Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Wolf	Closed	Nagging Prawn (t)	30 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	Closed	Randomstaplers (t)	26 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 hours
Double-slit experiment	Closed	Johnjbarton (t)	9 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	Closed	Wolfdog (t)	7 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	6 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 hours
Genocides in history (before World War I)	New	Jonathan f1 (t)	1 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Cdjp1 (t)	21 hours
List of prime ministers of Sri Lanka	New	DinoGrado (t)	2 hours	None	n/a	DinoGrado (t)	2 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 09:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

La Luz del Mundo

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by Fordx12 on 15:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• La Luz del Mundo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fordx12 (talk · contribs)
• RidjalA (talk · contribs)
• Ajaxfiore (talk · contribs)
• WikiNuevo (talk · contribs)
• Darkwind (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

RidjalA believes that content in the Controversy section and the Discrimination section is not relevant or shouldn't be included. Such information provides other POV's to the accusations listed in the "Rape accusations" subsection of the article. He also wishes to include a source that has been declared unreliable or unusable by an RfC located here [1]. A past RfC located here [2] stated that the controversy section should be removed, or it should be merged with the Discrimination section and turned into a "Public image" section.

A past editor who started a dispute between Wikinuevo and Ajaxfiore brought about this discussion which has routes in a past dispute discussed in this noticeboard [3]

RidjalA and Ajaxfiore do not agree on the location of the "Silver Wolf Ranch" subsection. One believes it to belong in the controversy section, another believes it to belong in another section as "Scrutiny." This is based on whether or not the Silver Wolf Ranch subsection is a "controversy."

I believe that the discrimination section should be refined for easier reading, and it does not have undue weight. All content described here [4] is relevant and should be included in the rape accusation section, and that the controversy section should be changed as stated in the RfC. I believe that if a Public Image section is made, all sections in question would belong there.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked RidjalA on his talk page to refrain from discussing perepheral issues such as accusations against me and another of being part of a conspiracy and concentrate on the content here [5] and his. The talk page, and its archives, is filled with ongoing discussions on the subject. I do not believe that we are able to respect each other's opinions and thus this DRN would help alleviate that issue.

How do you think we can help?

You can provide a fresh viewpoint by helping us consider the content in question. Is Silver Wolf Ranch section a controversy? Is the paragraph RidjalA mentioned irrelevant with the rape accusations subsection of the article? Is the Discrimination section in violation of any wiki policy? How should editing in these areas progress? How should we react in light of past RfC's mentioned here?

Your opinions, input, and mediation will help us respect a consensus as opposed to accusing each other.

Opening comments by RidjalA

Firstly, I'd like to thank you (Fordx12 and/or whoever else got this started) for issuing this resolution. I'll try to be as brief as possible.

The book in question is found at academic libraries like this one, so I don't know where they're getting the notion that this book is not a valid source nor that it was never published. Further, its findings are backed up by the L.A. Times. I'd like to point out that Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore have gone through suspiciously exhaustive lengths at discrediting this author (an initial rfc created by these two guys a few months back resulted in them being called out for the great lengths they've taken this here). Perhaps they should be a little more careful if they don't want to come off as being paid editors on behalf of La Luz del Mundo.

For the past year now, Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore have in an Orwellian fashion attempted to silence me for procluding their progress in ridding the article of its data and sources that bring to light numerous controversies. Certainly, like all other religious articles with their respective controversy sections, we have ensured that the information is balanced. So I don't agree that we should do away with this religion's controversy section.

As for the rfc to merge the controversy section with another section (or to do away with it altogether), no solid consensus was ever established; opinions were all over the place, and I'm not comfortable with Fordx12's hasty proclamation here that we should proceed to do away with the controversy section anyway.

And whether or not the Silver Wolf Ranch Controversy belongs in the controversy section has been established by an uninvolved 3o after Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore first attempted to remove that section. Here, that 3o helped us establish that there exists a "genuine controversy" surrounding Silver Wolf Ranch and that it should suffice for it to stay.

Finally, the antithesis to the controversy section that these guys created (the "Discrimination" section) is loosely based on quarrels between locals and church members following a political disagreement, and not about religious-based discrimination like the section tries to convey. There's undue weight there in my opinion. Same goes for this chunk of info here.

Respectfully yours, RidjalA (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Ajaxfiore

There's no need to discuss matters that have already been solved by RfCs such as the reliability of Jorge Erdely as a source (by the way, the source RidjalA mentions was not the source in question). The content that RidjalA wants to remove is relevant, and should remain. In response to RidjalA's accusations, I have never attempted to remove the Silver Wolf Ranch or the Controversy section, and have in fact expanded it.

Note: I have opened a case at AN/I regarding the conduct of RidjalA. -- Ajaxfiore (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by WikiNuevo

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

Opening comments by Darkwind

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

I am only tangentially involved; WikiNuevo (t c) posted on my talk page requesting me to look into the situation on the page, specifically regarding his contributions being reverted. I'm not sure why he reached out directly to me -- possibly he saw an administrative action I took at AIV or something. I saw that both he and Ajaxfiore (t c) had violated 3RR, and that neither user's edits were clear vandalism, so as an uninvolved admin, I blocked both for 24 hours as a consequence. I took no position on the content dispute, and still have no position regarding that (and for that reason, I am not likely to participate further in this filing). —Darkwind (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

La Luz del Mundo discussion

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

• I will take a look at this tomorrow night. If any other volunteer wants to take a look too at any given time before I do, s/he is welcomed to do so. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. I have read a bit. I will read another bit before asking some questions. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. I think I can start this tomorrow. Sorry for the wait. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Note For personal purposes, I won't be able to help solving this DRN case anymore. I offer my most sincere apologies and leave the thread open for any other volunteer. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hello. I am new to WP:DRN so while I am acting as a volunteer, my suggestions and input should also probably be taken with a grain of salt, and I would even go so far as to say that minimal or no action should be taken on the part of the involved parties based solely on my reading of the issue -- please at least allow an opportunity for a more experienced volunteer to weigh in.

I can say that there are a few things that immediately jump out at me. First among these is the rhetoric employed by RidjalA, which in many cases seems quite clearly to be intended as personal attacks, and when not ignored, it is quite reasonably, and civilly, pointed out by those attacked. At minimum, I would suggest that RidjalA should ratchet down the rhetoric ("Orwellian") and redouble their efforts to assume good faith.

The approach of a separate criticism section in general seems to be straightforwardly discouraged by WP:CRIT.

It is difficult to fully dig into the content dispute here, as it appears complex, with a long history. I will likely need more time to dig in before making content-based suggestions.

Again, while keeping in mind the fact that I am a noob, I do feel like a user conduct RfC might be a more appropriate venue for this ongoing dispute; progress on the content issue appears to me (on this cursory reading) to be prevented by the behavior I have described. Again, I may have more to say in a day or two. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you input UseTheCommandLine. An RfC/U was opened a while ago but it received little attention.[6] The case at AN/I also received little attention and was archived.[7] Leaving user conduct aside, the content disputes are the following: (I think)

• What to do with the Controversy section. RidjalA wants to keep it as is.[8]
• The use of a dubious, sensational source in the article.[9] Most editors agreed it shouldn't be used, while RidjalA keeps reintroducing it.[10]
• RidjalA wants to remove a chunk of sourced information in the article.[11] This information consists of POVs regarding sexual abuse accusations. The first POV was introduced long ago by Maunus,[12] RidjalA has since then tried to remove this.[13]
• The Silver Wolf Ranch section, which RidjalA introduced here. RidjalA's extremely biased addition was eventually modified to this. However RidjalA keeps trying to make it seem as though the ranch was secretly purchased using church money and is being used for tax evasion purposes.[14] RidjalA believes the church leader "accumulates private wealth and lives lavishly", and his lifestyle is "paid for by his poor (figuratively and literally) followers' offerings." The church leader is therefore "pocketing the profits instead of properly distributing all of the wealth like Jesus would have done."[15]

Take your time, no need to rush when Valentine's Day is around the corner. -- Ajaxfiore (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RidjalA, is this an accurate characterization, in your view, of the subjects at issue here?

I realize this is somewhat of a tangent but I do think it is applicable. I suspect one of the reasons the RfC/U did not get any volunteer attention was because of its timing. Setting that aside, another reason I think I can safely say it did not get attention is because of its length. In the RfC/U guidelines, it does suggest that a complete and thorough accounting of every infraction is not necessary, and to focus on the most substantial issues. The length, of both the RfC/U and the current DRN issue, serve to dissuade editors with limited time from stepping in, because of the requisite amount of reading and backstory.

Bringing that around to the current content disputes, it seems like there is a lot to be worked through. I would venture a guess that part of this is because issues have accumulated over time without being resolved, and now there are many issues to deal with, battle lines have been drawn.

So I guess my question, to both RidjalA and Ajaxfiore (and anyone else involved in this dispute who wants to chime in) is:

Which one of these is most important to address now? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment What is most important right now is doing what both RfC´s in the current talk page have decided: remove the questionable source and its content and to either remove the controversy section or converting it into a "public image" type section. I just described the RfC´s. I am not ready to provide my opinion on what exactly what to do untill others state what they´d wish to do. Fordx12 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

UseTheCommandLine I realize that length was an issue as well, I found this essay WP:TL;DR helpful. I now realize that by enumerating every infraction, it seemed like an overreaction. Anyway, I agree with Fordx12 that we should do as the RfCs say. Ajaxfiore (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Add the wording of the Silver Wolf Ranch section to that, RidjalA seems reluctant to allow his accusations to be removed. Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have posted on RidjalA's talk page, and mentioned that there is an open dispute here, and that his input would be appreciated. Fordx12 and Ajaxfiore, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I am going to say we should limit discussion to the most important issues, and not the Silver Wolf Ranch for the moment. Too many issues at once makes things hard to keep track of.

To recap, the RfCs are:

• RfC: Should the Controversies section be merged into the History section?
• RfC: Is Revista Academica a reliable source?

Since these are two separate issues, I think it's important to ask, which of these is most important to address now?

Alright, sorry about that. Actually the second RfC is Talk:La Luz del Mundo#RfC: Is Jorge Erdely Graham a reliable source?, although Jorge Erdely also contributes to the Revista Académica. I personally believe this is the most important at the moment. Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Before we move on, I'm hoping to clear some things up. I'm short on time until tomorrow evening or so, so I'll give just a brief summary of what I think needds to be done or not done.

First, let me reiterate that opinions on that RfC to consolidate the Controversy section resulted in mixed opinions. So no, it should not be merged or removed for the lack of strong support. Also, although having a controversy section is somewhat discouraged, in general articles on religion seem to be exceptions to that guideline (consider Scientology; in fact, Scientology's controversy section is much closer towards the beginning of that article).

