing. The last issue with this comparison to road signs is with the numerical system of nsibidi, nsibidi has symbols that are used for counting which are similar to Roman numerals, (all these are in the references), road signs do not have separate symbols from the Hindu-Arabic numerals to describe numbers, unless I have missed something. Nsibidi was taught in schools also known as nsibidi houses, which is explained in the article (although the article is at its early stages). Every source on nsibidi describes it either as a script or writing system, so why should wikipedia be different because of a users opinion? Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopaedia and not a debating website?

The other issue is with the Igbo language article where the user has removed nsibidi as a writing system (alongside a Latin based orthography), and the user has resorted to redundant edits that do not have any solid reason. The user has claimed that it is not enough for the Igbo language infobox to name the standard form of Igbo as simply Igbo Izugbe (Standard Igbo), but would have to name the dialects that it is based off. The article itself explains the creation of Standard Igbo and all the user needs to do is to read the article to see that there are dozens of dialects that have gone into Standard Igbo to make it a pan-Igbo dialect itself, which makes it impossible to name every single dialect that went into the standard form in the infobox. What is wrong in simply calling it 'Standard Igbo'? That is its name as it is not a pre-existing dialect such as Standard German is.

On the Efik language, it is not and never will be the same language as Ibibio, they are closely related, yes, and they are under a dialect continuum that is named 'Efik', Ibibio itself is not a dialect of the Efik language, it is a language of the Efik language family, and this is because the Efik language, although a minority, became the dominant language of trade and was therefore attributed to the Ibibio-Anaang, et. al. The user is simply wrong in classifying Ibibio and Anaang and other languages in the Efik language family as a dialect of Efik. Please click this link to understand. As you can see the Efik language itself is under the Efik language family; Ibibio itself has its own dialects. The ironic thing about all this is that the user corrected me in the Igbo language article when I listed some Igboid languages as Igbo dialects, and the user is insisting on doing the same thing here on the Efik language and adding 'dubious' tags all over the article. There are even external arguments as to whether this family should be called Efik, or if Efik itself is even a dialect of Ibibio. Before challenging me on this I want someone to provide a reliable source apart from the highly flawed ethnologue that describes Ibibio as a dialect of Efik. This is completely ridiculous and can cause controversy across the communities. How can Efik that is argued to be from Ibibio be the parent language of Ibibio? The problem with all this is that much of this information has been taken from tertiary sources such as ethnologue and other encyclopaedia's. It's either all the languages under Efik as ethnologue describes are separated and the name for the group is explained as disputed, or the languages are considered dialects of the Efik-Ibibio-Anaang-Ukwa languages, instead of the controversial 'Efik'.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs)
Ukabia (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

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

Yes, and it has led to 'dubious tags'. It has been discussed here, here, and here.

How do you think we can help?

By relying on reliable resources for facts and not on opinion or new theories.

Ukabia - talk 19:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nsibidi, Igbo language, Efik language discussion

Yes, the solution is to follow RS's. Ukabia seems to be of the opinion that WP is a RS, and that, for example, Daniels & Bright, The World's Writing Systems, is 'opinion'. Ukabia is also engaging in OR: since Chinese and cuneiform are ideographic, and writing, therefore nsibidi, which is ideographic, must also be writing—either not understanding what 'ideographic' means, or the nature of Chinese and cuneiform. Daniels & Bright, and from what I remember other sources, are clear that in order to be considered a writing system, it must be able to represent language, so that a third party can read back a text (assuming they know the language). International pictorial icons used in the West therefore do not count as writing. Yukaghir love letters do not count as writing. Aztec and Zapotec codices do not count (though Mayan does). The Vinca "script" ("Old European") does not count. We speak of "civilization" being founded on the invention of writing, and philologists argue about whether it was the Sumerians or Egyptians who invented it. But ideographic systems existed all over the world, and long before Sumeria and Egypt. "Prehistory" is the time before writing. Using Ukabia's understanding, there is no prehistory.

Ukabia is correct about one thing, however: we do speak of other pictographic/ideographic systems as "writing", using a perhaps less strict definition of writing than we should. Editors have in the past tried to exaggerate nsibidi (that it's 5000 years old, etc.), which is why I've been strict with that article (we don't have Aztec or Yukaghir nationalists trying to exaggerate those "scripts"), but IMO it should be treated the same as these other systems. Note that there are dozens of such systems in use across Africa (which volumes on writing systems don't bother to cover), and there used to be in other parts of the world (and maybe still are). I think this is perhaps s.t. for Wikiprojects writing systems to discuss. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for Ibibio/Efik, some sources consider these a single language, some separate languages. Efik is a variety of Ibibio in the broad sense, but because of its cultural importance (it was chosen as the literary standard), the whole tends to be called 'Efik' rather than 'Ibibio', as Ukabia notes. Some call the Dachsprache 'Ibibio-Efik' to avoid the politics of choosing one or the other. I think this has been happening since the 60s. There have been disputes about this article before, and it has been moved back & forth between the names, but most of the complaints (from both sides) have involved rants and unilateral moves rather than intelligent discussion. It may be a good idea to split the article, though it contains so little info I'm not sure that is justified, but even if we do the debate over what to call the main article will probably continue (Ukabia says it's 'Efik', others say it's 'Ibibio', etc). — kwami (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said that Chinese and Cuneiform came from ideograms and still have many ideograms in them, if these early ideograms were considered the beginning of writing, then how are ideograms not writing, it doesn't make sense. I did not say Cuneiform and Chinese are ideograms. We've already had a discussion on the Writing system project talk page and a user (Christoph Päper) has already explained that the definition of writing varies among linguists and that ideograms very often are considered writing with some conditions:

Linguists (e.g. DeFrancis 1989) tend to equate writing with glottography, i.e. only if a set of symbols and rules is able to record any and every human language completely it is truly writing. A system that is restricted (not only in practice, but also in theory) to a limited set of languages, e.g. just one, is sometimes also considered writing. Also, since the line is often hard to draw, many scholars include pictographic or ideographic symbols under the notion of writing, if (and only if) they’re retained in a later writing system, e.g. Sumerian cuneiform was only used for labeling in the beginning.
Scientists from other disciplines, including paleography, typography, philosophy and more, as well as laypeople often have a laxer interpretation of the term writing. Famous cases of “semasiography” in question are, for instance, the Yukaghir love letter and the 53$ money order from Turtle-Following-His-Wife (cf. Sampson 198x). Rogers (2005) mentions Bliss as the only semantic writing system and IPA etc. as phonetic writing systems, but others would disagree.
Sometimes a linear sequence of symbols is considered necessary for writing, so no complex 2D structures.

The reliance on one source does not change dictionary definitions of writing. The reliance on one source does not change wikipedias countless references of ideograms as writing. On the same talk page I went further to explain logographic uses of the nsibidi script and how authors who recorded them described some as "names written", and went further to give native words for them like door, love, and Etak Ntaña. The user has not explained why there are specific words used for some 'characters', yes characters as Macgregor has described them. Bear in mind, ideograms whether 'true writing' or not, are still considered writing systems.

"But ideographic systems existed all over the world, and long before Sumeria and Egypt." None of them have a glyph for the name of the writing system itself described as "written" or names written in them with their original symbols.

"Note that there are dozens of such systems in use across Africa (which volumes on writing systems don't bother to cover), and there used to be in other parts of the world (and maybe still are)." There is no reliable source that claims these symbols to be writing. I've already given a source that compared nsibidi to a uli graphics and they were differentiated as writing and motifs. Every source in the nsibidi article notes nsibidi as a 'script' or 'writing system', but this is only up for debate because of your opinion with the excuse of one dubious edit that was undisputed and even had a source. You claim that I am practicing original research, yet you're the one using an authors definition of writing to negate the works of other authors who have studied nsibidi, yet the author you talk about didn't mention nsibidi once in their book, again you resort to original research by claiming this is a sign nsibidi is not writing. The nsibidi article isn't the only article on wikipedia where mistakes have been made, especially at stub level, there are featured articles with fallacies. Holding on to this past event has nothing to do with facts now. Can anyone show us any of the systems across Africa that early 20th century missionaries described its use as "that of ordinary writing" and that are still considered scripts? My guess is that there are none. Ukabia - talk 14:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make it clear that this is not an issue of whether nsibidi is "true writing" or not, but if nsibidi is a writing system. There are no arguments against nsibidi being a writing system. Ukabia - talk 15:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some references to nsibidi over some years

1968 "I have already mentioned various West African devices for transmission of thought (p. 7 f. and 11). Nsibidi or Nchibiddi or Nchibiddy seems to be the only true 'ideographic' script of the West African natives (Fig. 9.7)."

The alphabet: a key to the history of mankind, Volume 1. David Diringer (1968). Pg. 106.

1977 "The nsibidi signs used by secret societies in various language groups in southern Nigeria, eg the Igbo, Efik, and Ekoi, have been considered by some to be of a similar pictographic nature, but others have maintained it is true writing, based on either a logographic or syllabary system. Although nsibidi signs were first discovered by TD Maxwell as early as 1904, published accounts remain fragmentary and the available evidence seems insufficient to decide the matter one way or another. Adams adds an interesting detail that might be mentioned, viz. that the Arochuku people of this same general area and probably users of nsibidi, sent messages between villages by painting them on the bodies of the messengers themselves" [it has since been established that the people of Arochukwu not only use nsibidi, but trade ukara]."

Language in Africa: an introductory survey. Edgar A. Gregersen (1977). Pg. 176.