All I ask is for Ajaxfiore and Fordx12 to refrain from removing sourced information and replacing it with other sourced information that is less relevant to the topic like so. It's that simple. These edit patterns are the basis of our problems. I know that some of this data may seem controversial (sexual abuse, private wealth, etc) to anyone who belongs to that sect, but it is nonetheless data that was reserched by journalists and actuated by the press and other publishers.

I also want to point out that I'm not the only one who reserves pretty strong suspicious about Ajaxfiore's attempts at removing Erdely as a source. You should take a second to read the response on that RfC that Ajaxfiore issued against me. I hope this helps dispel the presumption that the request was closed due to poor timing. Best, RidjalA (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

RidjalA I think it is best to look at the whole discussion at AN/I not a single comment (without evidence) by an editor.[16] One could also make the argument that your attempt to reintroduce Erdely and replace reliable sources with Erdely's false claims seems suspicious. You can accuse me of being a member of the religious organization, I can accuse you of being a member of Erdely's cult. Personal attacks will get us nowhere. Although editors provided different opinions, most editors agreed that the controversy section should not remain as is. Furthermore poor quality articles such as the Scientology article should not be used as a model for this article, but instead we should use good quality articles such as the Jehovah's Witnesses article.

As for the RfC on the reliability of Jorge Erdely, you have been the lone dissenting voice and your only arguments have been unfounded accusations such as "Ajaxfiore is a member of the church", "Ajaxfiore's actions are suspicious", "Ajaxfiore this, Ajaxfiore that." Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• RidjalA, if you are unable or unwilling to refrain from personal attacks, veiled though they might be, then I fear that we will be unable to deal with the legitimate content dispute(s). Unfortunately, WP:DRN does not handle conduct disputes, so we would be unable to proceed here. I would also like to urge everyone involved here not to respond to personal attacks in any way. Please trust that they will be seen and noted, even if they are not acknowledged directly.
• Would it be possible for everyone involved in this dispute to refrain from editing the La Luz del Mundo page for at least 48 hours, or until this dispute is settled? I think that is a reasonable starting point. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can be childish at times. I had already suggested that we refrain from editing the article in the talk page,[17] but resumed editing when RidjalA did. I shall now stop editing until the DRN case closes. Ajaxfiore (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Saffron terror

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Qwyrxian on 05:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Saffron terror (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
• Lowkeyvision (talk · contribs)
• Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs)
• Wasifwasif (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Should the word "allegedly" be used in the lead sentence to define the term "saffron terror"?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed the matter in both edit summaries and on the talk page (see Talk:Saffron terror#The word alleged.

How do you think we can help?

At the moment, we seem to be at an impasse on the talk page, because myself and Ratnakar.kulkarni believe that "alleged" is actually a part of the definition of the term, while Lowkeyvision and Wasif think that it's impossible for the word to appear in a definition, and Lowkeyvision has further argued that WP:ALLEGED applies.

Opening comments by Lowkeyvision

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

1) Is a convicted criminal, someone who has allegedly broke the law? Is an Islamic Terrorist, someone who allegedly follows Islam? Is someone who is a Christian Fanatic, a fanatic who is allegedly Christian? Saffron is the color of the organizations that proclaim Hindu Nationalism(RSS and BJP). The phrase "Saffron Terrorism" is no different than saying "Hindu Nationalist Terrorism"- and that is why the phrase was coined.

2) I would like to cite WP:ALLEGED to point out that using the word “alleged” places doubt on the credibility of a statement and can introduce bias. This bias leads to a violation of the Second Pillar: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV.

3) The term “Saffron Terror” can get misused for political reasons similar to the terms "Islamic Terrorism", "State Terrorism" and "Christian Fundamentalist". However, changing the definitions of any of these phrases to include the word "allegedly" would mislead people by introducing bias.

"Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe acts of Right-wing terrorism in India inspired allegedly by Hindu nationalism" Versus "Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe acts of Right-wing terrorism in India inspired by Hindu nationalism"

These are the choices. We hope you will side with the second choice.

Thank You .

(Lowkeyvision (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC))

Opening comments by Ratnakar.kulkarni

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

The term of saffron terror became famous after few people(their religion was Hinduism) were arrested in connection with some terror incidents. Now these people have allegedly conducted these terror attacks. There has been no trial in these cases yet nor any judgments. So these people are not convicted criminals, they have allegedly committed some crime and because nothing is proved yet we just cannot say that they were inspired by Hindu Nationalism. When there is any conviction in these cases you can remove the word alleged but till then we cannot write for sure whether they were inspired by Hindu Nationalism or something else.--sarvajna (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Wasifwasif

1. According to oxford dictionary, The word allegation means something which has no proof or certainly which is not proven.
2. So definition of a term containing the word allegedely implies the definition itself having no proof which logically cannot be correct.
3. There cannot be a definition of term without any proof.
4. A person can be an alleged saffron terrorist, but saffron terrorism cannot be alleged on itself.
5. If none of the alleged & arrested Saffron terrorists are convicted, then those people can be free from allegations but the term Saffron terrorism cannot be allged or freed from allegation since there is no case pending if the term is alleged or not but only on people.

Wasif (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Saffron terror discussion

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

earlier message no longer relevant
Hello, we will not be starting the discussion until all parties have made their opening statements. I have collapsed your comment for now and will re-open it once the discussion has began. I will post on the remaining users page indicating that we are waiting for them to begin discussion. Thanks, Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)}}

As all parties have presented their opening statements I have uncollapsed the early discussion as promised. I have moved User:Ratnakar.kulkarni's comment to below this message to aid the flow of discussion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A small reply to what Lowkeyvision stated in his statement, he uses WP:ALLEGED to defend his statement. It makes no sense at all. If you look at that page it is mentioned Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes (bolding mine). This is exactly what I am saying, the people accused of commiting this crime of saffron terror are people on trail for crimes (although the trial has not yet begun). If we really want NPOV we should use allegedly in the statement .--sarvajna (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that we need to distinguish between the individuals alleged to have been involved in Saffron Terrorism and the definition of the term itself. Currently, is there any WP:RS citation to show that it was "inspired by Hindu Nationalism" or is this speculative on the part of the media? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that there would be any RS to show that the acts were "inspired by Hindu nationalism" because those acts are supposed to be just allegation against people associated with Hindu Nationalist organizations. No one can be sure whether the acts were inspired by Hindu nationalism or not because there is still a doubt about who really commited those crimes/ what inspired them to commit those crimes (not sure whether my comment was very clear or not). --sarvajna (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If people are part of a Hindu Nationalist organisation then surely any act they do to further their cause or on behalf of the organisation is 'inspired' by Hindu Nationalism? If it wasn't, why are they involved in a Hindu Nationalist organisation in the first place? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Take for example a person X is involved in a Hindu nationalist organization and he kills other person Y over some domestic dispute will you say that the person X was inspired by Hindu nationalism to kill person Y? Also who said that they commited those crimes to further the cause of Hindu nationalism(assuming that the cause of Hindu Nationalism is to spread terror) and who said that these people acted on behalf of their organization? If I work for microsoft and hacks you email account wil you claim that I hacked it on behalf of microsoft, you cannot claim that unless any judgment is passed in that case. --sarvajna (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Also just to reiterate, these terror attacks were allegedly carried out by people associated with Hindu nationalist organization and we can only speculate that they were inspired by Hindu Nationalism but we cannot be sure hence the pharse "allegedly inspired by Hindu nationalism" is required. --sarvajna (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A rapist is NOT someone who ALLEGEDLY violated a person sexually. We are talking about the definition of the word, not if someone is convicted of it or not. Whether people are convicted of it or not, is not relevant to the definition of the word. It is being defined here. Saffron is the color associated with Right-Wing Hindu Nationalist organizations. Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe acts of Right-wing terrorism in India inspired by Hindu nationalism (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

I will answer in your own words, a person undergoing a trail for rape is someone who allegedly violated someone sexually, that is what all the case of Saffron terror is, yes saffron is the color of right wing Hindu Nationalist organizations apart from being a color in the Indian flag, a color in the flag of congress party's flag. But let me tell you none of the Hindu nationalist organizations are either banned or have any case against them for indulging in terror activities. There would be no such thing called as right wing inspired terrorism till something is proven in the court of law. Do not take the burden of passing any judgement here. You say Whether people are convicted of it or not, is not relevant to the definition of the word. It is being defined here. I want you to read it again. If you want to define a term on your own, you are free to make it on your blog not on wikipedia.--sarvajna (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just reading the two sentences, I'd say go with the second one. The key here is that the term "Saffron terror" is used only in conjunction with "Hindu terrorism", otherwise it is meaningless. It matters not whether there actually have been proven acts of saffron terror or even any such acts at all. Or, for that matter, whether person X who committed an act of terrorism was inspired by Hindu nationalism or not. What else can saffron terror mean except for acts of terrorism by hindu nationalists? BTW, I also suggest dropping the "in India". It is out of place in the sentence and quite unnecessary. --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RP, please don't be so careless while making statements like The key here is that the term "Saffron terror" is used only in conjunction with "Hindu terrorism", otherwise it is meaningless. What really is Hindu Terrorism now,can you give me some examples of Hindu terrorists? something new that you want to define?. You ask What else can saffron terror mean except for acts of terrorism by hindu nationalists well I do not know till some proper authority tell that its the terror acts of people inspired by Hindu Nationalism.--sarvajna (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RK, what I'm saying is that using the term "alleged" when defining saffron terrorism doesn't make sense because the term itself is synonymous with hindu nationalism. The article can easily go on to say that there have been on proven acts of saffron terrorism, or to provide sources that say that its existence is a myth, or that whether or not there have been acts of saffron terrorism is controversial (all of which I can accept) but to say that saffron terrorism is "allegedly" inspired by hindu nationalism defies logic. I ask again, if it did exist then what else would it be inspired by? regentspark (comment) 19:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading all this, what I understand is that certain terrorist acts are alleged to have been inspired by Hindu Nationalism. So the question is:

• does Saffron Terror mean these particular acts of terrorism,

or

• does Saffron Terror mean terrorism inspired by Hindu Nationalism?