2000 "Formerly a ukara was not signed or marked, but one can now see in a corner of the cloth the owner's or maker's mark. There were however lodge identifications. […] It resorts to a myth remembered from the Efut by the Efik and is probably to some extent a reminiscence of an older Efik cult. Ukara is a cult object of a complex society open to external influences. […] The ownership of a ukara is of course essential for a mboko (leopard-man). In the middle of the 19th century, the missionary Waddel noted that 100 pounds sterling had to be paid to acquire the highest grade and obtain the right to wear the corresponding ukara. […] On close examination, a ukara reveals a rigorous arrangement of motives:"

The total depth of Ekpe symbolism on these cloths, although rich, cannot be entirely clarified on account of the discretion surrounding Ekpe rites and Nsibidi. (Cole & Aniakor: 1984, 61).

"Nevertheless, one can readily see that the motives function collectively like a poem in which most of the signifiers are repeated and reinforce the raison d'etre of the text and the object. […] Some are iconic and logographic, simply saying what they mean, either a proverb (the tortoise) or a text (the fish), which may be explained to the novice."

African writing and text. Simon P. X. Battestini (2000). Pg. 148.

2007 "Prior to Arabic (ajami) writing and later franco- or anglography, Emmanuel Obiechina mentions the existence of proto-literate "ideo-diffusion" scripts like Bamum Vaï and Oberi Okaime as well as the Yoruba “Aroko“ system, Ewe ideographs and Igbo chalk marks as underdeveloped ideographs, unlike the Nsibidi script, “the only true ideographic script in West Africa,” whose development, he speculates, was arrested by the introduction of Western writing in West Africa; "Groweth of Written Literature by the introduction of Western writing in West Africa," Présence africaine 66 (1968): 58-60."

The African palimpsest. Chantal Zabus (2007). Pg. 23. Ukabia - talk 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating stuff indeed. As the opinion of a non-involved non admin who found much of the above TL;DR, this seems to me to be mostly a case of definitions. What is a "script", what is a "writing system", what is a "language", etc. And I agree the only way to determine that is to look for consensus in reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood OpenFuture. I am surprised that this is considered a debatable issue partly because of the advice you've given. The dispute has turned to whether reliable sources consider ideograms writing or not, when the real focus is whether nsibidi is a writing system or not. Every source mentioning nsibidi more than suggests that it is. For this to be debatable there should be another array of reliable sources conflicting with the status of nsibidi as a writing system, or a generally noticeable debate, yet no one has brought up anything that says nsibidi is not a writing system, or that nsibidi as a writing systems itself is being debated. The only debate that seems to be going on outside wikipedia is as to what type of writing system nsibidi is as demonstrated above, whether pictographic, ideographic, logographic, syllabic or whatever else. Sources suggest that it is a mixture of pictograms, ideograms, and logograms as the nsibidi article already notes. This whole dispute seems more like the opinion of one user against reliable sources. What exactly are we looking for apart from sources to sort this dispute out? Is wikipedia not an tertiary encyclopaedia relying on published sources? Ukabia - talk 02:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Nsibidi, but from both of your descriptions here I get the impression that this is not an open and shut case. Based on the quotes that Ukabia has provided above it would seem that Nsibidi has some writing-system-like aspects, but based on Kwami's argument this may not be enough to qualify it as a true writing system. As always, the way to settle this one is to look to the sources. Kwami mentioned Daniels & Bright, and when I did a cursory Google search I found this book review which suggests that it is an authoritative text that cannot be easily ignored. I suspect the best wording will ultimately be something like "authoritative texts such as Daniels & Young do not classify Nsibidi as a writing system, but some scholars have suggested otherwise". However, whether my suspicion is right or not will involve finding which sources are authoritative, and how the claims are weighted in the sources. We will only really know what to put in the infobox after we have done that research first. I agree with the suggestion of talking about this at WikiProject Writing Systems - it seems like a good place to start. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have RS's mentioning that it has been claimed that nsibidi is writing (no source is ever mentioned), but we have no RS's that it actually is writing. Ukabia is engaging in OR and synthesis, and does not understand the basics of what a writing system is. There are many systems like nsibidi around the world, and in our history of writing article we were careful not to say they were writing. (Until Ukabia added nsibidi to that article and started revert warring over the claim that it is writing.) Of course, it may turn out that nsibidi is an ideographic writing system, but since we have RS's that such a thing is not possible, that claim would require good sourcing. Or that it's not ideographic after all, despite all of the accounts that it is. Again, we require good sourcing. D&B mention 16 indigenous scripts in West Africa, and don't mention any contention: they're simply accepted as writing. Nsibidi is not. — kwami (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniels & Brights' book was not created to cancel out certain writing systems that didn't meet their criteria of writing. How are we going to talk about research and sourcing in one paragraph and then later make a conclusion based off of nothing? Its a good thing I read the review because now it seems that the section of the book that supposedly went into depth on African writing systems (and snubbed nsibidi) was actually a part of the book dedicated to "the invention of writing in modern times", focusing on the N'Ko alphabet and Vai syllabary and spending one or two paragraphs on the Bamum script and not even mentioning the Ajami script. Do we proceed to put on trial all the African scripts confined to the footnotes (like the Kpelle syllabary) or even completely absent (like the Mandombe alphabet et. al.)? What are the 16 African scripts mentioned, and how many paragraphs are they each given? This is not to talk of other scripts that may have been left out. It doesn't make sense that with all the sources describing nsibidi as writing, the authors didn't think to debunk the "myth" and ignored the maturing topic altogether, unless, of course, they didn't even mention the topic of pre-Latin African writing systems at all. Daniels & Bright would be a good source to prove nsibidi not to be writing if they had defined it themselves in a part of the book dedicated to the many pre-Latin African symbols and glyphs, instead, the reasons for its elision from the book is up for guess work. Ukabia - talk 08:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To call anything a writing system or writing we need reliable sources directly mentioning that claim. I've also emailed Daniels asking for sources but I don't know if he's around (we've corresponeded in the past).Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Now I realise you only have my word that this is what Daniels says, but given that, here it is. He isn't familiar with Nsibidi but says "Ukabia is quite mistaken about the meaning of "ideographic," since Ukabia claims that Chinese and "cuneiform" have "ideographic elements." He notes, and I whole-heartedly agree, that general-purpose dictionaries are not useful sources for the meaning of technical terms. He goes on to say that "The reason for excluding ideographies from "writing" is that if you're going to include all visual semasiographic systems as "writing," you're going to need a different term for "true writing" anyway, so why not use the traditional one, instead of letting some _other_ communication system have the "exalted" term "writing" applied to it? Why does Ukabia want to call Nsibidi "writing," if it doesn't act like any other writing system? Why isn't Ukabia pleased that Nsibidi is (apparently) a semasiographic system that transcends a single language and (apparently) functions for speakers of every language in the world? (For if it's ideographic, is is not bound to any single language -- as mathematical notation is not bound to any single language but can be read off in any language that has mathematical vocabulary.)" In a 2nd email he notes that "If Dalby didn't mention it, it probably either could not possibly be confused with writing, or else is so obscure that it was unknown to the principal specialist in the field of the second half of the 20th century." Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is appreciated Dougweller. If you don't mind, can you please ask Daniels what he thinks (even if it's just an educated guess) of Battestini's (2000) claim that "some [nsibidi symbols] are iconic and logographic, simply saying what they mean, either a proverb (the tortoise) or a text (the fish), which may be explained to the novice.", and Elphinstone Dayrell's (1911) labelling of nsibidi symbols like "Nsibidi name written"; a label for a symbol simply named "Okereuki" (this was under a section he called Inde, probably an Igbo sub group; "Okereuki" is very likely the Igbo name Okereke, but I'll leave that to the author), the labelling of abstract glyphs with 'native' names like the bunch of bananas 'Etak Ntaña'; "The 'Nsibidi sign for welcome"; J. K. Macgregor's note on another name which was made up of two corrupted Latin letters and one generic nsibidi sign; and just the general use of logographs among all the ideograms. I say all this because it wasn't intended for this dispute to be over whether ideograms are writing systems or not, this is partly because of the way I phrased some things and how the article was worded (ideographic writing system), but the main issue is whether nsibidi is writing or not and why all the sources that note nsibidi's dynamic use as ideograms, logograms and possibly (although I doubt this myself) syllabary/mora are wrong. Ukabia - talk 16:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I'd rather not. Among other things he isn't familiar with it, and I'd rather not wear out my welcome with him. He did read this board. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a little more chance to look into this now, and I have to say that I agree with what Kwami has been saying all along. It is quite easy to find references to Nsibidi as a writing system, but these appear to be informal usage and generally occur in books on signs and symbolism or other non-specialist sources, rather than in specialist linguistic sources. To add to Daniels & Bright, Nsibidi also doesn't make an appearance in the three other writing system encyclopedias I found on Google Books.[30][31][32] The most telling source I found was this one, which refers to Nsibidi as a "protoliterate system":

All these scripts - the Nsibidi, the Bamum, the Vai, and the Oberi Okaime - could be regarded as protoliterate systems, in the sense in which Kramer uses the term to describe the Sumerian phase of writing in Lower Mesopotamia when writing was first invented, rather than the sense in which Goody and Watt use it to refer to the fully developed Sumerian, Egyptian or Chinese systems, which, though restricted to a relatively small proportion of the population, of an elite literati, were already being utilized for religious, administrative, and technological purposes. The Bamum, Nsibidi, and Vai scripts obviously showed considerable promise of further development, but their rather limited and local application meant that they were doomed in the face of the advancing cosmopolitan Western and Arabic scripts.

I think this all indicates that we should avoid calling Nsibidi a writing system. I suggest using something like "protoliterate system" instead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I understand why the absence of nsibidi in the books you provided could be seen to mean that the authors do not consider it writing, even when some other systems are not mentioned. What I don't understand is why nsibidi is grouped with syllabary systems in the Obiechina book while the other books consider them writing, but this book calls them protoliterate...