In the former case, Saffron terror is alleged to be inspired by Hindu Nationalism, and in the latter, these acts are alleged to be Saffron Terror. There certainly is an 'alleged', but it could be in one of two places, and the difference is crucial. CarrieVS (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this statement: "A rapist is NOT someone who ALLEGEDLY violated a person sexually. We are talking about the definition of the word, not if someone is convicted of it or not. Whether people are convicted of it or not, is not relevant to the definition of the word. It is being defined here." by User:Lowkeyvision hits the nail on the head tbh. The idea that you can be an alleged rapist but rape itself an 'alleg-able' thing as, by definition, it has to happen to be itself. In the same sense, Saffron terror is x and people can be allegedly, Saffron Terrorists. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 21:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Saffron terror is terrorism conducted by people motivated by Hindu Nationalism but someone who commits an actual act of terror may be "alleged" to be a saffron terrorist. That's a fairly clear distinction. --regentspark (comment) 22:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with user regentspark in dropping "in India" from sentence (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

We all know what rape is,we can give examples of rape. So Cabe your statement about rape makes sense. But we cannot give examples of acts of saffron terrorists or saffron terror. It would be more complex to define. you see we do not have proper sources which say that these alleged people were inspired by Hindu Nationalism or not. Its just been deduced because these people had some association with Hindu Nationalist Organizations. Would it be correct on our part to write these assumptions as facts --sarvajna (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

But it's not to do with whether they were inspired by Hindu Nationalism or not, it they were then they can be called Saffron Terrorists, until then they are 'alleged' Saffron Terrorists. I can state that someone in an alleged islamic terrorist but not that an islamic terrorist is someone alleged to follow extremist islamic ideas because that is the definition of the term islamic terrorist to begin with. I think this is a very similar situation, the term 'Saffron Terror' is used to refer to terrorist acts in the name of Hindu Nationalism. Whether people have committed such acts in the name of Hindu Nationalism or not is why they are alleged to be Saffron Terrorists. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I think its very premature and wrong to compare Saffron terror and Islamic terror.The supposed objectives of Islamic terrorism and Saffron terrorism are different.Islamic terrorists many times use religious justifications for their acts, saffron terrorists have not used any Hindu nationalistic justifications (because there are none as far as the law goes) Looks like saffron terror has more to do with Anti-Muslim mentality than pro-Hindu mentality. Unlike incidents of Islamic terrorism which have certainly been associated with some Islamic terrorist organization by the various courts no terror incidents have been linked to any Hindu Nationalist organizations by any court of law anywhere. So as of now Saffron terror would be somekind of mythical term. We should use "allegede" when something is not proved beyond doubt. Also before we try to define something we would need a proper RS to say that "yes saffron terrorists were inspired by Hindu nationalism". --sarvajna (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that's all true, but you don't address the question. What is meant by the term Saffron Terror? If Saffron Terror means terrorism inspired by Hindu Nationalism, then it's not alleged to be inspired by it, it just is - even if that means there are no proven Saffron Terorists, only alleged ones. Look at these two sentences:

• Saffron Terror is ... inspired by Hindu Nationalism; [X, Y, and Z terrorist acts] are alleged to have been Saffron Terror.
• Saffron Terror is ... alleged to be inspired by Hindu Nationalism; [X, Y, and Z terrorist acts] are examples of Saffron Terror.

Do you see the difference? Neither of them claim that anyone has been proven to have committed a terrorist act inspired by Hindu Nationalism, but they use different definitions of Saffron Terror. CarrieVS (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe acts of Right-wing terrorism in India" is what is present in the first line of the article and that would be my definition. No inspiration or alleged inspiration. Your first definition is what the dispute is all about. The second part of your second definition would be wrong as there are no proven cases to cite as examples. If you look at the article of Saffron Terror there are two sources for the statement "inspired by Hindu Nationalism". One link is not working now, I guess it was archived and the second link comes almost very closely to say that the incidents were inspired by Hindu Nationalism. IMO we should either remove the phrase "inspired by Hindu Nationalism" or lets add alleged. This is a very new term and would evolve as time goes by after the investigations are over and court cases are cleared.--sarvajna (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Who are these people whose conviction will determine the meaning of the word? You are making a claim that the definition of a word can change based on whether someone is convicted of it or not, something everyone on this board(and the rules of logic) disagrees with. Explanation of sarvajna's argument is if A≠B THEN A≠A, which violates the rules of logic. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

We have been discussing on this thread of so long, you ask me who are these people, well because you do not seem to understand simple things let me tell you these people are the accused in various terror attacks like Malegaon blast etc. I did not make any such nonsense logic.--sarvajna (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me try and rephrase my point; my apologies if it wasn't clear.

You, sarvajna, have been saying (to my understanding) that we mustn't say that Saffron Terror is inspired by Hindu Nationalism because the people accused of it have not been convicted and so there is no proof that they were inspired by Hindu Nationalism.

The point I (and, I believe, most of the others here) was trying to make is that that argument only makes sense if the particular terrorist acts to which you were referring are the definition of Saffron Terror. But as far as I can see, no-one else is using that definition, and judging by your last comment ("...there are no proven cases to cite as examples") neither are you.

Assuming that the term has its own definition and is not defined by a particular act, then the fact that people are only accused of it and not convicted has no bearing on the definition of Saffron Terror. If Saffron Terror is defined to be right-wing terrorism inspired by Hindu Nationalism, then it is that, regardless of what may or may not have inspired any particular alleged terrorists. If Saffron Terror is defined to be right-wing terrorism in India, then said inspiration still has no bearing on the definition; if certain acts of (alleged or otherwise) ST are alleged to be inspired by Hindu Nationalism that does not make all ST alleged to be inspired by it.

So we should not be saying that Saffron Terror is alleged to be inspired by Hindu Nationalism. Either we should say that it is inspired by it (if we have a reliable source for that statement; I make no comment on the current sources for the statement) or we should not say that it is, alleged or otherwise. CarrieVS (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

CarrieVS, thanks for you explanation.I appreciate it. Just wanted to inform you that this term is mainly used by politicians from Congress party which is principally opposed to Hindu Nationalist organizations. The only reason why this term became notable is because of those politicians using it for some acts of terror allegedly carried out by people associated with Hindu Nationalist organizations. I would not have any problem if the reliable sources say that Hindu Nationalism is the inspiration behind Saffron terror, I hope the comments by the politicians would not be takes as RS to define the term or we can attribute that to those politicians. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not certain I understand what point you are making there. Are you saying that since it became notable because of certain incidents, those incidents do define the term? If so, I must disagree. (I am also not making any comment about whether Saffron Terror is or isn't inspired by Hindu Nationalism. I'm only saying that it is one of the two, as opposed to "alleged to be".) CarrieVS (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not making any such comments, I just wanted to give you some background story. The term was born out of political interests(this is a personal opinion) --sarvajna (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Well, thanks for the information, but let's stay on topic. Do you still think we should say "alleged", or do you agree that "Either we should say that it is inspired by [Hindu Nationalism] ... or we should not say that it is, alleged or otherwise"? CarrieVS (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that explicitly say that saffron terror is inspired by Hindu Nationalism lets include it or else we can just remove the whole inspiration stuff from the definition and just write "Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe acts of Right-wing terrorism in India". --sarvajna (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Do Tamil Hindus involved in violence in Sri Lanka qualify as saffron terrorists? If not is there one Hindu convicted of causing a terrorist act related death? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are some articles context CarrieVS. Your help is much appreciated.

“A brand of terror is rapidly unfolding, giving rise to a highly dangerous label: 'Hindu terrorism'. It is being attributed to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or RSS, a powerful right-wing organization that espouses fierce cultural nationalism built around Hindu values.” article called 'Why we must call it saffron terror and nothing else' from Blog from major newspaper Hindustan Times http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/they-call-me-muslim/2010/07/18/why-we-must-call-it-saffron-terror-and-nothing-else/

''“Saffron is associated with Hindu nationalism" - Economic Times of India http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-08-26/news/27614770_1_saffron-terror-terror-incidents-bomb-blasts

“The colour saffron is associated with Hindu nationalism in India, and some right-wing groups have been linked to militant attacks in the north and west of the country.” http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/158791/reftab/73/Default.aspx

As stated earlier, this appears to be use of false logic. Sincere thank you to those volunteering their times to read this information. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

I dont think anyone can convince him. In a similar posting on a talk page he claimed that he doesn't care what college textbooks say about a topic because he knows better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Editor_indulging_in_WP:SYNTH). At that point I gave up in trying to explain him things. *sigh* (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC))

Lowkeyvision, note that 1. This is not the place to discuss my behavior and 2. Stop lying, I said that I don't care what the title of the book is or what the title of the section is, I just want to read the text present in the chapter and then decided.--sarvajna (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about another definition "Saffron Terror is a phrase currently used to describe the acts of terror allegedly carried out by the people associated with right-wing/Hindu Nationalist(anything would be fine) organizations". We can put a note saying that the term allegedly is used because no judgement has been passed yet and right-wing groups haveen been suspected of involvement in these acts. This definition can be very much supported by sources.--sarvajna (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I rest my case (Lowkeyvision (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC))

Just a couple of reminders:

• Stay on topic (i). There's no need to post background information about Saffron Terror in this thread. I'm sure it was only posted to be helpful, but anyone wanting background information can find it themselves, or they will ask for it.
• Stay on topic (ii). Let's keep this about this dispute and not bring up disputes on other articles.
• Discuss content not conduct. I realise that sometimes it can be difficult to separate the two, but there is a difference between commenting about the edits someone made and about someone making edits. We need to do our best to stick with the former. There are other, more appropriate noticeboards for user conduct issues.
• This is voluntary. If anyone has given up or thinks there's no point trying any more to come to an agreement, then they don't have to stay. CarrieVS (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is how Saffron Terror is defined. Whatever we decide that it means, we need reliable sources that support it. Frankly, I'm not convinced that any of the sources cited in the lead paragraph (that is, the ones I can see. One seems to be broken, though I think the issue might be that a subscription is required) or the 'Usage' section of the article clearly support any definition. It certainly looks to me like the term is generally being used to mean terrorism connected with Hinduism and/or Hindu nationalist organisations - and that anything that's only alleged to be so would only be alleged Saffron Terror - but that's only a general impression and I don't think I can pick out bits from any combination of sources that add up to clearly showing that it means that, or anything else.

I suggest that:

• those who want to say that "Saffron Terror is ... inspired by Hindu Nationalism" list the source(s) that support that claim below this comment
• and those who want to say that "Saffron Terror is ... alleged to be inspired by Hindu Nationalism" do the same with the source(s) that support that claim,
• then we can discuss whatever sources are produced, and if we can't find reliable sources that can be agreed to support either claim we don't say either. CarrieVS (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Good question CarrieVS, the responses will be interesting to see. Frankly, after looking at the article and the sources listed in it, I'm beginning to wonder if this is the right dispute in the first place. We should be asking whether the term is a real one or a wiki invented neologism. --regentspark (comment) 21:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason I'm not asking that is because it survived a nomination for deletion largely to do with that five years ago (not to mention some discussion on the talk page about nominating it for speedy deletion two years ago), and it can hardly have become more of a neologism. CarrieVS (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those. Your focus on the question at hand is probably the right course. (Amazing that anyone could think a discussion that starts with this can ever be successful!) --regentspark (comment) 22:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Geez, I started this thing, and bloody well went and forgot about it (I do that a lot with noticeboards). After reading through the commentary above, I think that I'm actually being swayed by the idea that the "definition" doesn't need the word allegedly. Rather, what we probably need to do is tighten up the later prose, adding explicit clarification, assuming we can source it, that much of what has been labeled "saffron terror" was, in fact, not saffron terror (i.e., not Hindu-nationalist-inspired terrorism). Nonetheless, the exercise suggested of looking at sources for a solid definition is a worthwhile one; I'll try to see what I can find in the next few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty_dispute

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Gaba p on 13:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gaba p (talk · contribs)
• Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs)
• Kahastok (talk · contribs)
• Langus-TxT (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The International position section of the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article is being drafted after the old one was removed by editors Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok. These two editors argue that China's position should not be included in the section (specifically the sentence: China has also stated its support for Argentina's sovereignty claim) as per WP:WEIGHT (I'll let them explain their reasons) and at the same time argue that the British Commonwealth should be included (The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory) China's position can be easily sourced (UK Parliament's article, China's own Ministry of Foreign Affairs (point 5, in Spanish), BBC UK, Mercopress, Infobae, La Nación, Clarin and many many more smaller sources) while they have yet not presented an article to source Commonwealth mention.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The discussion around this section has been going on for weeks now. This is only one point where agreement has not been reached, although a relevant one given its implications on what standards we should use when adding content to WP. I note that I'd have no problem backing the Commonwealth mention provided we can source it.