But, I agree with 'protoliterate'. To put the issue of nsibidi to a rest (because there seems to be differing views as to what nsibidi is, whether from indirect sources or from its early exposure), the script should be left as saying 'nsibidi is a protoliterate system of symbols that has yet to be determined to be a system of ideograms, of logograms, or less likely a syllabary.' I don't know about "less likely" but I think this is fair because 1. all the sources mentioning it directly, (including the early documenters) describe it as a "writing system" and there apparently aren't any recent sources that deal with its status as a writing system, these same sources call it "ideographic", so we'd have to drop that as well, and 2. there is no bias in the sentence towards nsibidi being a writing system or not. This is better than saying "a set of written ideographic symbols (claimed by some to be a writing system, either logographic or even a syllabary)" for the reasons above. It's more obvious now that nsibidi hasn't been given any of the recent special attention that it needs.

The issue of the Efik language and Igbo Standard is still open. Ukabia - talk 00:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did say that I didn't know anything about nsibidi, so I don't think I can help you regarding its relation to the other syllabary systems (at least not without doing a lot more research). I'm glad that you're happy with "protoliterate" though. Let's see what Kwami thinks of your wording suggestion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what does "proto-literate" mean? He says Vai is "protoliterate", yet Vai is a true writing system (a syllabary), so evidently it has nothing to do with the nature of the script itself, which is what we're debating. We'll need to ask the writing-systems project whether they want to call systems "scripts" when they are not true writing, but meanwhile we have numerous recent sources that nsibidi is ideographic, and none that it is anything else. Even Ukabia is of the opinion that it's ideographic. "Proto-writing" would be fine: that's the term we've been using for such systems, one which is defined, and defined as precisely the kind of system our refs say that nsibidi is. — kwami (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we want to use defined terms, and "proto-writing" is obviously better than "proto-literate" if the former is in wide use but the latter isn't. If Ukabia is also happy with this, great. If not, I think we should take the debate to WikiProject Writing Systems as I am definitely showing my ignorance of the subject here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S/he placed it in the 'proto-writing' section of the history of writing article, but then insisted that we treat it as a full writing system. — kwami (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Efik language

The Efik article is incorrect because it notes Ibibio, as well as other languages, as a dialect of Efik, which it is not. The issue was not whether the language family was called Efik or Ibibio, but with the Efik language being portrayed as a language of the whole of the Cross River, which it's not (an official language of Akwa Ibom State is Ibibio and not Efik for example), only the language family is conveniently called Efik because of historical reasons. The article should therefore inform readers that this is not the Efik language but the Efik language family, this will stop disputes from Ibibio language speakers who do not consider their language Efik, and rightly so, because the opposite seems to be the debating point. The page should be called Efik language family, and it should note down the languages under it, including Efik and Ibibio, as languages, not dialects. If there should be an Efik language article it should be done under the 'Efik language' which is under the Efik language family (as described by ethnologue). It is dubious to link Ibibio language to the Efik language. Ukabia - talk 14:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dialect cluster variously called 'Ibibio', 'Efik', 'Ibibio-Efik', and even 'Central Lower Cross'. It's been moved around on WP; until a few months ago, it was at "Ibibio", where I had moved it some time ago, but a good case was made that "Efik" is the more appropriate name, so I moved it there. Regardless, this cluster consists of several varieties, several called 'Ibibio' and one called 'Efik'. Some sources consider these varieties of a single language (Efik is the standard variety for all of them), others that they are distinct. This is a bit like Serbian vs Croatian vs Serbo-Croatian: no matter which name we choose, someone objects that it's "oppressing" them. If we go with Ukabia's wishes, we'll simply upset someone else. AFAICT, there is no one right answer, so it's a matter of what our sources say, not what Ukabia wants to be true. — kwami (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the disputes from native speakers are not based on the name of the language group itself, but the idea of Efik being a language that Ibibio, as well as other languages, are a dialect of. The Efik language family (or maybe Efik languages) article can explain the issue with its naming and this would be an easier way to appease the speakers. There are already external disputes, as I said, as to whether Efik is a dialect of Ibibio, but I've already said that I have no problem with the language family being called Efik, but this has to clarified to the reader. If there were to be an 'Efik language family' article and then separate pages for the languages under it then the native speakers would be happy to have their language articles pop up whenever they do a search. This issue is similar to Ikwerre of which a large amount of speakers are displeased with any classification of it as an Igbo dialect, yet there has been little controversy over it being under the Igboid languages; of course there are sources that say Ikwere is a dialect of Igbo, but this has not been a problem. Efik and Ibibio are not considered the same language in Nigeria itself (list of languages in Nigeria, Efik language family), added with the strong ethnic identities that these groups have, it would be better to give the languages a chance to be separate articles under the 'Efik language family'. Another reason to clarify the difference between the language family and Efik is for the sake of other articles, especially those dealing with history, say, for example, the Aro confederacy which historically used Igbo and Ibibio. If we have Ibibio linking to the Efik language, or imply that Ibibio is a dialect of Efik, then this will just cause a whole lot of confusion. Ukabia - talk 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone had bothered to write separate articles on Efik-proper and Ibibio-proper, that would be different. But no-one has. Lots of complaints, but no willingness to do the work required to resolve the issue. Meanwhile we have one language article, so that's the language article. And while your claim may be true, you have not provided good refs for it: Ethnologue divides varieties into 'languages' based on their requirements for scripture, which very often does not reflect what others consider separate languages. Many linguists comment that many of what E counts as 'languages' are not considered languages by anyone else. Meanwhile we have plenty of sources that treat them as a single language. There is therefore nothing wrong with presenting them that way. If you want things to be different, then write up separate articles for the various varieties of Ibibio-Efik. — kwami (talk)