How do you think we can help?

Commenting on whether the reasons/sources provided are enough to either include both mentions in the section (China/Commonwealth), include only one or none. I believe they are using WP:WEIGHT in a "double-standard" way that permits them to dismiss a thoroughly sourced position (China) and at the same time back the inclusion of another position, as of yet un-sourced (Commonwealth).

Opening comments by Wee Curry Monster

After discussion with Cabe4603, I have agreed to refactor my comments to be more focused.

As I see it, I believe this request should be rejected, for the very simple reason there is no dispute as described above. To be explicit:

1. I have never refused to allow mention of China.
2. I have not made any statement either for or against the inclusion of China.
3. You'll not find a single occasion in the current talk page discussion where I comment on the inclusion or otherwise of China.

The accusations of "double standards" are a personal attack against two editors, whilst DRN is not about editor behaviour, it is also not a platform to allow personal attacks. I am disappointed no one commented on that before accepting the case. My initial response was prompted by more than a little irritation that those comments were allowed to stand without question. It sets the wrong tone for any DR attempt to be successful.

The discussion in the talk page has been progressing toward a consensus text, noting this and other comments at Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute no one sees this as necessary at this time. As regards mention of China and my alleged refusal to include it. This is a strawman of Gaba p's own invention see [18], where he presumes I will object and has proceeded accordingly. Please note this was late on Thursday eve last week, if you check my contribution history I have not edited much over the weekend and anyway it would difficult to comment as the prodigious output of contradictory statements and antagonistic approach to every editor makes it difficult to follow never mind comment on any argument he makes.

His presumption is incorrect.

I have no objection to the mention of China, provided this is done in a manner to inform our readers as to why. In a quid pro quo, Argentina expresses support for China's sovereignty claim over Taiwan, in return for China supporting Argentina's sovereignty claim (see [19]). I would suggest the request is rejected. I'm sorry but I believe this to be a waste of time for everyone involved. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Plan to redo following discussion and redirection

I see this as a nomination as decidedly premature and I have to note a further example of the nominator abusing the DR to prevent progress from moving forward. He currently claims I have not provided a source as a basis for estimating weight - diffs [20],[21],[22]. I could provide further diffs going back weeks. I have repeatedly provided a basis for establishing weight most recently last night [23] and first on 20 January 2013 [24]. Referring to the archive there are many further examples, where I patiently respond to his demands for a source but he simply denies it has ever been made. Gaba frequently posts huge tracts of text, then demands we respond to each and every point, he then claims we haven't addressed his points, you respond addressing each and every one and he will then post the same tracts of text again claiming there has been no response. The discussion has not moved forward as a result. If you review the text he proposes, it is clearly non-neutral as he presents the case that only Argentina enjoys International Support, he has removed any mention of support for the UK and the language he uses is far from neutral, reflecting verbatim claims made by the Argentine Government (though I do note after opening here he has toned it down a bit [25]). I think it is illuminating to refer to his comment of 23 January [26], he alleges the current state of secondary sources in existence 100% back the fact that a bigger pro-Argentina position is being voiced, which reflects the Argentine Government claim that not one single country in the world supports the UK governing the Falklands. I'm sorry but this seems clearly to be the case of an editor with strong nationalist views that is unable to co-operate with other editors in presenting the neutral view wikipedia demands. I could hazard a guess as to why this case has been started but I believe this to be wasting everyone's time. I have no problem bringing it here, if there is a genuine desire to move forward. I'm sorry but I simply can't see it. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Noting the comment added below, I believe I was incorrect in my assumption that the purpose in raising this at DRN is that Gaba p is simply trying to portray other editors as unreasonable rather than a genuine attempt at dispute resolution and a further example of his conduct turning every discussion into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I believe he is wasting your and my time, the purpose is not genuine dispute resolution. Discussion has stymied as a result of filbustering by Gaba p eg demanding detailed answers [27], disputes response [28] then claims no response obtained [29], WP:PA eg [30],[31],[32], [33]. I could go on. This is not a simple content dispute, that could easily be resolved by the editors discussing the matter in talk, rather one disruptive editor holding a series of articles hostage as noted by this admin at WP:ANI see [34]. On the talk page there is an ongoing discussion close to agreement, the only voice of dissent is Gaba p. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Okay, but if what you say is true, the next step (after filibustering and tendentious editing on the Talk page) is either WP:RFC or WP:DRN. The whole point of DRN is to provide a neutral forum when Talk page discussion reach an impasse. So here we are at DRN. I suggest that we let the DRN process take its course. Within DRN, obviously, we cannot take the word of one party to the DRN case that the other party's case is baseless, and just drop the DRN case based on that allegation. If GabaP arguments have no merits, that will become apparent soon. If the DRN case does not achieve a good resolution, the WP:RFC process can be used afterwards. --Noleander (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC) OK fair enough, I did not refuse to participate. However, there has already been a case here that I started, which resulted in Gaba p and another editor refusing to co-operate, going ahead to edit war and then raising two frivolous complaints at WP:ANI. I note the comments at User talk:Bwilkins and simply observe the case seems to be more about Gaba p making a mountain out of a molehill, with the aim of trying to build a case for an RFC/U against me. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I notice that many of your comments are focusing on alleged problems with GabaP's behavior. At DRN, we are not allowed to mention behvior issues: the idea is to focus 100% on content. So, from this point forward, you should probably refrain from talking about his alleged "ANI"s and "frivolous complaints" and "posts huge tracts of text" and so on; instead just talk about Reliable Sources for China's view of the Falklands. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Its difficult to not comment about problems with Gaba p's behaviour, seeing as the very premise of the DRN raised here is an example of it. I have never refused to allow any mention of China. I have not made any such statement regarding China. You'll not find a single occasion in the current talk page discussion where I comment on China. The comment here was phrased to imply I was being unreasonable, when I have not even participated in any such discussion. My own opinion, if Gaba p feels that Chinese support for Argentina is so vital to mention, then go right ahead. Argentina has obtained the support of a Communist dictatorship as a quid pro quo for supporting that state against the democratic regime in Taiwan, denying the people of Taiwan have a right to determine their own future. We should be providing the full picture to our readers. I have to admit that I am hugely disappointed that you Noleander commented in the way you did. As a mediator in any discussion, it is vital not to take sides and I have to note you did so most emphatically. I would suggest you think about your comments more carefully. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC) For information, not all participants have been listed User:Hohum, User:Scjessey, User:Apcbg, User:Martin Hogbin, User:Irondome, User:Langus-TxT, User:Bevo74 et al have all been active in the talk page discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I'll post a notice on the article Talk page, notifying them of this DRN case. The DRN case "parties" don't necessarily need to include everyone that has joined into the discussion ... just the primary proponents. --Noleander (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Looks like you already beat me to it. I'm sure if any of those editors are interested, they will see the note and join this DRN conversation. Feel free to also post notes on their user talk pages. --Noleander (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Just a quick comment: I notified everybody over at the talk page that I'd opened this report 5 hours ago[35]. Wee must have missed it in his rush to comment on how I'm a filibuster and a disruptive editor and such (instead of actually comment on the content dispute at hand). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC) A stray comment in an area for commenting on another editors text proposal is very easily missed and is not clearly notifying other editors. I missed it because it was so obascure and I'm not the only editor to have missed it. Please try not to restrict your posts to your own area. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Kahastok

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

So far as I can tell, any section on third parties is undue weight. But I can accept a short section as a compromise. There are two questions here: the general and the specific. The DRN was opened on the specific, so I will base this statement on the specific.

I, unlike Curry Monster, have opposed a mention of China. There is no evidence that China's position is significant in terms of support for Argentina or that it is significant to the dispute. There is no reason to assume that it is. At no stage in history has China taken any action that materially affected any aspect of Falklands history - other than two votes on Security Council resolutions during the 1982 war (that were not cast in Argentina's favour). The evidence is that China's only reason for signing statements that support Argentina is in return for Argentine statements about Taiwan. Ultimately, we are not looking at a country that's significantly engaged in the dispute, and it's not as though support for Argentina in general is not already covered in detail by the proposals.

But while support for Argentina is covered in detail by all proposals, Gaba's proposal does not mention any support for Britain at all.

Whereas Argentina is very aggressive in soliciting statements - President Fernández stormed out of a major summit over this last April - Britain is not. So it's generally easier to source statements supporting Argentina. But that doesn't mean that we should bias the article. It cannot be neutral to go into detail on support for Argentina while acting as though Britain has none - that's Héctor Timerman's POV but it's not reality.

All that said, I agree with Curry Monster above: I note that this section was only opened after Gaba issued an ultimatum that I read as, support me or else. We're progressing fine on talk. That's the best place for this to stay. Kahastok talk 21:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Langus

I'm adding my name preemptively, because I consider myself involved and interested in the result of this discussion. However, there are many issues at play right now, and I don't think we could just discuss the China stance and the "double-standards" when judging WP:WEIGHT without falling in a larger discussion. Further, I still have hope in the efforts to agree on a new version. I would suggest to leave in suspense this discussion and, in the case of no consensus being reached, open up a new ticket. --Langus (t) 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty_dispute discussion

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

Hello, I volunteer here at the DRN board. This doesn't mean my voice carries more weight that anyone elses, simply I will attempt to act as an impartial mediator. Once all parties have presented their opening statements we can proceed with the discussion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please notice how Wee's wall of text does not address the very simple content issue being reported and instead makes several accusations on the editor reporting it (which I won't bother to refute since this isn't ANI) This is a perfect reflection of how he conducts himself at the talk page and precisely the reason why we can't move forward. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment [from uninvolved editor] - Speaking as an average reader, I would be interested in knowing which countries support both "sides". For example, I'd expect the article to include a paragraph like (I'm just picking random contries here):

Argentina's claim is supported by Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, and India. The UK's claim is supported by France, Russia, Norway, and USA. The UN has taken no position, but has encouraged the countries to engage in negotiations.

It looks like both parties agree that this kind of material can be included in the article, but there is a suggestion that including China (or other countries?) would violate WP:UNDUE. I don't think WP:UNDUE can be used to exclude any country's position, because that policy generally applies only when too much text is included in the article. The formulation I'm suggesting is just a brief list, so UNDUE is not violated. Of course, each country's position must be supported by a WP:RS and that source must be identified in a footnote. In summary: if the sources clearly state what China's position is, it should be included in the article. Ditto for every other country's position ... both pro-UK and pro-Argentina. --Noleander (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

...sorry, just noticed one opening party has not yet provided an opening statement. My apologies. I'll revisite later and amend my comment if needed. --Noleander (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

For reference: Old version of section - here is an older version of the "International Position" section that is at issue: --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The position of third countries or international organizations on the sovereignty of the islands is varied. Whilst some countries consider it a bilateral issue, others maintain neutrality but call on both countries to resolve the dispute through peaceful means or to begin dialogue. Some countries support outright either the British or the Argentine claim.[77][78][79]

France has been particularly supportive of the British position.[80][81][chronology citation needed]

The Commonwealth of Nations recognises the islands as a British territory.[82]

China has repeatedly endorsed the Argentinian claim over the islands.[83][84]

Brazil and Chile [85][86][87] officially support the Argentine claim over the Falklands, and have voiced their support at international organisations. Brazil has extended it's support to include Argentina's claims to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands [88]

For reference - Jan 2013 RfC on this topic. --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment A half of the dispute overview presented above is: “The British Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory” – “... they have yet not presented an article to source Commonwealth mention”. As a matter of fact they did, sourcing that listing to United Kingdom - Falkland Islands; cf. also Commonwealth Membership: Associated & Overseas Territories. Apcbg (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Those two are primary sources (both Commonwealth's domains). Both Wee and Kahastok have repeatedly argued against the use of primary sources which is exactly why neither of them presented those articles even though I asked them to do so repeatedly. Those two sources also can't be used to establish WP:WEIGHT in the way Wee and Kahastok say it should be established, ie: exclusively through secondary sources "on the subject at hand" (subject at hand=International position on the Falklands/Malvinas issue).

I note that we have no secondary sources even mentioning this statement (let alone a source exclusively "on the subject at hand"), so the relevance or notability of it is very much questionable. Notwithstanding, I would be ok with the use of these two primary sources as long as we agree that a similar standard can and should be applied to the inclusion of other countries/group of countries in the section. Otherwise we'd be applying a double-standard by relaxing the conditions only for this mention and hardening them for everything else which is definitely not WP:NPOV.

Would you like to comment on the issue of China's mention too Apcbg? Regards Gaba p (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The convention in DRN is to wait until all parties have posted opening comments before starting the discussion. User Kahastok has not yet posted an opening comment, so we should wait for that to happen before initiating the discussion. I myself overlooked the missing opening comment, and posted a comment here, but that was a mistake. So let's wait for Kahastok. --Noleander (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that the final (named) party has made their opening statement, so I'm un-collapsing this discussion text. --Noleander (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok made some great points in their opening statement. Some brief thoughts:

1) K writes: "There is no evidence that China's position is significant in terms of support for Argentina or that it is significant to the dispute."

Publicly stated support by any country is significant in and of itself. Readers will want to know what countries are supporting both "sides".

2) K writes: "At no stage in history has China taken any action that materially affected any aspect of Falklands history"

As long as a country makes a public statement about their position, that is sufficient. No other action is needed. Foreign policy positions are rarely supported by actions beyond their declarations.

3) K writes: "The evidence is that China's only reason for signing statements that support Argentina is in return for Argentine statements about Taiwan."

Good point; if there was a quid-pro-quo (and RSs so state) then that certainly should be included in the article.

Again, we need to do what's best for readers. They'll want to know what countries are supporting Arg or UK. The section should be brief and factual. Of course, support for UK must be included on an equal footing with support for Argentina. --Noleander (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Where does it end, though? I mean, the argument originally made was that this should extend to every country in the world that has ever made a statement. We would effectively be converting the article from an informative discussion on the dispute into little more than a list of countries that don't care and the statements they made once upon a time.

The most accurate description of the international position would seem to be that very few countries outside Britain and Argentina themselves give two hoots about the thing. A slightly arcane dispute over a small group of islands in the middle of nowhere is going to be pretty close to the bottom of most countries' foreign policy agendas, except insofar as there is an actual risk of war. As such I do not believe it is possible to list countries in this way without enormously overstating their support.

Even when dealing with the countries that most frequently sign statements - Argentina's neighbours in Latin America - we can source (section "All Politics is International? The Tide of Multilateral Pressure") that they sign the statements but don't necessarily subscribe to the positions the statements espouse. When the price of doing business with a country like Argentina is to sign a throwaway statement on a dispute that they don't care about, a lot of countries will sign the statement and never think about it again. It's not a committed position. In some cases we have countries signed up to support both sides within weeks of one another - in a few cases that appeared to switch sides three times in the space of three months. That's not the sign of a dispute that countries outside the involved parties care about.

Finally, I note that as was demonstrated when removing the old section was first proposed (and note that the archive has gone significantly out of order), many similar articles get along perfectly happily without any similar section. I don't see why we need it at all. But if we have to have it it has to be neutral, and I don't see a listing of countries that don't care, assigned to one side or the other as though they had strongly held views, as neutral. Kahastok talk 22:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Listing foreign policy positions on a major international dispute is very encyclopedic. It is only "not neutral" if editors bias the material by selectively omitting material. The older version of the article only lists only three countries/entities that have made statements (France, Brazil, Chile). How many additional countries have made statements of support in this dispute which are clearly documented by reliable sources? Five? Ten? Can you supply the sources for these additional countries? --Noleander (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are seriously suggesting that simply compiling such a list is encyclopedic, then I have to comment that is a very naive approach to compiling this section and has already lead to a very problematic section prone to edit wars and for agenda based editing.

It is inappropriate because essentially it is a proposal to conduct original research. It requires editors to weigh the often contradictory statements that are out there and then synthesise a position for a particular country. The positions are not always easy to identify, far from it - countries make contradictory statements. Argentina has also muddied the waters claiming support from Caribean countries that are part of the Commonwealth of Nations, forcing several of them to issue official denials that they do not.

What is appropriate is to look at secondary sources to see how they describe the International dimension and this is exactly what we've done. We have looked to neutral 3rd party academic sources to describe the International dimension. The first thing you'll notice if you take this approach, is just how little WP:WEIGHT is attached to this aspect in the literature.

You seem to find this surprising, however, I would disagree. It is a political ploy in Argentina to constantly raise the issue for domestic political reasons but outside of Argentina few other countries see it as a foreign policy imperative. Even in the UK, Argentina's aggressive diplomatic offensive under the Kirchner presidencies has been seen as an irritant and little more. Argentina has an aggressive diplomatic agenda, it raise the subject constantly, it constantly demands statements of support at regional summits and at every foreign meeting. Any such statement on whether a country has issued a statement needs to also include the fact that Argentina solicits such statements. Another rather bizarre aspect of the Argentine diplomatic offensive is that it often issues a statement thanking countries for their support, whether they support the Argentine position or not. Often they have issued no more than a platitude that they hope the UK and Argentina can simply settle the dispute.

Whilst some countries, especially in Latin America, may make statements of support, in fact few of them pay more than lip service to Argentina ([36] an article in La Nacion that makes this same point). The process of simply compiling a list is unlikely to be one that will produce a neutral text.

This brings me back to another point, there is also more than one way of making a text that is biased by ommission. Gaba p has insisted we are not allowed to include what commentators observe about the level of support enjoyed by Argentina. This he alleges is "watering down" or "down playing" the support that Argentina enjoys. Similarly if we are to mention China, well you're not allowed to mention that it is a quid pro quo as this "watering down" or "down playing" the support that Argentina enjoys.

Even if you source commentary from several sources, establish the range of opinions expressed in the literature this is alleged to be biased and Gaba p will then add a number of quotes taken from news sources as "balance" completely ignoring the WP:WEIGHT attached to such comments in the literature.

Another tactic is to claim no source has not been provided to establish WP:WEIGHT for any nation that supports the British position - even when it has - and to then noisily demand material is removed as WP:UNDUE.

Whilst I had some doubts about whether DRN is appropriate given the discussion was approaching a consensus, I have to note that I have now compromised so much the text that has now resulted has diverged so far from neutral I find I simply can't support it any more. Really if we're going to get anything out of a mediated DRN discussion, what is needed is a neutral mediator and to go back to square one. Starting with how to establish WP:WEIGHT. If the comment is going to be simply compile a list of anything you can source, then my first suggestion is going to be take this to WP:NPOVN again I can't see how anything other than the same problematic section of unencyclopedic crap will result. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments against identifying specific countries is hard to analyze without knowing one key fact: How many countries do the sources say have expressed clear support one way or another? If the answer is only 5 or 6, that is a very small number, and identifying them would be very informative to readers. If the answer is 20 or 40, then listing them becomes tedious and it is better to summarize. From what I can glean from the Talk page, the total is only around 5 or 6, correct? --Noleander (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The answer depends on the exact terms of the question.

Firstly, what constitutes clear support? Does a statement supporting negotiations constitute clear support for one side or the other? Both sides have declined discussions except on their own terms. Does a statement expressing hope for speedy resolution constitute support for either side? What about countries that have been thanked by Argentina for offering full support, but where we cannot otherwise source that full support was offered? What about those countries that have issued statements clearly supporting one side, but where we can source analysts arguing that their real position differs from the statement that they have signed - such as Chile: despite repeated statements backing Argentina, this analyst argues that "the reality is that Chile would not like to see any sovereignty changes in South America"? It's not difficult to source this even to Argentine-biased sources.

Secondly, how far back do we go? Lots of countries took an interest in 1982, because of the Falklands War. Do they count? The UN General Assembly issued resolutions in the past, the last in 1988. Does a vote in the UNGA 25 years or more ago count as "clear support" for either side?

Thirdly, what about those countries that might be said to have issued clear support for both sides?

Fourthly, what do we mean by "the sources"? Does that mean anything we can reliably source, or does WP:WEIGHT get taken into account? If countries have made statements that are given zero weight in the literature about the dispute or about the positions of third parties, do we count them?