As for Igbo, we have refs, though unfortunately not very complete ones, about Igbo dialects. There are also lists of various cities, all of which are said to be "dialects", but of course they won't be equidistant. We need a dialectological account of Igbo. We have conflicting accounts of what the standard is based on; these portray a history of flitting from one dialect to another, but I suspect it may actually be that the standard has not changed, only the names for what it's based on. But it is unencyclopedic to say it's based on 'Central' Igbo, when Central Igbo is not one of the options among the dialects we list. — kwami (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central Igbo is gone, Standard Igbo has taken its place. Standard Igbo isn't based on Standard Igbo, but many pre-existing dialects. I thought the "standard forms" section of the infobox is asking for the name of the standard form instead of the dialects it's based on, otherwise there are a lot of dialects that need to be added to that section, and as you said, there are already conflicting accounts of what they are. I think it's better to leave it as 'Igbo Izugbe (Standard Igbo)', and if needed add it to the dialects list, and then leave the article to expand on what it is. Ukabia - talk 19:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Standard Igbo" is fine, as long as we define what it is. Otherwise the term is meaningless. We can explain it in the text instead of the box, but we need to explain it somewhere. Also, I rather doubt it's based on "a lot" of dialects. Apart from minor elements of vocab, very few standard languages are, and when somebody says they are (see Filipino language, which is simply standardized Tagalog, but which the govt falsely insists is based on all of the languages of the Philippines), that's usually political BS rather than reality. Igbo may be an exception, but we'd need a good ref. — kwami (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nsibidi, Igbo language, Efik language resolution

Kyle Bartley‎

Kyle Bartley (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 is a content disupte over whether this footballer had one or two spells at a certain club; I have directed the two users in question to the article's talk page, where I have listed my evidence and opinion, and welcomed other input - none has been forthcoming. This is degenerating into a slow, lame edit war, with neither party willing to discuss.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Resolving the dispute

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

Posted (twice!) on both user's talk pages requesting comment, as well as iniating a discussion on the article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Encourage the editors in question to use the article talk page to reach consensus, rather than blindly reverting one another.

Giant Snowman 21:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bartley‎ discussion

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

It looks like Wicka wicka (talk · contribs) had made his opinion about discussions very clear. Giant Snowman 21:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see Wicka wicka has since joined in the discussion at Talk:Kyle Bartley, so I don't think any more action is required here. I don't see this as anything more than a new user not being familiar with Wikipedia's many rules and guidelines, and I think we should try and give them the benefit of the doubt. I have left a little note on their talk page about the three-revert rule and consensus, just to make them aware of the relevant policies. Hopefully this should be enough to nudge them in the right direction. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had already posted on their wall about 3RR and edit-warring - which they then removed. Many thanks for posting again though, hopefully this can be sorted ASAP. Giant Snowman 15:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and he has also reverted your offer of help. Giant Snowman 16:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...aaaaand now been blocked. Giant Snowman 18:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I should probably have looked for that. If the edit warring continues after the block expires then we can have another think about what to do. I would suggest posting here if it's not severe or at WP:3RRN if it is. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 20:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's monitor developments for when the block expires, which should be soon. Giant Snowman 18:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bartley‎ resolution

User talk:mugginsx

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.

User talk:Mugginsx (edit | subject | 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?

At this diff I asked User:Mugginsx about a possible conflict of interest because of his/her repeated statements on a talk page about how he was a legal professional and therefore he knew best. S/he didn't answer there but discussed it an inappropriate forum. Today I shared some comments on the COI issue I got from someone else, i.e., it being more POV/Bias and problems with demanding we believe personal interpretations of video over that of multiple WP:RS. S/he deleted that section, leaving just my original comment. I then deleted my whole comment, which s/he reverted.

I couldn't find exact guidance for this situation under either Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines or Wikipedia:User_talk_page but I get the impression a) s/he has a right to delete or archive my whole comment, but not part of it (unless grossly offensive and insulting which it wasn't). And I have a perfect right to remove my own comment s/he never responded to. Thoughts on this narrow issue of removal and not the whole WP:COI discussion itself? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Carolmooredc (talk · contribs)
Mugginsx (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

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

This should be a fairly clear cut policy matter - yet I cannot find exact policy statements, only easily debateable ones, so rather than debate ad nauseum with this individual I thought I'd bring it to some experts.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully a quick resolution is possible.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:mugginsx discussion

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

This discussion is limited to the additions and deletions to Mugginsx's talk page. It is not about the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of any claims of legal expertise made by the involved editors or about the particular edits under discussion at the BLP noticeboard. With that limitation understood, I can find no discussion of those additions and deletions. The guidelines of this noticeboard say, "This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page." Therefore, I believe that this dispute is not ripe for consideration here.