Depending on the answers to these questions, the number could be anything from one to a hundred and fifty or more. Kahastok talk 18:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Close DRN? - I notice that vigorous discussion is continuing on the article Talk page. We should have only one forum active at a time. DRN is entirely voluntary, and it looks like several editors are ignoring the DRN process. For that reason, the DRN case should probably be closed. It can always be re-opened later if the talk page discussion fails to reach a resolution (or, perhaps an RfC would be more appropriate?). I'm here only as an uninvolved editor ... DRN volunteer Cabe6403 offered to host this DRN case. We can see what they say. --Noleander (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave it for 24 hours, if the discussion continues on the talk page and the majority of the involved editors do not contribute here I will close this DRN. If the parties wish to file another one once they have finished discussing on the talk page (assuming it is not resolved) they are welcome to do so. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not being able to comment yesterday. Noleander: your comments reflect almost verbatim what I and a number of other editors have already told Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok. You can see by their walls of text that they simply refuse to get the point. I see Wee Curry Monster mentions taking this to WP:NPOVN. Let me point out that there already is a discussion at WP:NPOVN opened by Wee himself a couple of weeks ago in which two un-involved editors have commented on Wee and Kahastok's "standard for inclusion" (the same one they are presenting here) Both editors said that reliable secondary sources like newspapers are more than enough to establish weight, but Wee and Kahastok again simply refuse to get the point.

Regarding your question, there's only a handful of positions to be mentioned: two major groups (Latin America and the EU) and two key players (the US and China). Other than these there are a few other countries that have clearly stated a position (like Spain) but their addition is debatable.

If you go to the talk page, you'll see that there is almost a consensus to add one of the versions (the one proposed by the un-involved editor Scjessey). Wee and Kahastok are opposing it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This is starting to look like a classic case of an international dispute carrying over into a WP article. I have no preference one way or another (UK vs Arg). But speaking as a typical WP reader: right now the article is missing key information: naming the handful of government entities that have taken a foreign policy position on the issue. If this dispute continues for awhile, an RfC may be more efficient than a DRN case, because the RfC can be semi-binding if it is formally closed. --Noleander (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like neither side will budge on the matter. Since DRN is a voluntary process it is up to the parties to agree or come to a compromise. If that isn't likely to happen then I would second the call for an RfC as it can be somewhat enforced Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in participating in DRN because I don't believe it is necessary, but I have started monitoring it. I feel moved to respond to Noleander's last comment. You say the article is "missing key information" with respect to governments with declared positions on the Falkland Islands. While it may seem appropriate to do that, it has a serious NPOV issue. The problem is the de facto status of the Falkland Islands is they are a British Overseas Territory and have been for a very long time indeed. Unless a nation wishes to specifically dispute this fact, they are unlikely to declare any position on the matter. As in the case of most disputes, it is only the entities who wish to change the status quo who are going to make a fuss; therefore, you are unlikely to find much coverage in reliable sources that is not supporting the Argentine claim. Listing countries who have recently declared a position on the status of the Falkland Islands is almost certainly going to seriously overstate support for Argentina's claim. Anyway, I would prefer to see this debate take place on the article's talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you're both making the classic oversimplification of an issue on wikipedia, blaming everyone equally for an inability to gain agreement, when in reality a single problematic editor who won't compromise is the cause. Not only that but in a classic example of WP:BEANS you've actually given him another stick to browbeat other editors with. He has just announced that DRN has officially "endorsed" his position, ie that anything he can source must be included as that is a suitable way of establishing weight. We were getting somewhere and were close to getting agreement, now we're back to square one. Now having taken us back to square one, you're proposing to abandon us to leaving us to have to go over the same ground.

I have previously supported Scjessey's text, to claim I'm blocking it is untrue I can't support it for the simple reason its been compromised and compromised to the point where it only mentions countries that support Argentina. The very comments you make about balance and NPOV and informing readers are being ignored to push a none neutral text.

Is the statement that is coming from DRN that you don't have to demonstrate WP:WEIGHT ie comments should reflect the weight attached to them in the literature but you can just compile a list of random comments that support one position and ignore those that contradict it? Please do comment, that is what you're allegedly saying. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you link the diff where he claims DRN endorses something? DRN, by it's very nature, is voluntary. It cannot 'endorse' anything, make official judgements or issue policies. It's simply a voluntary place to get some outside opinions. DRN only works if all the involved editors make an effort to be involved and focus the debate here. The point of suggesting we close it is that discussion is going on elsewhere and not all editors are contributing here, therefore this is an incomplete discussion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 18:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Cabe6403: I believe Wee might be referring to this comment of mine, the "All" section. Please note I never said DRN was "endorsing" anything, I merely commented on what editors here and at NPOVN have said about the issue. If you believe that comment somehow misrepresents what Noleander has said so far then I will gladly correct myself but I have to say this looks more like another one of Wee's casual misrepresentations of my comments (something we have argued about a few times already). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that the article is missing key information and I don't believe that adding to the article information we can reliably source has any implication on NPOV. What Scjessey says is absolutely true nonetheless, there are a great number of countries voicing its support for Argentina (the party interested in changing the status quo) but virtually none doing the same for the UK (who does not want to change the status quo) I think this "analysis" should be mentioned given that we find a reliable source to do so. But again: I don't see it as a NPOV issue. This is WP and we report on what we can source. If we have no sources to back countries supporting the UK's position then the article should reflect this because it is a fact. The only way we would be violating NPOV is if we were to decide for ourselves that we should refrain from mentioning countries that clearly support a side because we can't find sources for countries supporting the other side. That would be a manufacture of the international position instead of a true reflection of its current state. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here. Note that he mentions WP:NPOVN, the thread is here. Note his claim that both boards have agreed with him that WP:WEIGHT can be established by means of routine news coverage.

I feel I should be absolutely clear about what we're talking about here. Nobody is arguing that routine news coverage cannot be used to source fact (which appears to be what the NPOVN comments are about). Nobody is arguing that background news reports that discuss the issue in its entirety cannot be used to establish due weight. The question is whether the mere existence of a source documenting a particular statement, such as this, establishes that a given point should be accorded due weight, no matter what subject the news report concerned is discussing and even when the point is not mentioned given any weight by reliable sources that deal with the dispute as a whole.

In short, whether the fact that this exists, taken alone, absolutely requires us to mention China by name. Kahastok talk 18:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You are asking the wrong question. Once an editor has found a reliable source that says the 2nd most powerful nation on earth has taken a side in the Falk dispute, then of course it should go into the article. Excluding it is a form of censorship. You seem to think that adding that fact will somehow cause readers to get an erroneous impression of some sort. Perhaps leading them to conclude that Argentina's claim is stronger than the UKs? That is not for you to decide. We find the facts about the dispute, make sure the sources are reliable, and put them in the article. Period. UNDUE only kicks in if an editor adds way too much detail about one particular topic, out of proportion to what the sources say. For example, if an editor added 2 whole paragraphs about China, that would violate UNDUE, ... but no one is proposing that. --Noleander (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Except there is more to it than just China deciding to support Argentina, China and Argentina have engaged in a quid pro quo in which China supports Argentina over the Falklands and in turn Argentina supports China over Taiwan. Do you not think that should be mentioned? Gaba p insists not, as that is "watering down" the dispute enjoyed by Argentina. Thats a form of censorship, if we simply state China supports Argentina but don't explain WHY! Isn't it?

And again no, we don't just source facts and put stuff into articles see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We also have to bear in mind WP:WEIGHT, if we find the majority opinion in sources is that Chinese support is immaterial then that is a good argument for not including it. Noting also that the majority of literature on the sovereignty dispute attaches very little weight to expressions of support by various nations, then a large section listing every country who has ever commented isn't appropriate.

So is it your opinion, anything we can source should be included? That is a POV pushers charter for chaos. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Kahastok you are now engaging in the same war-like attitude Wee has been displaying. I absolutely never said that the noticeboards were either "endorsing" me or "agreeing" with me. I merely commented on what editors here and there had said. If you read Neolander's comments, they are almost a perfect reflection of what I've been saying at the talk page for weeks now and comments both here and at WP:NPOVN go against the ad-hoc "standard for inclusion" you and Wee are pushing.

Furthermore Kahastok is purposely downplaying the number of sources stating China's support. There are actually seven reliable sources: UK Parliament's article, China's own Ministry of Foreign Affairs (point 5, in Spanish), BBC UK, Mercopress, Infobae, La Nación, Clarin and many many more smaller sources. I argue a fact completely related to the section at hand and thoroughly mentioned in reliable secondary sources is worthy of being included. They argue it is not because ... (?) Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

[37] Here is the diff where Gaba p claims that DRN has endorsed his position that coverage alone establishes weight.

I note above that he states his belief that coverage in the media of its own establishes weight and that is sufficient. My reading of WP:WEIGHT is that the coverage in an article reflects the weight and range of opinions in the literature, which is ideally satisfied by coverage in neutral 3rd party academic sources. While the news is a valuable and frequently used WP:RS, coverage is not a suitable standard for establishing weight. I would be grateful if mediators could comment on how they interpret policy on weight.

Similarly his claim that there are only countries that has issued statements in support of Argentina. I reject that claim, there are plenty of Commonwealth states that do not and have supported the position of the islanders. I simply bring this to your attention, the official statement from the Argentine Government [38] insisting that not one single country in the world supports the UK governing the Falklands.

Finally, I note that Langus-TxT has joined Gaba p in making an accusation that editors are practising a "double standard". Can I ask the mediators if you feel these comments are appropriate? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not a correct interpretation of WP:WEIGHT (also called WP:UNDUE). That policy only excludes information if an editor puts in too much text about it ... causing readers to get the wrong impression. The WP:NNC policy states that we dont assess the notability of individual facts when we consider them for inclusion in the article. Adding a single sentence saying "China supports Argentina's position" is not - by any stretch of the imagination - a violation of WEIGHT. Now, it may be that there are some surrounding context that is required to make sure readers dont get misled (e.g. source A says there was a quid pro quo), if so, by all means, mention that context. But all this has been said multiple times before, and you refuse to hear it. --Noleander (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are rather adrift from what I've actually said. In fact, from my perspective you seem determined to make things worse by endorsing Gaba p's erroneous understanding of WP:WEIGHT. He seems to believe that sourcing alone establishes weight.

I will state yet again just so there is no doubt whatsoever - I don't oppose mention of China, in a simple form explaining why.

I have in fact never opposed it.

The only reason to comment about WP:WEIGHT is not to insist that coverage of China is excluded but that the article warrants a small section on the International situation reflecting the weight of opinion attached to it in the literature.

The comments about WP:WEIGHT refer to Gaba p's erroneous belief if he can source something in a news report, he can put in anything that can be sourced that alone establishes weight. Quoting from policy:

“ Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. ”

Policy requires coverage to be in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoint in published, reliable sources. Simply because something can be sourced doesn't mean it has to be included, the coverage must be proportionate, which is what I'm arguing. Yet, you've loudly endorsed his approach, you keep saying he is right and I am wrong in saying coverage should be proportionate. Is that really what you want to say? Because that is what he is claiming, that you're endorsing is approach to editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No Wee, you don't get it (or rather refuse to get it). "Policy requires coverage to be in proportion to the prominence of the viewpoint in published, reliable sources.", exactly. That's why we mention what we can source proportionate to the length in those reliable secondary sources. The mention of China is of course warranted given that it can be reliably sourced and the weight given to it by reliable sources is more than enough to warrant the length proposed (a single sentence mention). The mention of the Commonwealth is not warranted exactly for the same reasons: you have absolutely no secondary sources commenting on its position, not even a little bit. You have agreed to mention China in the article which is great, the only thing left is that you lift your block so we can establish a consensus and finally include the section into the article. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(This was originally a response to your previous comment, but I feel it is still appropriate.)

This is already too much text. As a rule, the sources give barely any weight at all to third party positions in a modern context - that's why we're having to scrabble about like this with news reports. I mentioned the point because Gaba has in the past - and is now taking this discussion as endorsing - this as applying to all countries. The standard he set previously was that any country for which a position could be sourced to two or more sources should be mentioned, and that any attempt to assess them based on how powerful they are is irredeemably offensive.

Why, in your view, does the fact that China might be considered the second most powerful nation on Earth mean it necessarily belongs? My view differs for reasons that I gave in my opening statement. How far down the list, in your view, does this automatic relevance reach - what about Russia? France? Canada? Are they automatically relevant as well? Kahastok talk 19:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And another comment, "war like" attitude - is that appropriate? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the next step here is for interested editors to create a WP:RFC on this issue ... that will bring in several uninvolved editors who can clarify the UNDUE policy. DRN typically only brings in 1 or 2 uninvolved editors, which is not sufficient in this situation. If anyone needs help with creating an RfC, I'd be happy to help. --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that both Wee and Kahastok vehemently refuse to accept a minimum mention of a country who's position can be thoroughly sourced (I've presented 7 sources here) but are right now blocking the consensus at the talk page arguing that the position of the Commonwealth must be included even though they have presented exactly zero secondary sources for it. This is what I mean when I comment on their "double standards". Their WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude here is an exact reflection of what has been going on at the talk page for weeks now.

I thank you very much for your input Noleander. Hopefully your clear comments will help solve this issue over at the talk page. If the consensus is still blocked a few days from now (and if the others editors working over at the talk page agree to it) I'll ask you to please open an RfC as an un-involved editor. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Break

Ok, this is turning a little sour with the main points of the discussion being diluted by finger pointing and bickering. Although I don't have the authority to enforce what I am about to propose I would like it if the involved editors at least humour me as we try come to an amicable resolution.

I would like the main three parties involved here (Wee Curry Monster, Kahastok and Gaba p) to write a short summary of their stance on the situation. It is to be focused purely on content, no finger pointing, name calling or anything. It is to be no more than 200 words (not even 201). Imagine if you only had 200 words to get your point across and you were allowed to say no more after that.

I would ask that all editors refrain from commenting on others statements until all have responded and I have had a chance to read up and respond.

Like I say, this is voluntary and you are welcome to ignore it but distilling this down to the content will make the issue clearer. If you agree to participate in this experiment simply write your statements and no more. No snappy comments about other users involvement, nothing. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 23:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

May I add my view? --Langus (t) 04:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

200 Word statement by Gaba p

The position of China should be mentioned given that it can be thoroughly sourced (7 sources) and it's a single-sentence mention what is being proposed so there is no violation of WP:WEIGHT. The Commonwealth should not be mentioned since we have exactly zero secondary sources to back its inclusion. That's it.

200 Word statement by Wee Curry Monster

Per WP:WEIGHT since sources on the sovereignty dispute do not dwell on the International dimension, a short summary section is warranted. I believe the content should include:

1. Argentine motivations (a) Domestic politics (b) 1994 Constitution
2. Argentine diplomatic offensive to constantly raise the issue
3. Latin American support noting that commentators observe it is little more than "lip service"
4. US official policy of neutrality but noting that previously it supported the UK due to its own dispute over the Falklands
5. Commonwealth of Nations support for the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination
6. EU dimension
7. China's previous ambivalent position changing to support due to a quid pro quo with Argentina in return for support on Taiwan.

[39] Note my opening statement - I have never said China should not be mentioned. Can we have that noted please. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that was around 150 words....

200 Word statement by Kahastok

Royal College, Colombo

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Cossde on 17:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Royal College, Colombo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Cossde (talk · contribs) obi2canibet (talk · contribs) Sitush (talk · contribs) Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The many variations of the school's name used in local news papers have become a source of requests to list all names in the article. To sort this problem a section called College name was created. It has turned into a two line section and suggestions to move the contents to the lead have not met with consensus. Furthermore the inclusion of the term "Colombo Royalists" based on two news articles [40] [41]. As per WP:NEWSORG, these two articles are unclear and ambiguous therefore unfit for use as references in this matter even though they are from a RS. As mentioned by Sitush earlier in the discussion "a journalist first referring to "Manchester United" and thereafter using the "United" short form" as a journalistic device rather than a generally recognized alternate name; which is the same in this case! Both articles refer to students of Royal College Colombo as "Royalists" and thereafter to differentiate between students of Royal College Colombo and Panadura Royal College by naming them as "Colombo Royalists" and "Panadura Royalists". This as Sitush said is a journalistic device of sorts or a term used to differentiate, rather than an actual generally recognized alternate name ! Therefore as an encyclopedic article this could be considered as false/inaccurate information, since further sources can not be found to support this name. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on talk page How do you think we can help? Assistance is kindly requested to help sort out this impasse and fix the lead and determined if the sources provided here are accurate to refer to students as "Colombo Royalists" as a recognized alternate name. Opening comments by obi2canibet Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Sitush Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Qwyrxian Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Royal College, Colombo discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Kendo

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kontoreg on 14:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Kendo (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kontoreg (talk · contribs) ZarlanTheGreen (talk · contribs) Ffbond (talk · contribs) ReSPAWNed (talk · contribs) Dispute overview We are not agree with the definition of Kendo in the article 'Kendo'. Please see the talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? All the information is written on the talk page of the article Kendo. How do you think we can help? I have suggest what the two definitions shall be mix in order to meet one another and prevent ideological battles. Opening comments by Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Hello, First of all I had to said that I am going on holiday tomorrow and are first back 26th February 2013. In the meantime I will suggest that you explain me the term a) 'modern martial art', and please b) write the kanji for this term. The definition in the article 'Kendo' is: "Kendo (剣道 kendō?), meaning "Way of The Sword", is a modern Japanese martial art of sword-fighting descended from traditional swordsmanship (kenjutsu) which originated with the samurai class of feudal Japan." For you information I agree with the part: "Kendo (剣道 kendō?), meaning 'Way of The Sword'". - Kontoreg (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Talk:Kendo discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. 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.

Flag of Poland

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Fry1989 on 19:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Flag of Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fry1989 (talk · contribs)
• Kpalion (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Kpalion absolutely refuses to allow our Commons SVGs of the Polish flag to be used on the article, in favour of two files which show the white section of the flag as grey, which he claims is the statutory colour by law. He repeatedly removed the SVGs with real white from the infobox, it became an edit war between myself and him back in June 2011, however since I left the article at that date, he has tried to impose photographs of the Polish flags as a "compromise", which was never agreed to by anybody. He has repeatedly reverted IPs and any other users that wish to return the white SVGs to the infobox. I came back and returned the SVGs once, and he has again removed them completely and placed photographs in the infobox. Despite whatever he claims, there simply is zero consensus for this action, and every single other article on Wikipedia uses the SVGs that Commons provides. It is only Kpalion that has a problem with the SVGs of the Polish flag we have, and he is edit warring and showing an ownership problem over the article to impose his will because he does not like the SVGs.

Proper dispute resolution is required, because 30 did not bring about a resolution, and Kpalion will continue to impose his will as long as it is allowed. Either a proper consensus must be formed here against his imposition and his changes forcibly reverted, or consensus gained in his favour for this very unorthodox presentation and exclusion. However, the current situation of one user imposing his will with zero consensus or support behind it, can not continue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Issue has been discussed extensively on article talk page, including a Third Opinion.

How do you think we can help?

By forming an consensus on how the article should be presented.

Opening comments by Kpalion

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

I am not sure what Fry's issue is exactly – is it the shade of the upper stripe in the diagram of the Polish flag? The file type (PNG vs SVG)? The use of photographs rather than diagrams in the infobox? Perhaps all three, so I'll try to address each, one by one.

Color variant	Flag without coat of arms	Flag with coat of arms
"Statutory white" upper stripe	Flag of Poland (normative).svg	Flaga z godlem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.PNG
"Pure white" upper stripe	Flag of Poland.svg	State Flag of Poland.svg

1. The article currently uses two diagrams to illustrate the designs of two variants of the Polish flag (with and without the coat of arms). They are based on legal specifications of the flag and national colors. The latter are given in the CIELUV color space which may be good for dyeing fabric, but needs to be converted to sRGB for the purpose of display on a computer screen. Both the legal source and method of conversion are provided in footnotes to the article. Fry insists on adding diagrams which (for purely aesthetic reasons, as I understand) replace the "statutory" white in the upper stripe with the brighter web white (or "pure white"), which may look better on the screen, but is not grounded in reliable sources.
2. I have no problem with the SVG format as such. However, I lack the software necessary to produce such files. I would be more than happy, if someone with such means could convert File:Flaga z godlem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.PNG to SVG (keeping the statutory shades of white and red, as well as the subtle shadings of the eagle's plumage!) and upload the result to Commons.
3. One of Fry's arguments in previous discussions was that the diagram with statutory colors does not represent what the Polish flag really looks like. This is true, but the other diagrams do not represent it either. A flag, by definition, is a piece of dyed fabric hoisted on a pole or mast, that is, a physical object, whose appearance depends on lighting, wind and other external factors, not an abstract assembly of geometrical figures. The best way to illustrate a class of physical objects in an encylcopaedic article is by using a photograph of one or more real-life specimens. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Flag of Poland discussion

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

This is certainly an interesting dispute. I'm a volunteer here at DRN, this doesn't mean I have special powers or my opinion means more than others. It simply means I'll try provide an impartial view and mediate the discussion as fairly as possible. Once all parties have presented their opening statements we can open the discussion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My problem, Kpalion (and anybody else who isn't quite sure), is your problem with the pure-white SVGs. I see absolutely no valid reason to not use them on the article, and in fact the agreement as I remember it, was to have them there, and use the ones with grey in this subsection. It was like that for a while when I was last there in 2010, and then after that you started removing them and imposing a supposed "compromise" of the photos in the infobox and grey flags in the subsection, but the white SVGs nowhere to be seen. I can't find ANYBODY who has agreed to that compromise, it's something you made up! There simple is zero consensus at this time for you to forcibly exclude the white SVGs completely, and impose photographs of the Polish flags in the infobox, something that is done NOWHERE else on this project. It's unorthodox, it's not really adding anything to the article to do it that way, and it's at the force of one user with no backing. I want a consensus. Naturally I would like that consensus to be in favour of the standard practice on every other article, and to use the SVGs that Commons provides, but overall I don't care which way the consensus goes as long as there is one. I can't stand by and continue to allow you to treat this article like you own it and force, through edit warring, your way. That's my problem, I've made it clear, and I'll step aside and see how this goes. If anybody wants me to answer a direct question, naturally I will do so. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Fry. I guess one thing we can agree on for now is that there is currently no consensus and we both want to achieve one, which is promising.