Let me say, however, that

Per the WP:TPO guideline it is considered to be improper to edit or move another editor's comments for the purpose of changing their meaning, regardless of where those comments were made, even on one's own talk page, with quite a few exceptions set out there (none of which would appear to apply here).
Subject to that limitation, the WP:REMOVED guideline says that except for a few specific limitations set out there (which appear, again, to be inapplicable here) that a user may generally choose to remove any or all comments from his/her talk pages or blank them altogether. (It is to be noted, however, that removal constitutes acknowledgement that they have been read.)
There is no rule governing removal of one's own comments from a talk page other than one's own talk page, only a best practice saying that it is frowned upon. While that is contained in a guideline, it is clearly described as a best practice, not as something which must not be done.

Though it's a long and involved argument, the main difference between a policy and a guideline is that it is much more difficult to get yourself blocked or banned for violation of a guideline than it is for violation of a policy. Unless you can show how Mugginsx's additions and deletions from his/her talk page were clearly and obviously intended to change the meaning of something you had said there, you are probably not going to get anywhere with this issue.

Unless you can point me to some discussion on this issue, I will either close this discussion or allow it to roll off to the archive in a couple of days. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transporterman: The edits are all in the same section "Conflict of Interest with paralegal job?" and were made by CarolMooredc on different days and different times and I have NOT revised any of her edits on my personal Talk page. I deleted them except for one paragraph made days earlier in response to ANOTHER noticeboard about me that she creating last week http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS . That original edit, was made days before and retained in FULL. That noticeboard she created refers to a difference of opinion of a possible wp:BLP violation on a paragraph in the article and possible defamation in the references she used in that paragraph as well as the paragraph itself back in July 2011. I invite you to look at the diffs on my talk page to confirm this. I was advised by veteran editors not to respond further to CarolMooredc's continuing personal comments to me on my Talk page and I found that was good advice and I took it. In my opinion these noticeboards are being used to get attention and harass I am not going to participate further except to show you the respect of answering and invite you to my talk page to see the truth. I am in good standing with Wikipedia and have never been blocked. I have nothing to hide. Mugginsx (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not informed of the above alleged "harassment", but obviously had a feeling that Mugginsx would not reply and that is why I brought it here. I think the policy has been made clear but will not bother to go further, except perhaps to save the comments to my archives for future reference. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:mugginsx resolution

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.

List of hentai authors

List of hentai authors (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 majority of the content was deleted under claims of unsourced entries.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Alucardbarnivous (talk · contribs)
TheFarix (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussed the issue in the article's discussion board and with the user on my talk section.

How do you think we can help?

Establish if the deleted entries are sourced or otherwise.

Alucardbarnivous (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of hentai authors discussion

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

Well, it looks like what TheFarix has done here is removed all the entries that are redlinks, not all the entries that are unsourced. If he had removed all the unsourced entries then there would be no list left, as there is not a single source for the whole article. What TheFarix has done is actually fairly lenient - we have strict standards for any mentions of living people on Wikipedia, as you can see if you read the page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Being accused of being a hentai author when you are not one could be very damaging for some people, so it's important for Wikipedia's reputation that we minimise the risk of this happening. The biographies of living persons policy that I linked to above says that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". There is only one realistic way to solve this dispute in my opinion, and that is to cite every entry in the list so that they follow Wikipedia policies. If not, then I think we should reduce the size of the list even further. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of hentai authors resolution

Zaza people

Zaza people (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?

This article contains subjective POV and ethnocentric content. User:Wikisupporting added an ethnocentric point of view, which contains POV materials, using reference which does not correspond to the content #[33]. And more seriously, apart from adding POV material, the user is erasing other academically referenced sources about different theories. Another serious matter is that this user not only ignores but most importantly prevents other users editions, by erasing other objective, impartial and politically neutral academic theories about this article and engaging in edit wars, with other registered users on this. Unfortunately this user is abusing and violating Wikipedia policies, and his/her edition was restored before the Zaza people article became fully protected. Importantly that this article be able to be edited and monitored by users who are knowledgeable on this topic and non-political and neutral.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Resolving the dispute

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

I wanted to edit this article, but due to the edit wars between the above mentioned users, the article has been fully protected indefinately.

How do you think we can help?

This article should be able to be edited and monitored by users who are knowledgeable on this topic and non-political and neutral. The article should not be fully protected indefinately, but semi-protected for certain periods, because fully protecting this article did not solve the dispute and the controversial content is still present.