Cabe, do you have any questions? — Kpalion^(talk) 19:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So let me get this right, the dispute centres around two related points:

1. Whether or not to include just the grey flag or the grey flag and the white flag
2. Whether to use the image files (format makes no real difference so I'm ignoring any .SVG or .PNG debates) or photographs of the flat

Is that a fair assessment of the issue? Also, folks lets focus on the content and not the conduct. It can be difficult to separate them but if you find yourself writing about the other individual take a moment and refocus on the content at hand. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Roughly. Kpalion hasn't been able to provide a single image image of a flag using the supposed "statutory colours", every single flag I've ever found including those in government use have pure white, not the hideous grey that Kpalion is imposing. And even if he did, that by itself isn't a reason to exclude the white flags altogether. That what the original agreement when I was last there, to have both. Quite frankly, conduct is part of the problem, even if you want it to be separated from the content part of the issue. Should we allow a single article to stick out of the norm because of the dissatisfaction of one user? Should that user be allowed to impose his dissatisfaction with zero consensus for it? I believe those are valid questions to ask, and they have a bearing on the direction this discussion may go.

Kpalion's arguments are also weak at best. He argues that a flag by it's very nature is a physical piece of fabric. While that is true, that doesn't mean we're going to start putting photos in the infobox of every flag article we have, which is practically the precedent that his argument would set whether or not that is his intention. He also argues that the grey on the files he wants to use is "statutory white" while the SVGs use an "aesthetically pleasing web white". The problem with that argument is there is no such thing. White is a pure colour, along with black. As soon as you change it in any way, it becomes a shade of a different colour. In this case it has become grey, but if you added some red it would become a shade of pink, and so on. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the definition of white. There is only one white, any presence of any other colour means it is no longer pure white. I see someone previously linked to a 'shades of white' article but those are not pure white and could be describes as 'very light x' where x is the mixed colour. Calling them "cream white" is simply a naming convention rather than the actual colour.

In terms of the definition of a flag. A flag (the item) is a piece (or multiple pieces) of fabric dyed and stitched together. However this article is not about the flag (the item) but is about the flag (the emblem). An emblem is a design which the physical flag is based off. The two are distinctly separate. In this case The Flag of Poland is about the non-physical entity that is the symbolic emblem of the country of Poland. It is not about the physical representation of that flag as a piece of cloth. I think an important distinction needs to be made there. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My point is that whatever diagrams of the Polish flag we use, they must be based on reliable sources. The "statutory white"/"grey" image is based on specifications provided in Polish law. The "pure white" image does not seem to be based on any reliable source. Unless a source for the latter is provided, I can't see how it can be used anywhere in the article. This is a matter of Wikipedia policy, so I suggest that we settle on this first and only then move on to discuss other issues, such as the use of photographs in the infobox. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the above before reading Cabe's comment, so now I'm responding to Cabe. The law on Polish national symbols does not use your, Fry's, mine or anybody else's definition of white; it uses its own definition of white (as well as its own definition of red), expressed in trichromatic coordinates in the CIELUV color space. We really should refrain from arguing about what we personally think is the correct definition of white and focus on the definition used in the source.

The same source is also pretty clear in its definition of a flag: "The national flag of the Republic of Poland is a rectangular band of fabric in the colors of the Republic of Poland hoisted on a mast." — Kpalion^(talk) 22:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

And as I have stated, the Polish Government doesn't even obey the supposed setting for the white, not that reliable if you ask me. Am I mistaken in believing the Polish law on the flag is that it is a white and red bicolour? Any settings of the specific shades are statutes and not laws. If the primary law says white, there is only one white. That is simply a fact, no matter what some government official thinks white includes.

Look, as I pointed out before, I have no problem with both the pure white SVGs and the files with the so-called "statutory white" being on the article, that's what I agreed to back in 2010. The simplest solution would have been to leave it at that, but Kpalion simply won't "allow" the pure white files to be anywhere on that page. We could easily have the pure white SVGs in the infobox, like everywhere else, and then Kpalion could write a subsection about the "statutory colours" and have the images with those settings next to it. What is the problem with that? Fry1989 ^eh? 23:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Fry makes a lot of arguments that are, frankly, irrelevant. What is relevant is that he does not provide any reliable sources to back his claims, which is required by Wikipedia's core policies (Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research). There is a detailed official, legal specification of the Polish flag, yet Fry seems to believe he knows better what the Polish flag should look like. Further discussion becomes pretty much pointless in this situation.

And to answer Fry's specific question: "Am I mistaken in believing the Polish law on the flag is that it is a white and red bicolour?" The Polish law in question effectively says: "the flag of Poland is white and red, where "white" and "red" are defined as..." Polish parliament in its wisdom decided to define "white" as something that you call grey. It may have just as well defined "white" as blue and "red" as green. And you'd just have to live with it. Wikipedia's "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors" (WP:V). — Kpalion^(talk) 23:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant according to whom? YOU???? The person who has completely failed at gaining consensus in practically 3 years for how he wants the article and has reverted to edit warring to force it the way he wants as if he owns the article? You have no right to do that, and lie about your changes saying they're a "compromise" that nobody seems to have agreed to. Do you have any users who agreed to have the photographs in the infobox as you repeatedly say is a compromise solution? Do you have ANY users who agree to the exclusion of the white files from the article altogether, even though they are used everywhere else on this project to represent Poland? No, I don't think you do. What is irrelevant is what you want, unless you can get consensus to back it up. If your arguments are so relevant and strong compared to mine as you suggest, why in 3 long years has nobody agreed with you? Even after a ThirdO and all these years on that talk page, nobody has sided with you. Half a dozen users have reverted your changes, which would such the actual consensus is against you. It doesn't matter if you have a million sources for what you want, if you have zero consensus for it, you have no right to impose it. Wikipedia is guided by consensus and agreement, not the will and imposition of a single user. If consensus is formed here against your changes, it is you who will have to live with it. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are 204 countries in this world. We have atleast double that number in flag articles when you count subnational territories. They all follow a common outline here on Wikipedia, consisting of an infobox with an SVG digital illustration of the flag. Kpalion's argument that "A flag is, by definition, a piece of fabric hanging on a pole - a physical obejct, not an imaginary colored rectangle. The best way to represent the look of a physical object in an encyclopedia is a photograph of one or more samples. The place of diagrams is in the Design section." completely fails the test of reasoning. There is no rule against photos of flags on the articles, in fact it is a common practice BUT it is not done in the infobox. Flag of Poland should not be the "exception to the rule"

Kpalion also says "The sources for the statutory color scheme and explanation of their conversion to RGB for the purpose of creating diagrams for Wikipedia are already in the article. Good, then why is he unwilling to have File:Flag of Poland (normative).svg and File:Flaga z godlem Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej.PNG next to that subsection to illustrate what the Government statute says in it's context, while having the SVGs (for which there still remains zero consensus for exclusion) in the infobox as is the set out practice on every other flag article that exists? It's a very simple solution and the one I recommend. It is not unreasonable, it does not demand the exclusion of one or the other as Kpalion is trying to do, and it allows readers to see both. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Question for Fry: One of your main arguments is that the usual practice on flag articles is to have an SVG of the flag in the infobox. Are you aware that File:Flag of Poland (normative).svg is an SVG, and although I understand that we don't have an SVG of the flag with the coat of arms and the "statutory white" colour, there is no particular reason why one couldn't be created. CarrieVS (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I'm aware of that, it has ".svg" at the end of it. However the State flag does not have an SVG equivalent in those colours, so I group the two together when I'm referring to them. And even if there was, this problem would remain. The Polish Government does not obey their own statutes, Kpalion knows this because he tried to make the ridiculous argument that the Polish Government could decree that red was green and I would have to live with it, when we all know if the Polish Government tried to do that, they'd be laughed at. There is absolutely no reason to not have the pure-white files in the infobox, and the grey ones in an appropriate sub-section that discusses and explains to the reader about the colour statutes and how they're not always followed. We have other articles on various subjects that say "the authority says it has to be this but it's often something else", that would be so simple and easy and explain what the situation is. What is wrong with doing that? Why is one user being allowed to railroad this article and personally ban two images from it which are used everywhere else to represent Poland? It's inconsistent, it's not backed by consensus, and it's not helpful to the article either educationally or aesthetically. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Woah! I understand it must be very frustrating, but this thread isn't the place to vent. No-one is being allowed to ban any images from anything; if that were the case, we wouldn't be discussing it to try and come to an agreement. If we're going to get anywhere, we need to stick to calmly (easier said than done I know, but please try) discussing the content issue.

"However the State flag does not have an SVG equivalent in those colours" - but there's no reason why someone can't create one (it sounds simple enough to do), if we were to agree that that was what we wanted (I'm not saying I think it is; I have no opinion either way). So I think we need to separate the argument for having SVGs in the infobox and the ones about which colour SVGs to have. That's all I was saying.

I think it is best to discuss one point at a time. I think we can sort out the SVG issue quite easily; the difficult one is the colour issue. So let's focus on that one. And let's remember, whichever one we put in the infobox, it would be perfectly possible to put the other one in the subsection about the colour statutes not always being followed. It's not a question of using the pure white ones in the infobox or we can't use them at all. CarrieVS (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Catherine of_Alexandria

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Lizbetann on 01:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Closed discussion Indian Astronomy – New discussion. Filed by Devanampriya on 01:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Indian astronomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Devanampriya (talk · contribs) Athenean (talk · contribs) Kishorekumar_62 (talk · contribs) SteveMcCluskey (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Nationalist pov pushing editor insists on framing contested theory as scientific fact and refuses to allocate article space to mainstream academic views that challenge this theory. Insists on eurocentric narrative to article (i.e.irrelevant mentions of Alexander of Macedon). Article topic is on Indian astronomy, but most of the article is now on theory of greek influence on indian astronomy. Good faith attempt at compromise failed--editor actually started debate by threatening to report and by bringing up stale 5 year old unrelated disputes. He refuses to give space to discuss mainstream academic works that challenge his preferred theory (developed by now deceased scholar), even if article mentions "minority view". Not even a sentence allowed for a growing "minority view" that challenged editor's preferred scholar in his own time. He attacks Indian scholars as fringe, and doesn't respond to the existence of western scholars who support this minority view. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Good faith attempt at discussing and negotiating a fair and accurate consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_astronomy#Indian_and_Greek_Astronomy How do you think we can help? Advise whether or not even small space (few sentences) can be given to discuss respected minority academic views given clear uncertainty of majority theory. Advise whether uncertainty of theory must be included in article wording. Define NPOV to clarify acceptable article structure. Opening comments by Athenean Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Kishorekumar_62 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by SteveMcCluskey Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Indian Astronomy discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.