Menikure (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zaza people discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. This is now at WP:RSN and Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality and Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and was added to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement but removed as inappropriate. A request at WP:RPP for semi-protection with similar comments on an editor was declined. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I don't think it belongs here at all. I just checked and discovered that Menikure (talk · contribs) has never tried to discuss this on any talk page and indeed that Menikure has never responded to comments on his/her own talk page. At the top of this board it says "This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page.". I'm suggesting that this be taken to Talk:Zaza people. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zaza people resolution

Referred back to the article talk page due to lack of any discussion. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Menahem Lonzano

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.

Menahem Lonzano (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?

Menahem Lonzano was created in 2008: [34], and was described as being a "Palestinian Masoretic and midrashic scholar".

In Nov 2010 an IP removed the word “Palestinian”: [35]

In April 11, I add category “Palestinian rabbis”: [36] and Debresser removed it: [37]

On May 1, SD re-adds this category: [38] and later on May 11, Debresser removes it again: [39]

In June 11, after a month and a half of debate I re-add the cat: [40] and Debresser immediately removes it again: [41]

After a successful Afd, I link “Palestinian rabbi”: [42] and Debresser reverts: [43]

10 days later after consensus is reached at wikiproject, I re-link: [44] and Debresser straight away reverts: [45].

I am not sure how to go about his when Debresser says adding "Palestinian rabbi" is against consensus, while there were 6 people involved with the word Palestinian on this page. Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, SD and I opted for the term, while an IP, a blocked sock and Debresser removed it. That is besides all the other editors who have edited the page in-between and have left the term, (Sbowers3, Attilios, FeanorStar7, מרכז מידע הר הזיתים, Davshul, Ulric1313, Dsp13.) So if I do my math right, that makes 10 against 1. Still no consensus?

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Chesdovi (talk · contribs)
Debresser (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

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

This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism after an Afd on Palestinian rabbi passed as Keep. In that thread, the ony person to oppose use of the term was Debresser.

How do you think we can help?

By explaining to Debresser that the term "Palestinian rabbi" has been accepted by a majority of the community at the Afd discussion and can therefore be used on all relevant pages.

Chesdovi (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Menahem Lonzano discussion

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

Comment by Debresser (talk · contribs)

This article is part of a long and wide conflict, as can be seen at WP:AE#Chesdovi.

Please do not let Chesdovi fool anybody as though this is an issue involving only one page, or that I would be the only editor disagreeing with Chesdovi. Chesdovi is trying push a certain POV with manifold edits through all namespaces, introducing the word "Palestinian" where it is out of place. Note that this editor is currently under an edit restriction from WP:ARBPIA, which I think should be a red flag here. Debresser (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the way to solve this conflict is that Chesdovi should voluntarily stop editing any and all articles with the word "Palestinian" even near it. That is to say, even if that WP:AE thread doesn't force him to do so. After things have cooled down a little, let's say in another month or three, he could open a discussion at WP:CENTRAL where he could try and establish consensus for his innovative and so far non-consensus edits. For the moment, his many non-consensus edits and exhausting discussions at all possible venues (his talkpage, Rfc, Cfd, Drv, Afd, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, and various article talkpages) have so much worn out editors, that nobody even replies to any of his posts involving the term "Palestinian", causing Chesdovi to falsely claim consensus, apparently. Debresser (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Menahem Lonzano resolution

The making of this request would appear to violate Chesdovi's topic ban here background here against editing "all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces". Chesdovi's interpretation of this ban to mean only those articles, discussions, and other content specifically about that conflict is currently the subject of a new request for arbitration enforcement against him here. If that request should be determined in his favor, then he should feel free to relist this discussion here, but until then I am going to close it as improperly filed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

IOUF -- re: Gulabe Kothari

Intercultural Open University Foundation (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 is a disagreement regarding the notability of a graduate of this university foundation. I believe the individual is notable and the other party believes they are not.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

Arnoutf (talk · contribs)
Thomanq (talk · contribs)

Resolving the dispute

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

Yes, we have discussed this on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Please step in and end the edit war.

Thomanq (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IOUF -- re: Gulabe Kothari discussion

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

IOUF -- re: Gulabe Kothari resolution

@@ Line 714: / Line 714: @@
 ==Menahem Lonzano==
+{{DRN archive top|Improperly filed. — [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 15:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)}}
 * {{pagelinks | Menahem Lonzano}}
@@ Line 760: / Line 761: @@
 The making of this request would appear to violate [[User:Chesdovi|Chesdovi's]] topic ban [[User_talk:Chesdovi#Topic_ban|here]] [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Chesdovi|background here]] against editing "all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces". Chesdovi's [[User_talk:Chesdovi#Joseph.27s_Tomb_2|interpretation]] of this ban to mean only those articles, discussions, and other content ''specifically about'' that conflict is currently the subject of a new request for arbitration enforcement against him [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Chesdovi|here]]. If that request should be determined in his favor, then he should feel free to relist this discussion here, but until then I am going to close it as improperly filed. — [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 15:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
+{{DRN archive bottom}}
 ==IOUF -- re: Gulabe Kothari==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards