{{DR case status|closed}} <!-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 546 -->
{{DR case status|closed}} <!-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 546 -->
{{drn filing editor|Fordx12|15:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)}}
{{drn filing editor|Fordx12|15:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|reason=agreement from most parties re:[[WP:N]] but one party is unavailable for additional comment for complete resolution. [[User:UseTheCommandLine|UseTheCommandLine]] ([[User talk:UseTheCommandLine|talk]]) 13:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)}}<!--[[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]]15:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->
{{DRN archive top|reason=agreement from most parties re:[[WP:N]] but one party is unavailable for additional comment for complete resolution. [[User:UseTheCommandLine|UseTheCommandLine]] ([[User talk:UseTheCommandLine|talk]]) 13:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)}}{{DRN archive top}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Revision as of 13:36, 21 February 2013
"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.
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.
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.
The dispute must have beenrecently 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.
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).
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 19:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
No closing comments were detected
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.
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.
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.
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(tc) 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(tc) 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)[reply]
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. — ΛΧΣ2103:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. — ΛΧΣ2103:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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]
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:
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
I've stated my opinion that the sources are valid, I don't know what else to say. The fact that journalists published about possible corruption in that church's leadership does not make them "sensationalist" reporters (in fact this is a journalist's duty). The sources in question are L.A. Times, Revista Academica, San Antonio News, et al; we're not talking about your local supermarket tabloid magazines here. I ask that we clarify that we may continue using these sources so that those few users sympathetic to the church could cease from hampering with the information contained therein. Cheers, RidjalA (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to include Jorge Erdely Graham in that list. As far as know, no editor has questioned the Los Angeles Times. Could you be a bit more specific? What sources fall under et al.? Are you referring to established scholars like Dormady, De la Torre, and Fortuny or to the anti LLDM blogs and websites you have introduced? As for the San Antonio Express News, various editors have expressed concerns regarding it.[18] I'm fine with what TheBlueCanoe suggested here.
BlueCanoe made that suggestion so that we not use quotations to call lldm followers minions, as one source referred to them. And I'm sorry, but "Blogs"? What blogs?
So my response to the issues at hand: Ajaxfiore has inexhaustibly tried to remove the entire controversy section for almost over a year now(and hence the long history on this sole issue), and I am still resolute in my response. For as long as sources exist that detail the existence of notable controversies surrounding that sect (private wealth, sex abuse scandals, scrutiny for potential of mass suicide), it should suffice for them to stay on wikipedia. RidjalA (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion at this point is that because Erdely's allegations have been written about (I read spanish poquito y mal, so I have not evaluated non-English sources) by others in the mass media, specifically the LA times article, they are notable as allegations and deserve inclusion in the article. However, the current section seems to me to be a straightforward example of placing undue weight on the allegations, and cites the LA times article 12 times in the quite large criticism section (once under "Discrimination" and 11 times in "Controversy"). The LA Times article is one of the most frequently cited references in the article.
I believe that the controversy section, even if it remains a separate section (and I think it should actually be integrated into other sections eventually, per WP:CRITICISM), should be reduced in size by at least 50%. Readers can check the LA Times article if they feel like it; I would be comfortable with a single three or four sentence paragraph for a controversy section, and feel like this is both achievable, and that a controversy section of this size would be much more readily integrated into the rest of the article. There is no need to repeat every claim in the LA Times article, and the size of it in my opinion makes it read like less of a summation with link than a paraphrase and potential copyvio. There clearly exists the same danger with the Silver Wolf Ranch section.
The bottom line here, for me, is that all involved parties, if they agree that this is a reasonable goal, must be willing to let bygones be bygones. I continue to be uncomfortable with RidjalA's accusations, even after this kind of uncivil behavior is pointed out repeatedly, and feel like the hostile environment this creates is a serious danger to further progress (see WP:MASTODONS).
I would remind everyone that participation in WP:DRN is voluntary, and if any parties are unwilling to engage this process civilly and in good faith please let me know; I would rather not waste my time and just close this dispute if that's the case.
My apologies RidjalA, I got confused between you and an anon who added blogs. Nonetheless, you did add an anti lldm site and allowed the blogs to stay.Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your last sentence is all that productive either, you may want to consider striking it. Again, I think a key component here is willingness to let bygones be bygones. This means not opening up old wounds or criticizing for past perceived wrongs, or even pointing them out. If this is going to work, given the heated nature of the discussion, everyone needs to cool down, and just start afresh. In this case, the past is the enemy of progress on this article. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could work on a smaller much more concise version of the section in my sandbox and then link it here for consideration. I did that with the History section once before and it worked well. However, I refuse to go against the RfC that clearly indicated that Erdely's unpublished book cannot be used as a valid source for contentious material. I do not wish to add that source and the content it is used to support, unless more reliable sources support it. Fordx12 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for chiming in. I think this could be a useful way for proposing changes in the future on contentious material like this -- work on it in a sandbox, post it on the talk page, and solicit discussion.
My reading of WP:N, WP:RS and a recent discussion I had at WP:RSN lead me to believe that you should not repeat Erdely's allegations as factual, certainly. However, since they have been repeated in the mass media, specifically in the LA Times article, my reading of WP:NPOV suggests that the criticisms should be mentioned as allegations. This is different from reporting them as fact. The way in which they are presented, again as allegations rather than as fact. makes quite a bit of difference. Please also see the essay WP:ENEMY.
Is there any of this that does not make sense to you? I would welcome further discussion.
I also want to reiterate the point that if any parties are unwilling to make good faith efforts to resolve this dispute, then I will have to close this dispute as "failed"; It has already gone on much longer than most WP:DRN cases, possibly owing to my inexperience. I mention this because Fordx12's statement upthread, "refuse to", suggests an unwillingness to proceed with this process. If that is the case, please let me know so that I may use my time on other WP:DRN disputes.
And because we have not heard from RidjalA for some time, and he or she seems to be a key player in this dispute, I will notify them that, and if we do not hear from them within 24 hours I will need to close this dispute.
My comment was misunderstood. What it meant was that I do not agree that the input of the community regarding rules of source reliability, neutrality, and notability should be ignored as RidjalA desires. The source and content in question is about the Church having some sort of ties to a political party in Mexico and enough wealth to be able to get away with the crimes that the source accuses the Church of. It is contentious content, not backed up by other sources (the conclusion anyway) provided by a unpublished/self published source from an individual that lacks academic notability and cannot be considered an expert on the Church (as all users in the RfC all said, minus RidjalA). It'd be like me agreeing that we should include the following into the article "The Church is the true Christian church because it is lead by an Apostle of God elected by Jesus Christ." And then source it to a magazine published by the Church. It is against Wiki policy.
It doesn't mean that I am unwilling to move forward, just that I am unwilling to violate wiki policy. I am currently in the process of preparing the first version of the edited controversy section. Fordx12 (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Among the policies I think you're referring to, there are very few bright-line rules. So I interpret your statement that you are "unwilling to violate wiki policy" as a statement that you are unwilling to proceed, fullstop (though I would like to be wrong about this). Noone is suggesting violating a bright-line rule here. The Erdely allegation about political influence does not appear to me to violate, say, WP:BLP bright-line policies. Maybe there are others I'm not aware of, and would welcome further input if this is your understanding of things, i.e. that there is a bright-line rule that would be violated by including the Erdely's allegations of influence.
At the same time, I see your concerns. If the allegations of a conspiracy do not appear in enough secondary sources to be notable themselves, then yes, my reading is that they are WP:FRINGE and should not be included. So far as I can tell, they do not. If someone can demonstrate these allegations in reliable sources, even as allegations, then the allegations are notable and should be mentioned. But as noted, I see no evidence of that, so as far as I'm concerned they should not. Is this clearer?
And although I would like to wait until I get either a response from RidjalA before closing this, i think in the absence of that this discussion can continue on the talk page. Unless there's anything else, such as RidjalA raising other opposition, I will mark this matter as closed in the next 24 hours. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Saffron terror
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
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.
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)[reply]
Opening comments by Wasifwasif
According to oxford dictionary, The word allegation means [1]something which has no proof or certainly which is not proven.
So definition of a term containing the word allegedely implies the definition itself having no proof which logically cannot be correct.
There cannot be a definition of term without any proof.
A person can be an alleged saffron terrorist, but saffron terrorism cannot be alleged on itself.
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.
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)}}[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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/
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Reply to the "there cannot be a definition of term without any proof" argument. Perhaps it would be better if it said "hypothesised" instead of "alleged". See the article on N rays. A phenomenon, such as saffron terrorism or N rays, may be put forward as a hypothesis. Its existence may be widely believed by experts. In the case of N rays, the phenomenon was subsequently discovered to not exist.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that I have seen have only specified that the accussed in those terror cases present in the article were associated with Hindu Nationalist organization. I do not see sources claiming that these people were inspired by Hindu Nationalism. --sarvajna (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What we need are sources telling us what Saffron Terror is. When we can agree on the definition of the term, then we will be able to work out whether any of it has actually happened, or has just been alleged or hypothesised to have happened. We don't need to prove that an example exists to have a definition of the term. On the other hand, a term that meant allegedly Hindu-inspired terrorism wouldn't be any kind of contradiction - I'm not saying that Saffron Terror does mean that or that it doesn't (that's what we need to agree on), but it would be a perfectly valid definition.
We need something that tells us what the term Saffron Terror means, not just information about some examples or possible examples. As an analogy, there is a van outside my window, and it's blue. But I can't say, on that basis, that vans are blue.
And we mustn't fall into the trap of deciding what we think Saffron Terror ought to mean. We're not inventing the term, we're describing it, so, sources, please. CarrieVS (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for "is ... inspired by Hindu Nationalism"
1)"India’s home minister warned on Wednesday that Hindu extremists posed an increasing risk to national security, dubbing the threat as 'saffron terror'" 2)"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"
Based on these two statements the definitions would be either of the two(both of which are acceptable to me):
1) Saffaron Terror is terrorism conducted by Hindu extremists who pose a risk to national security of India OR
2) Saffaron Terror is terrorism conducted by militant right-wing Hindu nationalists groups in India
Respectfully, that is my closing argument and my last post on the topic of definition for the word "Saffron Terror." I would like to thank those that have taken the time to read my posts. I hope the administrator will side with our reasoning, logic and the source cited earlier. We accept whichever ruling the administrators give. May Justitia reign. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
It is almost the same source that is present in the article, all we can get from this source is what colour the Hindu Nationalism can be associated with and that few right wing groups have been linked to militant attacks. There is no mention of "inspired by Hindu Nationalism".--sarvajna (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that you may be misunderstanding the purpose of the DRN. I'm not an administrator, and (as far as I'm aware) neither is Cabe6403. We're volunteers, which neither requires not gives us any special privileges or rights. We're not here to issue rulings or take sides, we're here to mediate between you guys and help you to reach an agreement, and nothing we say is binding. CarrieVS (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my thoughts on that source.
Point 2) suggests (though doesn't say explicitly) that that is the reason why Saffron Terror is so called, but it doesn't explain what the term means, so isn't relevant to this discussion.
Point 1) is as clear as anything we've got as a definition of Saffron Terror. But all that means is that the rest is even more vague. It looks like it says that Saffron Terror is terror conducted by Hindu extremists. But
I am not confident enough to say for sure whether it says so explicitly enough to use it as a citation. Thoughts on that please.
I am okay with calling it that and it not including nationalists but extremists. However, the next sentence should state what the color saffaron is associated with since it is mentioned in multiple articles attempting to describe saffron terror. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Both the points above would have a lot of problem in getting sources, as it is there are no proven incidents. I would diagree with the color thing that Lowkeyvision wants to be added. The saffron color is present in the Indian National flag as well, not just that even the congress party whose leaders have been using this term have saffron in the flag of their party [19]. I think the best acceptable definition would be Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe terrorism in India, allegedly perpetrated by Hindu nationalists (this is present in the article now)--sarvajna (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with mentioning the association of Saffron to Hinduism, Nationalism, Hindu Nationalism, or anything else that you can source and reach a consensus on, somewhere in the article. But it doesn't tell us anything about the definition of Saffron Terror, which is what we're trying to work out. CarrieVS (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what about the sources, can we find sources which say that Hindu extremists have perpetrated terror? As CarriesVS has said earlier are not here to define the term on our own. We would need sources, the sources only claim that Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe some kind of terrorism and the sources also say that these terror incidents whihc are being reffered as saffron terror have been allegedly perpetrated by Hindu extremists. So the best definition can be Saffron terror is a phrase used to describe terrorism in India, allegedly perpetrated by Hindu extremists/nationalist --sarvajna (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best we have and it is pretty solid. No alleged needed. If you feel a different definition(one using "alleged") is better, the area below has been posted for you to give citations. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
OK, can you provide sources whihc say that Hindu Nationalists have conducted terror attacks? There are only allegations till now. All the sources that you provide are just allegations. --sarvajna (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're arguing different points here, the point is not that they are or are not 'alleged saffron terrorists', that is true. It is whether we can say 'alleged' in the definition of 'saffron terror' to begin with. I stand by my opinion that you must define Saffron Terror (with no 'alleged') and then you can say someone is an 'alleged saffron terrorist'. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign)08:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point but the problem is that there are no sources which gives us standard definition of Saffron Terror. We cannot create on out of the thin air we will have to depend on sources. The closest any source(that I have seen) have come is to refer some collective incidents as Saffron Terror.Also no one knows who is responsible for those incidents--sarvajna (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no source that gives us a definition of the term, then I don't think that the answer is to create a new one which happens to include the word alleged. If we can't find a reliably-sourced definition at all, then there are bigger issues here than one sentence in the lead. CarrieVS (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the definition above is pretty solid: " Saffron Terror is terror conducted by Hindu extremists." There is no need to mention Hindu Nationalists or the word alleged due to Synth issues being alleged(even though, they are in the same article). The definition is defined by using the word "dubbed" and summarizes the essence of the term. Conviction does not need to be necessary to define a word, as everyone has come to that consensus. sarvajna, you are more than welcome to post some information below from sources that is a better definition. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
First of all if the terms are present in the same article doesn't mean anything. What is written in the article is important. This is what the above source say India’s home minister warned on Wednesday that Hindu extremists posed an increasing risk to national security, dubbing the threat as “saffron terror" . So if everyone thinks that this sentence can be basis for the definition Saffron Terror is terror conducted by Hindu extremists it would be very strange. However if there is an emerging consensus I would not have any issues. --sarvajna (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are in consensus that the article will state "Saffron Terror is terror conducted by Hindu extremists. 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." ? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I am not sure whether you are asking me or someone else, as the CarrieVS has stated above we can discuss on the article's talk page about what all things are associated with saffron color like Indian National, flag of congress party. We are here to discuss the definition of Saffron terror. Also you are very much part of the dispute which has not yet been resolved what made you go ahead and edit the definition in the article ??? --sarvajna (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for "is ... alleged to be inspired by Hindu Nationalism"
Civilly and on topic, please.
It is easier to knock down a brick house than to build one. Instead of criticizing my sources, please cite some of your sources that say it is "alleged." My guess is that you again attempt to knock my sources down than try to define yours. Karma is very real. Take Care. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I can find sources that say it does not exist, and criticising the Shinde for making remark.
Number 1 is an opinion piece deprecating the use of the term Saffron Terror, and does not say either that the phenomenon doesn't exist or that the term is not used to describe it.
Number 2 has a similar sentiment, except that it barely mentions Saffron Terror. It mentions the association of the colour saffron with Hinduism - which is essentially irrelevant; see my response in the section above, and it uses the phrase "saffron Hindu terror". Which comes fairly close to saying that Saffron terror is conducted by Hindus (though it is says nothing about nationalism), but is implied at best.
Number 3 mentions comments relating to Hindu terror, but says nothing more explicit. It also says that Shinde alleged links of BJP and RSS to Saffron Terror, but does not tell us anything about what the term means. CarrieVS (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I misunderstood it. But what it is is someone's opinion that the term shouldn't be used, not that it isn't used. This might well be helpful and relevant information to put elsewhere in the article, but it doesn't help us with this dispute. CarrieVS (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: all the sources I've seen are connected to comments (possibly a single comment) by a single person, and seem to suggest that he coined the term. I think it would be helpful to see
Something relating to use of the term Saffron Terror by someone else (by which I don't mean someone talking about what he said).
At least one source uses the expression "dubbing the threat as 'saffron terror'", which seems at first glance to suggest that this was where the term was coined, but that can't be the case as it appears to be very recent, and the term Saffron Terror has been around since 2008. CarrieVS (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty_dispute
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
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:
I have never refused to allow mention of China.
I have not made any statement either for or against the inclusion of China.
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 [20], 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 [21]). 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 Monstertalk13:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 [22],[23],[24]. I could provide further diffs going back weeks.
I have repeatedly provided a basis for establishing weight most recently last night [25] and first on 20 January 2013 [26]. 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 [27]). I think it is illuminating to refer to his comment of 23 January [28], 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 Monstertalk16:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 [29], disputes response [30] then claims no response obtained [31], WP:PA eg [32],[33],[34], [35]. 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 [36]. On the talk page there is an ongoing discussion close to agreement, the only voice of dissent is Gaba p. Wee Curry Monstertalk18:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Monstertalk19:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Monstertalk23:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just a quick comment: I notified everybody over at the talk page that I'd opened this report 5 hours ago[37]. 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)[reply]
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 Monstertalk23:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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. Kahastoktalk21:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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)[reply]
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]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Kahastoktalk22:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ([38] 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 Monstertalk01:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:NPOVNopened 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Monstertalk16:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.
Wee you do realize that this "Gaba p insists not, as that is "watering down" the dispute enjoyed by Argentina." is completely untrue right? You are quoting me on something I absolutely never said (!) At this point all these constant misrepresentation of other editor's comments has become so much of a habit for you that I truly believe you can't tell the difference anymore. I would strongly advice you to be far more careful when talking about what other editors said. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[39] 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 [40]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 Monstertalk18:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Monstertalk19:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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? Kahastoktalk19:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
My view remains that the WP:WEIGHT provided by the sources on the subject suggests that no section at all is the most appropriate position. But if we are to have one, I would note:
The section should be sustainably short, under a level-3 heading rather than a level-2 heading.
We should mention Argentina's aggressive approach to soliciting support straight out.
We should discuss the point in terms of generalities, and should avoid listing countries (though that's not to say we should avoid mentioning e.g. the US) or individual statements, or attempting to provide exhaustive coverage.
We should not, by implication, omission or statement, suggest that either side has no support - this would be neither neutral nor accurate. A mention of the Commonwealth is a reasonable means of reflecting the British side.
Where sources suggest that support that is otherwise mentioned carries caveats or qualifications (Latin America's "lip service"), or is offered in return for some form of inducement (China's quid pro quo), the section should mention this.
Latin American support should definitely be mentioned. There was an objection to the amount of international bodies mentioned (three), so I think two bodies or just "the majority of Latin America" would suffice.
If the US is so relevant that we must include it, so is China, specially having a clear stance.
The listing of the islands as British OCT are not a declaration of support for the British position (unless proved by secondary sources). This doesn't mean we should not mention them, but we must avoid WP:OR
Speculation about Argentine or Latin American reasons (as proposed above) should be avoided. This is a major setback to reach consensus, and it's only tangentially related to main point (International position). Such observations are not universally held. China & Taiwan could be a different case tho.
The UN and the Decolonization Committee recommendations should be mentioned.
The section should be short, although I'm struggling to find a way to include it under a L3 heading under the current structure.
A key difference on the second question is that those articles are discussing places that claim to be sovereign states.
In that case, there is a fairly simple black-and-white question. Either you recognise that country as a sovereign state or you don't. And that's an ongoing statement of position - there will be no statement made but we can be certain that Britain recognises Kosovo today and that Argentina does not. There's no grey areas, no in-between space, no room for doubt and no room not to take a decision. If you don't actively recognise Kosovo, then you do not recognise Kosovo. And once you've recognised a state as sovereign, that position tends to be permanent, or at least semi-permanent. It is unusual for a country to revoke recognition and when they do that too tends to be a permanent or semi-permanent status.
This is not the case here. In this case, there is room to wiggle out of the question, or come to a more nuanced position, or just not to take a position at all. There are lots of shades of grey. When asked to give an opinion a lot of countries call for a speedy resolution without saying that resolution should be, or back negotiations without saying what the outcome of the negotiations should be. Argentina has taken such statements as support for her position, though this is often not actually the case. Several times, Argentina has thanked a country for its support only for the country concerned to deny that such support was offered. The Argentine press reports the thanks but not the denial and the Argentine government is happy.
If we tried to claim that every country that has not stated a preference prefers the status quo (i.e. supports the British) - which would be the equivalent of saying that all countries that have not actively recognised a state do not recognise it - I am certain that there would be howls of outrage from Gaba and others.
We can contrast the ongoing and semi-permanent nature of recognition of sovereignty with the fact that there and are several countries that have signed statements backing both sides in this dispute within weeks of one another. A statement or description of a position is an expression of an opinion at a particular moment, but does not necessarily imply ongoing support. With recognition of Kosovo, the fact of recognition applies until it is revoked, no matter who asks. This is not the case with a statement supporting one side in a dispute such as this.
I have a similarly detailed response written up for the first one, but it occurs to me that this is going to turn into a wall of text. So, in brief:
No, but it shouldn't surprise that Gaba claims that there isn't.
The proposed wording is [t]he Commonwealth lists the islands as a British Overseas Territory, which is accurate and easily sourced.
Commonwealth support tends to be demonstrated through actions rather than words, which reflects the British approach that does not request continual statements of support. The wording reflects this.
We can also make a case for individual Commonwealth countries. In particular, the case for including Canada is significantly stronger than the case for including China, though I would be inclined to include neither.
As I've stated earlier and elsewhere, it will be difficult to find sources that support the position of the Falkland Islanders and Britain because that is the status quo. In contrast, Argentina's aggressive lobbying of various nations yields news stories that provide plenty of sources for the relatively few countries that support their position. The following statements are probably true, but difficult to source:
Most countries of the world support the position of the Falkland Islanders and Britain, but have not stated their positions because they support the status quo. The silent majority.
Few countries support the Argentine position, but those that do have been encouraged to state their support recently. The vocal minority.
Kahastok, you state that the position of recognising Kosovo is a black or white decision, either they do or they don't but that recognising the Falklands as part of the UK or Argentina is a grey area. It would seem to me that either you support Argentina or support the UK. Considering you said "If you don't actively recognise Kosovo then you do not recognise Kosovo" would it not be fair to say "If you don't actively dispute the UK's claim on The Falklands then you do not recognise Argentina's claim"? [this unsigned post was from Cabe6403]
I don't think you can compare Kosovo with the Falkland Islands at all. The former is a "young" nation that only declared itself independent in 2008, so it was necessary for countries of the world to formally state their positions quite recently. In contrast, there was no formal declaration of independence made by the Falkland Islands and their status has remained the same for the best part of two centuries. It has not been necessary for countries to come forward and state their position because of a change of status. Kahastok is right about the grey area. It is not a black or white issue because there are three possible positions:
Support the Argentine position
Support the Falkland Islander's position
Consider the matter undecided
It is the latter position that causes the grey area. Some nations have come out and said they consider the matter undecided and encourage talks in the hope of a resolution. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's an argument, sure, and I would consider it not an unreasonable one. Certainly, it would tally strongly with the two countries' different approaches to this point - Argentina is noisy because they want change, while Britain (and the FIG) wants everyone to keep quiet and just assume the status quo. But I think when Gaba reads it I'll be able to hear his protests from here. And I rather doubt that we could put it or anything like it in the article without straying somewhat from policy.
I agree with Scjessey above, ultimately, and note that even support for one or other position has not generally been the end of the matter for any particular country. Kahastoktalk14:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments:
I like Wee Curry Monster's proposal in his 200 word statement. Seems like a great middle ground
The foreign policy positions of other countries re the Falklands is eminently encyclopedic. Readers want to know that information. We do not omit information from the encyclopedia because editors feel it may present a distorted picture to readers. If it is distorted, there will be sources that say so, and we can include those source.
Editors arguing against inclusion of foreign policy statements rely on claims like "There are few countries that publically support UK because that is the status quo" or "Argentina is very noisy & agressive in their solicitation of support". If those claims are true, then let's find sources for the claims and include the claims in the article following the China/Latin America positions. If there are no sources found, then those claims are just the opinions of editors and should not serve to exclude material from the article.
WCM has proposed to mention that Latin American support is little more than "lip service". Would you accept to include such a bold statement in Wikipedia even if that is not the universally held opinion?
Also, I fail to see why editors believe that the US or the EU are much more relevant than China. Wouldn't that be too Western-centric? --Langus (t) 17:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the article must be supported by reliable sources, in accordance with the WP:Verifiability policy. If an editor suggests including some fact F (such as "Latin American support is merely lip service") then we may presume that the editor has a source that states fact F. If there is no reliable source, it does not go in the article. Regarding US vs China: I don't recall any editor saying that US/EU views should be included and China should be excluded (I think the editors fall into two camps: name all; or name none). In any case, yes, it would be inappropriate to include US/EU but exclude China. --Noleander (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that my find tool cannot find either of your quotes in your message of 16:09, 16 February 2013 anywhere else on this page. Could you provide diffs please?
So far, I've seen lots of you asserting that China is relevant but I do not believe that I have yet seen a policy-based reason. Simply saying that China is the "2nd most powerful nation on earth" may be your perception, but I don't believe that policy generally considers that good enough. As I asked before, how far down the list of the most powerful nations are you arguing that inherent relevance lasts?
My perception, as I believe I have mentioned, is quite different. China is a strong economic power but its political influence is relatively limited outside its own backyard and areas of economic interest. China has little economic interest in the South-West Atlantic, a region that could not be much further from China's backyard. There are no factors that seem to me to argue that China is significantly more relevant than any one of a number of other states. But both those perceptions are irrelevant. I would like to see a policy-based argument that suggests that China is relevant on its own merits. I do not believe I have yet seen one - certainly not one that I found persuasive.
Let us suppose that in three months time, after a brief meeting between the presidents of Argentina and Ruritania (an small country on the far side of the world with close to zero international influence), an editor turns up and says, there is no reason to mention China but not to mention Ruritania. The sourcing for Ruritania's position is just as good, and we have no objective reason to include China and exclude Ruritania other than our own perceptions of their significance, and they argue that those perceptions are highly offensive and that we cannot apply them in any case per WP:NOR. Do you think that Ruritania would have to be included? If so, why, and if not, what argument would you use against it? Kahastoktalk19:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is patently obvious that Argentina's aggressive lobbying is going to create more noise (and thus more sources) than the supporters of the status quo who don't need to say anything. This is clearly the case regardless of whether or not reliable sources back the statement up. Noleander keeps saying the opinion of other countries is "encyclopedic", but I would say that is only the case in the proper weight. It is impossible to fairly represent the positions of nations who don't state them, and why state them (and thus draw the ire of Argentina) if they don't need to? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kahastok, your Ruritania example is a slippery slope fallacy. I would oppose to it, since Rituania lacks the international influence that China enjoys:
In the first decade of the 21st Century, China has risen to become an international power second only to the United States.
Chinese and international commentators call for major changes in global governance to take account of China’s leading role.
China is well positioned as the sole representative from Asia and from the developing world among the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
Beijing pushes for reforms in international financial institutions that would give China a much more prominent role in setting their policies.
China participates actively in new international groupings, notably the G-20, that give much greater emphasis to the interests and needs of large developing countries than did previous leading international economic groupings like the G-7 or G-8.
China has collaborated closely with Brazil, India and Russia in a new international grouping known as the BRIC. Another new grouping includes South Africa along with China, India and Brazil and it is known as BASIC.
Prominent international dignitaries have called upon the United States and China to take the leading role in global politics by forming a “G-2” alignment to deal with salient international problems.
I note that you demand "a policy-based argument that suggests that China is relevant on its own merits", but you don't need one for the United States. I think the fact speaks for itself. --Langus (t) 02:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Gaba has used precisely the arguments I noted in the discussion on talk. That if we mention one state we must mention all states and it's highly offensive to do anything else. It's not so much a slippery slope, as anticipating the next step based on arguments that have already been raised. I want to know that we won't be back here in three months time dealing with exactly the same arguments regarding half a dozen other countries - with the end result of a section no shorter than the one we got rid of.
Your argument seems to be that the China is the second most powerful country in the world. Now I'm not sure there's much in there that I couldn't quibble with, but I don't see any point because I see no need to argue with that statement.
The argument I put to you, and the argument I believe that the editor concerned would use, is that the leap you are making from China being the second most powerful country in the world to China's position being relevant in a particular dispute is pure original research. It is your supposition, not backed up by evidence. And we could make a very similar case for any number of countries, including some of the fellow members of some of the organisations you mention who (unlike China) have a clear economic or political interest in the South Atlantic. We could probably put something similar together for Ruritania, for that matter. So I find the argument unpersuasive.
And I note that I have never argued that a mention of the United States does not have to stand on its own merits. But we're not starting from the same place. Both the anecdotal evidence surrounding US interest in the region (the sort that you attempt to apply for China), and the actual sources that I have seen, suggest to me that the United States' interest in and relevance to the dispute is significantly stronger than China's, and I note that (unlike China) the United States has been playing a significant and meaningful role in the dispute - beyond simply making statements - throughout the history of the dispute. Every case needs to be judged on its merits, and I see no reason on that basis to assume that the conclusion for the US and the conclusion for China will be the same. Kahastoktalk11:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since certain editors here seem to think it is a good idea to state the positions of countries, why don't we have two lists? The first list can be all the countries who have expressed support for the Argentine position, and the second list can be all the countries who have not. We can start with the 192 countries in the UN and expand it to include countries like Taiwan, Tibet, South Ossetia, Kosovo and Chechnya who have not yet achieved full UN recognition (expands the number to around 230). We can list the countries alphabetically so that there is no original research over which countries are more important. This system has advantages for both "sides". Firstly, it eliminates the arguments over the Commonwealth and the EU (because we can represent the members independently). Secondly, it eliminates the weight problem over China, because it makes its importance in the article equal to any other nation. Thirdly, it eliminates the need to find reliable sources for the "have not expressed support for the Argentine position" column because, as we have already established, silence on the matter is essentially equivalent to support for the status quo. For countries that have flipped back and forth with support, we simply take their most recent stance. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a whole article on its own... And still leaves us with the problem of interpretation of the EU's list of overseas territories, for example. Also, Scjessey, if silence on the matter "is essentially equivalent to support for the status quo", then the calls for negotiations would be essentially questioning the status quo, right? That is closer to Argentina's position than a neutral one. Just a thought for you.
@Kahastok: China has strong interest on the region, bear no doubt. Have you heard about commodities? Brazil and Argentina are among the top producers of soy bean and meat, Chile's mining industry is its main source of income. All those resources are vital for China's expansion: better income means better and more food for its inhabitants. In Argentina we are very aware of that, it is what has been fueling the economy the last decade.
China's explosive expansion is recent, but do note that it is one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council since its foundation (a measure for relevance suggested before, in talk page). Its relevance is water clear; and if in doubt, it can be sourced, like I just did. Or, if you wonder about its relevance in this dispute, see: [42][43][44][45][46][47]
It wouldn't be a "whole article". It could be a list or table that could be collapsed. I don't see what the list of overseas territories has to do with it. And calling for negotiations to resolve the dispute says absolutely nothing about the status of the Falkland Islands. Rather it is a desire for the dispute to end one way or another. So unless a nation has specifically come out in favor of Argentina's claim, it belongs in the other list. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, sorry for not being able to answer in these last days. A couple of points:
1- I see in my absence the matter digressed a bit. This DRN was opened to solve a very particular issue: addition or not of China/Commonwealth. Wee has already stated he is in favor of mentioning China but still believes the Commonwealth should be mentioned. Kahastok is in favor of mentioning the Commonwealth too but not China. Neither of them have presented a secondary source yet for the Commonwealth. How are we to add something to an article with no secondary sources to back its inclusion? This is a very simple issue here folks. Present the secondary sources and we can be done with this.
2- I still can't understand Kahastok's reasoning here. He argues against the inclusion of China (thoroughly sourced) but for the addition of the Commonwealth (not one secondary source provided yet) How does your "how far down the list should we go" reasoning allows you to disregard China but back the Commonwealth?
3- Scjessey: this "silence on the matter is essentially equivalent to support for the status quo" is not right. In any case I'd say silence on the matter equals neutrality, but just as your assertion above it's WP:OR and simply not acceptable.
4- Let me quote a bit of one of Neolander's comment which I think summed up the issue:
“
Editors arguing against inclusion of foreign policy statements rely on claims like "There are few countries that publically support UK because that is the status quo" or "Argentina is very noisy & agressive in their solicitation of support". If those claims are true, then let's find sources for the claims and include the claims in the article following the China/Latin America positions. If there are no sources found, then those claims are just the opinions of editors and should not serve to exclude material from the article.
”
This is Wikipedia folks. We base our edits on sources. If there's a source for the claims stated above then as Neolander says, we can add it. Everything else is just WP:OR.
5- Regarding the Commonwealth, if we can find a secondary source for its position then of course we add it. But if the standard for addition is being mentioned in one or two secondary sources then we apply this same standard to all other countries or group of countries. Anything else is just us applying a double standard to the section.
Can we try to put an end to this issue? It's been a month and we are still discussing the section. The only thing blocking Scjessey's last version is Wee and Kahastok's wish that the Commonwealth be mentioned. I say, present the secondary sources and we add it. Otherwise we should move on with the proposed version and improve the section when new sources become available. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A "neutral" position is the equivalent of "don't change anything because it is fine the way it is". Diplomats will only make a statement if they wish to see the status quo change, or if it is specifically in their best interests to support one "side" or the other. Otherwise they do not say anything at all, because it isn't diplomatic to do so. A lack of a statement is implicit support of the status quo. That's not original research. It's blindingly obvious. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it would appear you equate "neutral" with "support for the UK's claim". A lack of statement is in no way support for the status quo, it's simply a lack of statement which means no support for either party. In any case we would still need a source that claims what either you or I say. I'd be more than willing to discuss this matter further if you wish to, but I suggest we try to close this issue first.
Your last proposed version is right now only being held by the Commonwealth mention. If Wee and Kahastok want to add it they need to present at least one secondary source (I'm not asking for a whole lot here, am I?) If they are ok with including it poorly sourced (using only a primary source) then I see no reason why they would oppose the addition of other countries similarly sourced or even terribly better (ie: China). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have a poor understanding of the way diplomacy works if you think a lack of a statement means nothing. The absence of a statement is just as significant as a statement itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered Scjessey in his own talk page to avoid further disruption of the issues at hand here.
As I've said, the only thing blocking the section from being included in the article right now is Wee and Kahastok's unwillingness to either compromise to not mention the Commonwealth in this version (as I have compromised by agreeing to not mention China although I believe it definitely merits inclusion) or present at least one secondary source commenting the Commonwealth's position on the island's sovereignty to back its inclusion in the section. I'm asking for one single secondary source here. Could we agree to move on with that section and discuss the rest of the matters (China, Commonwealth, etc..) down the road? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you're not suggesting my edits are a form of disruption, Gaba? My suggestion about the two lists is a serious one that is designed to negate all the debate of both the Commonwealth and the China positions. Almost every nation of the world has a recorded position on the Falklands issue by virtue of various UN General Assembly resolutions over the years. A list of those who have expressed support the Argentine position and a list of those who have not expressed support for the Argentine position would be very easy to source. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would open by suggesting that trying to limit DRN to a narrowly focused question favouring one party is inappropriate. There was a willingness to discuss the matter in Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, opening a narrowly focused DRN on a single aspect of the disputed content discussion is to use DRN disruptively to favour one aspect of the content discussion. If DRN is appropriate, it should consider the wider content discussion.
Indeed, as Scjessey has suggested an absence of those not expressing support for the Argentine position is a) relatively easy to support and b) support for a no change position (which would favour the UK by the by). I would comment that the only thing that prevented the current suggestion from going forward was Langus and Gaba p's insistence on A) including China and B) excluding the Commonwealth of Nations.
Regarding the support for the Argentine position, I have seen it suggested that no sources have been provided that support the "lip service" comment. I do not believe this is the case. Exhibit (A) [48], Exhibit (B) [49], translation corroborated by Exhibit (C) [50] and Exhibit (D) [51], which shows the literal translation is not always appropriate Exhibit (E) [52]. I believe 5 sources are more than adequate, as noted Gaba p insists only 2 are needed to establish "weight".
I would also suggest that the position of Canada as a member of the OAS is included as well, since the lack of resolution from the OAS in favour of Argentina caused a particularly notable incident, where the President of Argentina stormed out of the summit of the Americas when it failed to pass a resolution in favour of Argentina.
No I am not Scjessey, at all. Perhaps "disruption" was a poor choice of words, I meant we should focus on the consensus we have almost at hand right now instead of discussing a new way to re-factor the section from scratch. Once again this is what I propose: let's move forward with Scjessey's last version in the talk page and if Wee and/or Kahastok can come up with a secondary source to back the inclusion of the Commonwealth, they can easily add it later on. I am completely open to discussing whether China or other countries belong in the section or whether we should make a full list of all countries but that should be done after a minimum version of the section is included in the article. Otherwise this issue will never end and the section will forever be "in the making". Do you see anything inherently wrong with what I'm proposing here Scjessey? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note how Wee once again makes a quite large comment but refuses to give once again a single secondary source to back the Commonwealth's inclusion in the section. Meanwhile the version proposed by Scjessey is still being blocked by him and Kahastok due to their unwillingness to accept a version without it. How long will this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude prevent moving on with the improvement of the article?
Just to make it completely clear, Wee: could you tell us why do you oppose Scjessey's last version? If the reason is the lack of mention of the Commonwealth as I state above, could you please present here at least a single secondary source to back its inclusion? Please please please please try to provide a direct and honest answer to those questions. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to this post of 20th January 2013 [53], the intermediate posts and this one [54]. I have repeatedly offered a secondary source that establishes WP:WEIGHT for including the Commonwealth of Nations. I don't see persistently denying that I have done so helps move the discussion forward. I also suggest refraining from referring to editor conduct as mediators have suggested. Wee Curry Monstertalk22:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got the wrong link in the first? This one?
I agree with your points, and note that I find the position stated above that any mention of support for the British side in only acceptable if accompanied by massive increase coverage of support for Argentina perverse. The point of the rules is to get to neutrality, not to overrule neutrality, which is the effect of Gaba's proposals here. Kahastoktalk22:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wee: would you be so kind as to point me to what page precisely mentions the Commonwealth of Nations and its view on the sovereignty issue? Remember Wee, the name of the section is International and regional views. What view (or position) of the Commonwealth are you trying to mention? Also, how is a 25 years old book supposed to be a source for the current position of a given group of countries?. Thank you.
Kahastok: we don't manufacture neutrality, we report what reliable sources state. You appear to believe that we must edit the article as to give equal weight to voiced opinions supporting both sides when clearly it can't be done. There are a lot more sources to include countries backing Argentina than there are for countries backing the UK. This has been discussed already, what we should try to source is the statement that the UK is not interested in countries voicing anything because it wants to maintain the status quo, instead of trying to manually obscure information because you think it skews the section. Regards Gaba p (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
I actually support this request, though I must deplore Devanampriya's use of epithets ("nationalist", "eurocentric"). He is similarly hostile in the talkpage discussion, having called me a "nationalist" many times, and made all kinds of bad faith allegations, e.g. that I am socking etc...As far as the subject at hand, he says I "refuse to give space to discuss mainstream academic sources", but that is actually not true, I am only against the inclusion of fringe sources like the well known Subhash Kak and the equally fringe B.G. Sidarth [55]. It's also brazenly untrue that I am against Indian sources, in fact I added this scholarly Indian source to the article [56], and he knows this. He derisively refers to David Pingree, the leading scholar of Indian astronomy as "a deceased scholar", while insisting on using a 19th century priest named Anthony Burgess as a source. This combination of hostility and intransigence makes me feel that formal dispute resolution is the only way to resolve this. Athenean (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This dispute pertains to one section of this page, viz. "Global Discourse". I saw that section pretty much said that Indians borrowed their astronomy from the Greeks. I investigated and found that there is much debate on this matter in academic circles. I found that the Ebenezer Burgess, the translator of Surya Siddhnatha (1860) had debated this point with his editor William Whitney, with Burgess for and Whitney against an Indian origin. A hundred years later, there appeared a series of articles by David Pingree in JHA in support of a Greek (and Mesopotamian) origin. Pingree's conclusions have been challenged by Van Der Waerden and Roger Billard in favor of an independent development of Indian astronomy. I have discussed this extensively in the talk page.
I believe that Wikipedia should not hold a brief for one or the other side when an opinion is debated in academic circles. Both sides should be presented. Further, to deny that such an debate exists would be even more misleading.
One proof of the existence of such debate, I present below:
"Recently, two treatise have been published, which will be quoted as (B) and (P):
(B) Roger Billard, L'astronomie Indienne...
(P) David Pingree, "History of Mathematical Astronomy in India"...
The general view of Indian epicyclic astronomy developed in these two treatises are radically difference and cannot be reconciled. If Pingree is right, Billard is wrong, and conversely."
- "Two Treatise on Indian Astronomy", B L Van der waerden, Zurich University, Journal for the History of Astronomy, xi (1980):
The same Journal issue also printed a rebuttal from Pingree, which starts as follows:
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 have only minor interest in this page, which I follow because of my interest in the history of astronomy and have no wish to get involved in a lengthy dispute, but I will briefly add my understanding of the dispute here. When I saw the accusation of a "Nationalist pov pushing editor" I totally agreed, until I saw that the request for dispute resolution had been entered by an editor who, in my opinion, had been the editor chiefly involved in nationalist pov pushing on this article. The underlying issue here is the extent of influences on Indian astronomy, which a minority of nationalist Indian scholars tend to reject, while most historians, of all nationalities, see a complex web of interactions.
The article is plagued by attempts to insert minority opinions, without any comment on their level of acceptance by the scholarly community. Even more seriously, User:Devanampriya has frequently deleted mainstream scholarly material dealing with Greek and other influence on Indian astronomy in a pattern that seems to be edit warring.
I don't know how this process works, but I would like to offer my two cents on the Sidharth source. I have never edited the Indian astronomy article, but I have been a frequent editor of List of Indian inventions and discoveries. According to Wikipedia, a source is reliable if it is from an expert in a field, and published in an academic book or journal. Sidharth is not an expert in history, and his book was published by a New Age pseudoscience publisher. I have said this on the talk page, but I'll repeat it here. Just take a quick glance at the About Us page of the publisher, "Inner Traditions". It shows works like Pyramid Power, a book on Pyramidology, The Science of Getting Rich, a self help book from the so-called "New Thought Movement" (that inspired the widely criticized New Age film The Secret (2006 film)), The Estrogen Alternative a book on Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, and The Mayan Code, a book on "Mayanism", and others. Their list of published books nearly matches the List of pseudosciences. There are much better sources about Indian astronomy by reputable scholars. There's no reason at all that this book should be used.--Ninthabout (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opening comments by Hell in a Bucket
I also have minor involvement in this dispute, my first of which was from a protection board request I came across. There has been plenty of bad faith accusations by Devanampriya[[57]] and an apparent inability to understand that this is a collaborative project where anyone (regardless of block records which he apparently thinks is a big deal and disqualifies an opinion) is welcome to engage in dispute resolution or issue discussion. I think that he may have a better mindset if he disengages for a while rather then edit war "restoring the status quo" that he has apparently set all by his lonesome. I think a little good faith in this would go a long way, rather then making accusations that editors have canvassed for others maybe he can focus on the content and not the contributors which is a key component in our NPA and AGF policies. I think that when he also realizes he doesn't WP:OWN the page we can getter results. I do believe all viewpoints, especially sourced ones should be included in the article to make sure that it is better rounded, accusations of euro centrism and nationalism at least for the moment seems to be the pot calling the kettle black. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi. I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'd be happy to help with this issue. I have no special authority or power, but I am interested in helping you all find a good resolution. I'm pretty busy today, but let me read the article and the above statements, and then tomorrow I'll post some thoughts & questions. --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be some sourcing issues mentioned. I don't recall them having been brought to RSN recently and suggest that that might be a way forward. On the 19th century debate, for example, I think RSN regulars will suggest that this should ideally be taken from a late 20th century or 21st century text that covers that debate. Going straight to the 19th century authors would seem to be a use of primary sources that could too easily lead into bias. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The issue here is how the article should describe the influence, if any, of Greek astronomy on the development of Indian astronomy. There are some sources that suggest it was major, and others that suggest it was negligible. So, we must decide which sources are reliable, and how both views should be presented in the article. To illustrate the different approaches, here are two versions of the article text (boldface emphasis mine):
Hindu astrologymay have been later influenced by Hellenistic astrology during the early centuries of the Common Era, ....By the early centuries of the Common Era, Indo-Greek influence on the Vedanga tradition appears to be probable, with texts such as Romaka Siddhānta.....With the rise of Greek culture in the east, Hellenistic astronomy filtered eastwards to India. A number of historians have theorized that it influenced Indian astronomy.
contrasted with
Indian astronomy was influenced by Greek astronomy beginning in the 4th century BC and through the early centuries of the Common Era, for example by the Yavanajataka and the Romaka Siddhanta, a Sanskrit translation of a Greek text disseminated from the 2nd century....Greek astronomical ideas began to enter India in the 4th century BC following the conquests of Alexander the Great....With the rise of Greek culture in the east, Hellenistic astronomy filtered eastwards to India, where it profoundly influenced the local astronomical tradition.
References which purportedly state the Greek influence include:
Babylon to Voyager and Beyond: A History of Planetary Astronomy. David Leverington. Cambridge University Press, May 29, 2003 - Science - 568 pages. page 41
The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy. James Evans. Oxford University Press, Oct 1, 1998 - History - 496 pages. Page 393
Foreign Impact on Indian Life and Culture (c. 326 B.C. to C. 300 A.D.). Satyendra Nath Naskar. Abhinav Publications, Jan 1, 1996 - History - 253 pages. Pages 56-57
Highlights of Astronomy, Volume 11B: As presented at the XXIIIrd General Assembly of the IAU, 1997. Johannes Andersen Springer, Jan 31, 1999 - Science - 616 pages. page 721
Pingree, David (1976). "The Recovery of early Greek Astronomy from India". The Journal of History of Astronomy (Science History Publications Ltd.) vii: 109-123
Sources which may deemphasize the Greek influence include:
"On Astronomy of Ancient India", Subhash C. Kak, Indian Journal of History of Science, 22(3): 205-221 (1987), by Subhash Kak
The Celestial Key to the Vedas: Discovering the Origins of the World's ... By B. G. Sidharth
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Volume 43, 1874
B. L. Van Der Waerden (1980). "Two Treatises on Indian Astronomy". The Journal of History of Astronomy (Science History Publications Ltd.) xi: 50-62.
L’Astronomie indienne - Roger Billard - 1974
On the originality of Indian Mathematical Astronomy - Raymond Mercier
On a related note, a major issue in the Talk page is whether the term Yavana means Greeks specifically, or could include additional non-Indian persons.
Question for parties - Could the parties pick the two strongest sources from each "side" and provide the quotes from the sources that illustrate the sources' position on this issue? Bear in mind that academic sources are superior to non-academic; modern superior to older; and experts superior to non-experts. Post the quotes here in this DRN case below (keep it brief to avoid copyright violations). Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Noleander, as your framed it above, the debate essentially centered around the pingree paradigm of certainty of greek influence pushed by certain parties. The other users as you can see on the talk page, refused a reasonable reframed article structure of pingree (most of "influence" subsection), billard/ohashi/mercier (some), and sidharth/kak/burgess (which would receive little treatment even in our proposal--we clearly said this). Here are the requested quotes (with some additional background points):
Yukio Ohashi is probably the strongest for supporting the Billard theory of uncertainty of this greek influence. Here is the source as well as key quotes:
p.156, “The extent of Greek influence is, however, still controversial.”
p.157: “Astronomy was developed in India in its own way in this period, and established itself as an independent discipline.” And “the classical Siddhanta period was itself rather free from foreign influence”.
RaymondMercier is useful for explaining the technical reasons for the problems with the prevailing Pingree paradigm:
p.4 "Pingree, faced with these results of Billard continued to argue that Āryabhaṭa must nevertheless have found a way to derive his mean longitudes from earlier, essentially Greek, results.6 He was never willing to accept that Āryabhaṭa, or indeed any other Indian astronomer, had been able to make observations, or had been able to reduce these to obtain such accurate mean longitudes. It is however plainly impossible to create mean longitudes many centuries before the year 500 which could somehow be in such very precise agreement with observations at just this time, but not in neighbouring years."
p.4 “There is, of course, an immensely difficult, and as yet unsolved, historical problem remaining, namely to discover the continuity in the transmission to India of the Greek theoretical framework. It is to be emphasized that the Indian theoretical schemes are different in a number of details from anything known in Greek sources (see Ch. 8.f, above).”
p.18 "For, the synodic differences being in agreement, then this disagreement in the Sun would carry over to the other means. Pingree, it would appear, wants us to ignore this, although it is fundamental to any consideration of whether ot not the Indians copied from a Greek source. There remain still the differences of the order of 1 degree between some of the Greek and Indian synodic differences. The disagreement of about 2 degrees in the Moon (even after correcting Pingree’s arithmetic at this point) just corresponds to the difference 2;44.Finally, in my extension of Billard’s approach, where the optimum meridian is established jointly with the year it is found that for these Indian systems the optimum meridan lies well within India, strongly reinforcing the view that we are dealing with real observational control in India”
p.20 “Billard’s scientific analysis of many canons included the proof that the mean longitudes of the Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta were established in the seventh century, and so were certainly the work of Brahmagupta, as he claimed. This destroyed the keystone of Pingree’s reconstruction.”
p.20 "Pingree has always been adamant that the Indian astronomers never seriously carried out observations, and in this he has simply followed the consensus, which goes back to Colebrooke. He never attempted to meet head on either Billard’s argument, or my extension of it to the meridian determination. Indeed he simply ignores that level of scientific investigation."
In essence, this represents the obvious uncertainty associated with pingree's theories (which he drew from the colonial period)--the crux of our dispute.
In order to touch on theories of reverse influence (indian influence on greek astronomy), Sidharth is the strongest, given that he is an astronomer, has a ph.d. in computational physics, director general of a respected planetarium, and has presented multiple international papers on astronomer that have been well received (his views are distinct from Ohashi/Mercier who simply argue uncertainty regarding greek influence, validate Billard's work (which Van der Waerden also did), and for pointing out the problem's with Pingree).
Sidharth's primary use however was in supporting claims of hindu astronomical theories on the spherical shape of the earth--at one time proposed by western scholars such as Ebenezer Burgess, but now recently renewed by Kak and Sidharth. Sidharth's inclusion would naturally be prefaced as a distinct spectrum of view outside the present academic mainstream (we've said this repeatedly), and would have been limited to a sentence or two (sidenote: his work uses endnotes rather than footnotes). I won't provide quotes because the two main sources are ohashi and mercier (who challenge pingree's greek influence certainty paradigm). Sidharth merely provides an ancillary view in what is actually a complex spectrum of academic views. He makes for useful reading in his short intro (p.15) and on the subchapter specifically on Contributions to Scientific thought regarding hindus and greeks(starting on p.34)
I would also like to note that Mitra (asia society journal) is useful for understanding the controversy surrounding the colonial interpretation of the sanskrit word yavana. His comprehensive, multi-page analysis of it, has not been matched in other sources we have seen. As you can see from the puranic encyclopedia I provided on the talk page--yavana traditionally referred to subcontinental peoples who warred with and were conquered by hindu mythological figures. It was later used for foreigners including various middle eastern peoples, caliphate arabs, greco-romans, and foreigners in general--that's why it must be treated with caution. I won't provide quotes, to avoid take up too much more space, but I just wanted to point out the importance of us understanding how this word has been stretched for questionable historical purposes due to lack of understanding. Hope this all helps--thank you. Regards Devanampriya (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Devanampriya: Could you provide the academic credentials/background/specialty of Ohashi and Mercier? Also could you provide brief quotes from Billard which summarize his position (translated into English, if necessary). Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Noleander, per your request here is the background info on Yukio Ohashi and Raymond Mercier
p. 217 “At first there is this set of observations just discovered underlying the Aryabhatiya’s canon. Obviously, Aryabhata having related nothing about them, at first our mathematical device can only prove that the e observations were contemporaneous with him, while he was about thirty-five years old. Yet, once acquainted with his work, care and spirit, one would guess what is provided by several ways: Aryabhata carried out himself so wonderful observations, as we shall see immediately, thanks to another radiography of his work”.
p.222 “They are different Gaussian curves delimiting the epoch of the observations, undoubtedly carried out by Aryabhata himself, while he was thirty to thirty-nine years old.“
p.222 “Not only did Aryabhata construct yuga upon such beautiful reductions of observations, but I must add that almost certainly the great astronomer is also responsible for the very introduction of yuga speculation into mathematical astronomy.”
p.222 “We have here the bundle of the canon free from speculation and a far better one than the bundle of the Almagest’s canon [of Ptolemy].”
p.224 “In conclusion, I wish these discoveries, will be soon understood and everybody will be able to see what was verily the Indian astronomy, how admirable an astronomer was Aryabhata, why exactly he is the leading figure of such a history. I hope furthermore he will soon be acknowledged as one of the greatest astronomers of the past and, in consideration of his rigour and probity even within error, as a paragon of science.”
p.224 “I wish all the scholars of the field will improve these studies more and more Because I think the history of Indian astronomy to be as a whole the most extraordinary monument of history of sciences, a very epistemology by its very self and perhaps the most enlightening knowledge of a man’s search for knowledge.”
In addition, Van Der Waerden doesn't stake a position in his presentation of the facts--but merely validates Billard's methodology and consents to that chronology. In effect he says, either Billard is right or Pingree is right--and then states that Billard's methodology is sound. The predictable premature triumphal claims of the other side, aside, Van der waerden was not cited for the meaning of the word yavana, but rather, to provide an objective third party to validate Billard's work and methodology. It should be emphasized that the sanskrit scholars--not astronomers--are best placed to interpret the meaning of sanskrit words and terms (as would be the case for latin, greek, etc). Unlike the sources provided by the other side, Rajendralal Mitra was an actual scholar of sanskrit (and other languages) who translated a number of works into english, served as secretary and President of the British Asiatic Society of Bengal, and edited numerous journal articles as well as famous indologist Max Mueller's sanskrit translation work, hence his objection to the exclusive association of the word yavana as well as the erroneous association with the siddhanta literature with the greeks (including yavanajataka)--supported by Yukio Ohashi, as quoted above. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Noleander. I think Van Der Waerden's statements about Pingree are criticism of Pingree's approach viz. Pingree's analysis of Aryabhata's methodology and they do not constitute a rebuttal of the Greek influence on Indian astronomy. In addition much ado has been made about the term "Yavana" as not meaning "Ionian" and, by extension, "Greek". Well, let us consider the following writings by Van Der Waerden et al.:
<ref name="WaerdenHuber1973">{{cite book|author1=B L Van Der Waerden|author2=Peter Huber|title=Science Awakening II|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=S_T6Pt2qZ5YC&pg=PA305|accessdate=18 February 2013|date=31 December 1973|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-90-01-93103-2|page=305|quote=Right at the beginning of our section on the Vasistha-Siddantha we have quoted a passage from the astrological poem Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja. The word Yavana in the title of the poem means Ionian, or Greek in general. According to Pingree the poem goes back to a Greek astrological composition written in Alexandria in the first half of the second century AD., which was translated into Sanskrit by Yavanesvara about 150. Another Greek astrological text was also translated in the second century. It seems that later Indian horoscopy was based on these two Sanskrit translations.}}</ref>
From the horse's Van Der Waerden's mouth, we have conclusive proof that indeed he: a. agrees with Pingree about Greek influence on Indian horoscopy and b. states that "Yavana" does indeed mean "Greek". I trust since the opposition find Van Der Waerden to be such a reliable source the matter may be settled. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις08:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<ref name="KatzImhausen2007">{{cite book|author1=Victor J. Katz|author2=Annette Imhausen|title=The Mathematics of Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, India and Islam: A Source Book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3ullzl036UEC&pg=PA395|accessdate=18 February 2013|year=2007|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-11485-9|page=395|quote=More solid evidence is provided by a Sanskrit translation of a Greek astrological text the Yavanajakata (Greek Horoscopy) of Sphujidhavja, a verse adaptation of a second-century prose translation. }}</ref>
<ref name="Selin1997">{{cite book|author=Helaine Selin|title=Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Westen Cultures|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=raKRY3KQspsC&pg=PA906|accessdate=18 February 2013|year=1997|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-0-7923-4066-9|page=906|quote=Sphujidhvaja was apparently of Greek descent...Toward the close of his work Sphujidhvaja says that before him in 150 the great Greek genethlialogist Yavanesvara redacted into Sanskrit prose a Greek astrological work so that it could be studied by those who did not know Greek and that he Sphujidhvaja was composing a versified redaction of the work of Yavanesvara}}</ref>
<ref name="Dalal2010">{{cite book|author=Roshen Dalal|title=The Religions of India: A Concise Guide to Nine Major Faiths|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=pNmfdAKFpkQC&pg=PA36|accessdate=18 February 2013|year=2010|publisher=Penguin Books India|isbn=978-0-14-341517-6|page=36|quote=Astrology in India was later influenced by Greek and Roman systems, and the Yavana-Jataka, possibly of the second century ce, is one of the early astrological texts showing Greek influence.}}</ref>
<ref name="centras2003">{{cite book|author=Vilniaus universiteto. Orientalistikos centras|title=Acta Orientalia Vilnensia|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ayErAQAAIAAJ|accessdate=18 February 2013|year=2003|publisher=Vilniaus universiteto leidykla|quote=Yavanajataka {'The Horoscopy of the Greeks'1) of Sphujidhvaja composed perhaps around 270 A.D. The Greek origin of this treatise is reflected by its title...}}</ref>
<ref name="Study1971">{{cite book|author=Indian Institute of Advanced Study|title=Transactions|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=bOxZAAAAIAAJ|accessdate=18 February 2013|year=1971|quote=That Greek and Roman astronomical thought influenced the Indian is clear not only from the occurrence of Greek terms in the Sanskrit texts, but in whole ... Sanskrit texts like the Yavanajataka and Minarajajataka which were composed by Greeks, like Sphujidhvajg attached to Kstrapa rulers in Western India, ..}}</ref>
<ref name="Journal for the History of Astronomy">{{cite book|title=Journal for the History of Astronomy|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=FSQ9AQAAIAAJ|accessdate=18 February 2013|year=1981|publisher=Science History Publications|quote=The Yavanajataka, meaning "The Horoscopy of the Greeks", includes 2270 extant Sanscrit verses written in a.d. 269-270; it appears to be a direct transmission from Roman Egypt to Western India and has served as one of the principal sources ...}}</ref>
<ref name="Garzilli1996">{{cite book|author=Enrica Garzilli|title=Translating, translations, translators: from India to the West|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=IFYLAQAAMAAJ|accessdate=18 February 2013|year=1996|publisher=Dept. of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard Univ.|isbn=978-1-888789-02-7|quote=. this Greco-Babylonian phase of Indian astronomy is known to us otherwise only from the Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja. ... Therefore, a knowledge of Babylonian and Greek astronomy at the various stages in the development of each is essential for understanding this text. ... guided by both the astronomical meaning and by the meter; fortunately, this task is often made easier by quotations from the.}}</ref>
As an additional comment, expressions of the type (in italics): ...appears to be probable, with texts such as Romaka Siddhānta.....With the rise of Greek culture in the east, Hellenistic astronomy filtered eastwards to India. A number of historians have theorized that it influenced Indian astronomy. are typical fillers, full of original research and weasel words with the intent of minimising the majority academic opinion and maximising doubt about it at the same time. And this does not include the complete disappearance of any mention of Yavanajataka from the edit of the opposition, despite the overwhelming reliably-sourced academic evidence supporting its inclusion in the article. However, unlike the opposition, I am not interested in assigning any epithets to the practitioners of such editing. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις11:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Pingree's work is perhaps the most cited in this field [58]. He has authored numerous papers on the subject, for example The Recovery of early Greek astronomy from India[59], On the Greek origin of the Indian planetary system employing a double epicycle[60] and so on. In his History of Mathematical Astronomy in India, he states "That Indian astronomy was not completely static is due almost entirely to the repeated intrusion of theories from the West. Five times have such intrusions occurred. In the 5th century BC from Mesopotamia via Iran; In the second and third centuries BC from Mesopotamia via Greece; in the fourth century AD directly from Greece; in the ten to eighteenth centuries from Iran; and in the nineteenth century from England. It is precisely this foreign influence that Hindu nationalists exemplified by Kak and Sidarth try to hide and minimize. I also note that neither Mercier nor Ohashi dispute that there was Greek influence in Indian astronomy. They argue that the extent of this influence is subject to debate, but both categorically state that there was Greek influence in Indian astronomy. Mercier: So in the time of Āryabhaṭa, although we have a theoretical framework that is essentially Greek in character, employing for example trigonometry that is indisputably Greek in origin... and There is, of course, an immensely difficult, and as yet unsolved, historical problem remaining, namely to discover the continuity in the transmission to India of the Greek theoretical framework.. Nowhere does he state that there was no Greek influence, just that it's continuity is not obvious. Mercier's work moreover focuses on a very particular technical aspect of Greek influence in Indian astronomy, certainly not the relationship between Greek and Indian astronomies as a whole. Similarly Ohashi states Prior to this classical Siddhanta period, Greek astrology and astronomy were introduced to India. I don't see how it could be any clearer. To suggest that Mercier and Ohashi deny any Greek influence on Indian astronomy is highly intellectually dishonest and a misuse of these sources.
Similarly, Ohashi clearly states that "Yavana" refers to Greeks "This Yavana must be Alexandria". Devanampriya seems to think that a) Ohashi is good enough to deny Greek influence on Indian astronomy, but b) not good enough for the meaning of "Yavana". a) is not even true, and even if it were, he can't have it both ways. Either Ohashi is reliable (which he is), or he isn't.
Van der Waerden and Billiard are similarly misused. Neither disputes that there was Greek influence in Indian astronomy, they merely debate the extent. Billiard questions whether there was Greek influence on a particular aspect of Arybhata's work, but does not suggest there was no Greek influence on Indian astronomy as a whole. Van der Waerden endorses Billiard on this particular question, but explicitly states that there was Greek influence on Indian astronomy in general, as Dr. K. demonstrated above. Athenean (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More academic sources about Greek influence on Indian Astronomy
<ref name="Duke2005">Dennis Duke. ''The Equant in India: The Mathematical Basis of Ancient Indian Planetary Models''. Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 59 (2005) 563–576. "The circumstantial evidence listed above strongly supports the long prevailing view that the Greek sources that are the basis of the Indian texts are pre-Ptolemaic..."
<ref name="North2008">{{cite book|author=John North|title=Cosmos: An Illustrated History of Astronomy and Cosmology|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=qq8Luhs7rTUC&pg=PA179|accessdate=19 February 2013|date=15 July 2008|publisher=University of Chicago Press|isbn=978-0-226-59441-5|pages=179–|quote=Aryabhata introduced into his account a theory of pulsating epicycles...That he knew Greek models is apparent from the fact that...}}</ref>
<ref name="Sen1999">{{cite book|author=S. N. Sen|title=Ancient Indian History And Civilization|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Wk4_ICH_g1EC&pg=PA184|accessdate=19 February 2013|date=1 January 1999|publisher=New Age International|isbn=978-81-224-1198-0|pages=184–quote=In the realm of astronomy the Indians were certainly indebted to the Greeks}}</ref>
<ref name="Sound1998">{{cite book|author=Washington James Evans Professor of Physics University of Puget Sound|title=The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=LVp_gkwyvC8C&pg=PA393|accessdate=19 February 2013|date=25 August 1998|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-987445-3|pages=393–|quote=During the Seleucid period, Greek astronomical ideas, with Babylonian features, also entered Indian astronomy}}</ref>
<ref name="Leverington2003">{{cite book|author=David Leverington|title=Babylon to Voyager and Beyond: A History of Planetary Astronomy|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=6Hpi202ybn8C&pg=PA41|accessdate=19 February 2013|date=29 May 2003|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-80840-8|pages=41–|quote=Mesopotamian astronomy had reached India by the late 5th century BC, followed by Greek astronomy subsequent to Alexander the Great's conquest...}}</ref>
<ref name="Naskar1996">{{cite book|author=Satyendra Nath Naskar|title=Foreign Impact on Indian Life and Culture (c. 326 B.C. to C. 300 A.D.)|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=SuEBGgRHHuIC&pg=PA57|accessdate=19 February 2013|date=1 January 1996|publisher=Abhinav Publications|isbn=978-81-7017-298-7|pages=57–|quote=Thus astronomy can be called the offshoot of Greek science that was carried to Asia by waves of of Alexander's invasion...}}
<ref name="Pedersen1993">{{cite book|author=Olaf Pedersen|title=Early Physics and Astronomy: A Historical Introduction|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=z7M8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA152|accessdate=19 February 2013|date=11 March 1993|publisher=CUP Archive|isbn=978-0-521-40899-8|pages=152–|quote=Even before the Nestorians carried Greek science into Persia, a strong western influence existed in India as early as the Dark Age of Hindu civilization, between 500 BC and 500 AD}}</ref>
<ref name="GraftonMost2010">{{cite book|author1=Anthony Grafton|author2=Glenn W Most|author3=Salvatore Settis|title=The Classical Tradition|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=LbqF8z2bq3sC&pg=PA91|accessdate=19 February 2013|date=25 October 2010|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-03572-0|pages=91–|quote=Greek geometrical ideas from the time between Hipparchus and Ptolemy also made their way to India}}</ref>
<ref name="Sagar1992">{{cite book|author=Krishna Chandra Sagar|title=Foreign Influence on Ancient India|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=0UA4rkm9MgkC&pg=PA259|accessdate=19 February 2013|date=1 January 1992|publisher=Northern Book Centre|isbn=978-81-7211-028-4|pages=259–|quote=Thus there cannot be any reasonable doubt that the Indians had knowledge of Greek astronomy and were profoundly influenced by it}}</ref>
<ref name="Sharma2004">{{cite book|author=P.D. Sharma|title=Hindu Astronomy|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=SKLmXFJ0nU8C&pg=PA130|accessdate=19 February 2013|date=1 August 2004|publisher=Global Vision Publishing Ho|isbn=978-81-8220-056-2|pages=130–|quote=Influence of Babylonian and Greek Astronomy:...Although records bearing on this transitional phase of Indian astronomy are scanty, what we do know clearly points to unmistakable foreign influence}}</ref>
<ref name="Frykenberg2003">{{cite book|author=Robert Eric Frykenberg|title=Christians and Missionaries in India: Cross-Cultural Communication Since 1500|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Z3CfIl2v8PYC&pg=PA113|accessdate=19 February 2013|date=20 March 2003|publisher=Psychology Press|isbn=978-0-7007-1600-5|pages=113–|quote=Although there was considerable influence from Greek astronomy on Indian astronomers during the medieval period...}}</ref>
I could go on and on. The list of sources that mention Greek influence on Indian astronomy is virtually endless [73]. To sum up, it seems that the presence of Greek astronomical ideas in Indian astronomy is the consensus among scholarly sources, both astronomical and Indological. It is only the extent of this influence that is debated. I do note that several of these sources are Indian, and that several in fact mention that this influence began with Alexander's the Great's conquests, mention of which Devanampriya wants removed at all costs. Arrayed against this we have nothing but the usual Hindu nationalist non-historians like Kak and Sidarth, angrily denying any foreign influence on Indian astronomy, per the dictates of Hindu nationalist ideology. Here is what people at WP:RAN had to say about Siddarth [74][75][76]. All historical astronomical traditions were influenced by the traditions of older cultures. Greek astronomy was influenced by Babylonian astronomy, and both in turn influenced Indian astronomy. To suggest that Indian astronomy "may or may not have been" influenced by Greek astronomy flies in the face not only of what we know about Indian astronomy itself, but also the nature of the transmission of ideas in the history of science as well. Athenean (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Similarly Ohashi states Prior to this classical Siddhanta period, Greek astrology and astronomy were introduced to India. I don't see how it could be any clearer. To suggest that Mercier and Ohashi deny any Greek influence on Indian astronomy is highly intellectually dishonest and a misuse of these sources."
No, Ohashi and Mercier were cited because they severely criticize Pingree and push back at the paradigm he offered. They were the strongest and most eloquent at this, thereby supporting our point about "uncertainty". They provided the scientific/mathematical basis for Sidarth (whom I also cited). Athenean and friends have been pushing Pingree as the unquestioned high priest in this field. Billard, Ohashi, and Mercier all blew planet-sized holed in Pingree's paradigm of heavy greek influence on Indian astronomy. Mercier specifically said this about Pingree:
"Billard's demonstration that the mean longitudes of the Āryabhaṭīya were in striking agreement with the true state of the Sun, Moon and planets just around A.D.510, and must therefore have been founded on observations by Āryabhaṭa, was therefore in plain contradiction with Pingree's views. There were as well a number of other beliefs of Pingree that were destroyed by Billard's discoveries. From that time Pingree continued to pour abuse on Billard's work, beginning with a review in the J. Roy. Asiatic Soc.
I have little doubt that if Billard's discovery had been made by Neugebauer, or by Pingree himself, it would have been splashed across the front pages and hailed as a great discovery by the Brown school. As things went, its rejection by Pingree and his followers is nothing but naked politics. Over the decades since that time Pingree's influence has been felt in a wide circle of his disciples, who have uncritically repeated his views. This is seen clearly, for example, in Kim Plofker's Mathematics in India, 2009, as far as it refers to Indian astronomy, where on the one hand she recites uncritically Pingree's narrative of the origins of the Indian canons, and on the other does her best to rubbish Billard's results...This subservience to Pingree's views has somehow induced people in the community to ignore the obligation to read his work in a critical spirit. "
"To suggest that Mercier and Ohashi deny any Greek influence on Indian astronomy is highly intellectually dishonest and a misuse of these sources."
Where was this suggested? Point it out. I specifically said Ohashi describes uncertainty of such theories (even the only quote you could cough up from him said "introduced" which in english does not mean "influenced". I said this about Mercier: "Raymond Mercier is useful for explaining the technical reasons for the problems with the prevailing Pingree paradigm:". But of course, for Athenean, this specifically means I said they stated x position. Which I did not. I will touch on this more below.
In addition, I specifically offered this quote from Ohashi:"p.156, “The extent of Greek influence is, however, still controversial.”"
On the same page, he also points how Billard also demonstrated that the astronomical calculations were actually conducted in India, not Greece, and thus, pokes a hole in Pingree’s theory that all the classical siddhanthas were greek derived. This cherrypicking of sources is what has been problematic in dealing with Athenean and friends.
Most astonishingly, Athenean attempts to pass off this ridiculous fraud about Ohashi: "Ohashi clearly states that "Yavana" refers to Greeks "This Yavana must be Alexandria".
What Athenean attempted to keep from you, however, was that Ohashi was actually explaining Pingree's theory!! because the paragraph begins as follows in the second sentence: "According to David Pingree, a Greek astrological text was translated into prose Sanskrit by Yavanesvara...". The paragraph then ends with this; “The process of Greek influence of astronomy into India is discussed by several people, notably David Pingree. The extent of Greek influence is, however, still controversial.” 155-156. The entire paper Ohashi works on is astronomical influence in the siddhantas--not the influence of greek astronomy on indian astronomy. That's why Ohashi's pushback on Pingree's attribution of the Indian astronomical siddhantas to the greeks carries weight, since he specifically denies foreign influence on the siddhantas.
In it's quest to shift goal posts, the other side seems to be missing the point by engaging in the very intellectual dishonesty they claim to decry. This dispute is about certainty. Ohashi's point is clearly relevant, because scholars such as Kak, Sidharth, and Burgess all argued the reverse claiming Indian influence on Greek astronomy. Ohashi himself is ambivalent regarding influence and offers limited specifics. Mercier's position is "some, but the jury's still out and Pingree is hogwash, relying on personality to perpetuate his theories rather than science like Billard". Above all, Ohashi is crystal clear that the siddhanta period, which the Pingree relies on for his theories, is free from foreign influence (so the other side is clearly cherry picking Ohashi's position).
Mercier says this as well on p.1: "Nevertheless we continue to have disputes about the very nature of the subject, illustrating the fact, I suppose, that Indian astronomy is never quite what it seems to be."
Ohashi and Mercier emphasize how Pingree's construct has serious problems and his rebuttal to billard was intellectully bankrupt.
None of this means that Ohashi and Mercier have broken new ground. But the pushback is clear as we saw especially with Ohashi, who disputed foreign influence in the siddhanta period (which is precisely what we're dealing with-- romaka siddhanta, pulisa siddhanta for which Athenean & Friends pass of as only having one possible meaning i.e. "Doctrine of Rome, Doctrine of Paul". Which is incorrect, Mitra and S.R. Das, who wrote "The alleged Greek influence on Hindu astronomy"" and was cited by one of Athenean's own sources in the article) All this demonstrates that there remains serious uncertainty about the prevailing colonial era paradigm in this field.
If the moderator recalls, we specifically offered the same proposal on the talk page we offered here: Majority (pingree), Minority (ohashi/mercier), then Kak/Sidharth/Burgess. The point was to touch on the entire academic spectrum given that the narrative itself is in a renewed state of flux, and the article should portray this.
The other side also does not seem to grasp the distinction between "introduction of greek astronomy" and "influence or adoption" of astronomy. Introduction of a school of knowledge does not confirm influence and only leaves the door open to conjecture. Ohashi's own writing demonstrates his ambivalence, but Athenean falls back on intellectual dishonesty to erroneous state confirmation of Ohashi's views on greek influence.
Finally, on what basis is the claim to smear Sidharth as a hindu nationalist based on? Mercier himself noted that Pingree was drawing directly from eurocentric colonial scholars like colebrook--who overemphasized greek influence to parallel the then fashionable european civilizing mission. What is even the basis for the accusation against a respected international astronomer like sidharth? Was Ebenezer Burgess a hindu nationalist too? Funny how the other side has no problem pushing Pingree's euro-centric narrative which went to the extreme extent of even denying the ability of Indian astronomers to make scientific observation, but Sidharth is suddenly objectionable?
Since Athenean and friends recognize that Sidharth's credentials are solid, they have to resort to smear and guilt by association tactics. Is sidharth's work questioned? No. Are scholars brought in to rebut his work as I brought in Ohashi and Mercier? No. They brand him a hindu nationalist--with no evidence--and then attempt to again misrepresent this dispute. Funny how they don't have a problem with colonial euro-centric theories.
Finally, the point about Alexander is a valid one. Athenean added that in there while we were attempting to negotiate a resolution to the dispute. This would be like a turk adding "Conquest of Greece" every time greek culture or learning were mentioned. This is particularly concerning given that the indo-greeks, the polity connected with theories of influence on indian astronomy was almost 200 years after alexander. But such specifics are obviously inconvenient for the other side.
In sum, this entire dispute is about "certainty".
The opposition seems to think an entire source must outright state our position verbatim. This is incorrect. Ohashi and Mercier are not nor have ever been confused with Sidharth or Kak (the record here clearly demonstrates this). But Ohashi and Mercier demonstrate the serious problems with Pingree's paradigm which the latter managed to perpetuate through force of personality rather than science--despite Billard's work. Sidharth and Kak recognize this and push back at the entire Pingree paradigm. This position is not new and dates back to Ebenezer Burgess, Rajendralal Mitra, and S.R. Das. I suppose Athenean would like us to think that Rajendralal Mitra, who worked for the British Asia Society and advised the German Max Mueller who worked for the east Indian company, and Ebenezer Burgess were all (closet) Hindu Nationalists who just happened to be working for the empire that opposed it...what an odd thing to say.
But while they rely on these conspiracy theories to make their case, as well as smear tactics--they failed to find even one scholar who took the time to rebut Sidharth (on influence) or Mitra (on Yavana/yavanajataka). One wonders if athenean and dr.k have certain reasons for attacking sidharth and kak with the vitriol that they do, given the latter's theories of indian influence on greek astronomy--even if the majority views are privileged in an article?
In short, the utter lack of academic certainty regarding putative greek influence on Indian astronomy should demonstrate why the article wording and content should match with this reality. The foundation was broken by Billard, shaken by Ohashi and Mercier, and torn down by Kak and Sidharth who argue bringing back the old theories of Burgess and Das. This means that influence cannot be said to be on par with scientific fact, and thus, must be treated with caution.
Evolution is scientific fact, and thus, can be stated with certainty. But when Pingree's own theories are questioned by non-Indian scholars, does this not demonstrate the uncertainty of influence period? Even Ohashi emphasized how controversial this is--naturally scholars who have first hand academic mastery of sanskrit and indian texts (kak, mitra, burgess, et al), and familiarity with the texts and terminology are going to be more emphatic about the perpetuation of colonial theories by pingree. The opposition's confusion about the purpose of this DR/N is apparent when the miss the point that the debate is about certainty. No matter how many times athenean cherrypicks ohashi, it does not change the fact that greek influence remains controversial.
Pingree retained majority influence, Billard severely pushed back at Pingree's colonial era theories through sound science (versus Pingree's conjucture and speculation), Van Der Waeden said Billard's methodology was sound but did not change his views only saying either Pingree or Billard are right, Ohashi and Mercier say serious problems with Billard and the field is still controversial (with mercier saying some influence), Kak and Sidharth say, no, actually Indian astronomy influenced greek astronomy, with the Babylonians acting as Intermediaries. Does this show uniformity? Does this show certainty? No, it shows uncertainty and a full spectrum of views in a branch of study that is in great flux. The majority view (pingree) is already challenged, by Mercier and Ohashi at points b and c and Sidharth/Kak at point d. Wikipedia's NPOV clearly allows for views that contest majority paradigms (provided there is due weight consideration). It also states this : "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
Athenean and friends want to erase any possibility of Pingree's edifice being sufficiently challenged, any possibility of no greek influence on indian astronomy removed, and any mention of greek astronomy being influenced by Indian astronomy excised--even if it comes from a respected astronomer and physicist like Sidharth. The entire point of this debate is that the the last word on this subject is still being written and there are a full range of views. Our side only wants the article to reflect that. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask who you count on "our" side, and and how that is somehow preferable or right to what you have accused the other parties here of? The response from the DRN team seems pretty fair and neutral given the sources provided. And with respect to your last comments as the sources can change so the article will naturally change as well. Sometimes we all have to bend over for consensus, that's the ruling guidelines we have here. Do we always like it, no, but it's the only way to get things included here or at least limit the pain we inflict on ourselves and others in our frustrations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hell in a Bucket, this dispute began primarily between me, athenean and kishorekumar_62 (with SteveMcCluskey in there in the very beginning and again very recently). Neither you nor Dr.K were previous editors on the page and only joined mere days ago. If new users want to join, by all means, I have no problem, but it's pretty clear based on comments where users stand, so no need to waste time on this.
I appreciate Noleander's efforts and I have no complaints about him. I do disagree with the resolution, and do have concerns about with the speed of resolution--but every volunteer has his style. The reality is, there is no consensus between the original four editors in this dispute. Even if we add dr.k who actually posted research here, it's still not consensus--and with good reason. That is why I believe this dispute needs more formal proceedings and a greater investment of time due to its esoteric nature. I don't hold anything against the volunteer who invested his free time in what is a small matter in the greater scheme of things. In any event, the DR/N is over. If anything else need be said, let it be said on the article talk, since the dispute is about content/article rather than personalities. Devanampriya (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Devanampriya: Although the wall of text which you posted is difficult to read I want to ask you one thing: You said: One wonders if athenean and dr.k have certain reasons for attacking sidharth and kak with the vitriol that they do,...
Can you please supply a diff where I even mention kak or sidharth, let alone attack them? And if you cannot find that diff can you do the decent thing and apologise to me for making untrue allegations about me? Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις08:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.K, I don't need to because Athenean very clearly attacks respected astronomer and physicist B.G. Sidharth as a hindu nationalist, repeatedly and without a shred of evidence--funny how that seems to escape you. The two of you are obviously on the same side of the dispute and I repeatedly make reference to "Athenean and Friends" throughout my comment--must I by your logic provide diffs for each and every individual editor on your side of the dispute then?. I would say apologize for your accusation of "weasel words" and "original research" against me, but again, that would imply that you are interested in discussing matters civilly. The DR/N is clearly over, and the volunteer gave a decision. If there is anything else to be said about content or dispute, let it be said on the article talk page. Unlike you, I am interested in discussing the topic, not each other. There are better things for us to engage in than aftermath histrionics, so let's shift to the article talk page if there's anything else. Devanampriya (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Devanampriya: You said: One wonders if athenean and dr.k have certain reasons for attacking sidharth and kak with the vitriol that they do,... and I asked you to either provide a diff to substantiate this lie or apologise. You did neither. Thank you. It is clear now that you unabashedly lied against me and refused to correct your lie. As far as the rest of your screeds it has also become clear that you have no respect for reliable sources and verification and that you rely on personal attacks and original research to support your position while haughtily dismissing the clear and unambiguous scholarly verdict of the mediator which, in turn, was based on an abundance of reliable and verifiable sources both Western and Indian. So much about your baseless allegations about "eurocentrism" and "nationalist POV pushing". But it seems you will not accept the clear verdict of the reliable sources presented during the discussion because you seem to be interested only in the WP:TRUTH. Again, I will not speculate about your motives because, unlike you, I am not interested in throwing epithets at people. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις15:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.K, please reread my entire comment. Did or did not Athenean say sidharth was a hindu nationalist without providing any evidence? Why pretend like he didn't both here and on article talk. Are you or are you not on the same side of the dispute? Funny how apparently baseless hindu nationalism slander is ok in your book, but perfectly reasonable and historically documented eurocentrism is not. I also asked you to apologise for your "weasel words" and "original research" comments about me which you continue to make and which clearly are unsubstantiated lies. So you can posture all you want here, but it's clear who the liar is. The article talk and your harassment of me on my own talk page as well as a page protect request I made speak volumes about you and your conduct as does your mischaracterization of the proceedings here. Users don't need our characterization to recognize the pattern of behavior from you. The proceedings here are clearly over, yet that's not enough for you, you insist on harassing users long after DR/N is concluded, badgering them despite the fact that proceedings were concluded in your favor. You also clearly have no understanding of DR/N which is non-binding. I and all users reserve the right to respectfully dissent and disagree, though we appreciate the time the moderators spend to look at the issue (Thank you Noleander). It is the required first step in the greater dispute resolution process available on wikipedia. My closing comment expressed the valid concerns I have, and I stand by them. You can posture and engage in after the fact theatrics all you want, but you are only staining your own credibility with this less than civil behavior and continued badgering. Devanampriya (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do not surprise me Devanampriya. You try to harass and badger me by innuendo and proven untruths. But I have already exposed your tactics, so your statements about me are not worth the bandwidth they are carried on. I tried to help you by pointing to you your original research and weasel-words but you misrepresented my advice as a personal attack against you. But pointing out to you our policies is a matter of education not civility. I think you suffer from a severe case of WP:IDHT. You also tend to support your original research with habitual edit-warring, distortions and personal attacks. At WP:RSN your sources were deemed inferior and here your original research did not pass muster. Oh, despite your false assertions I know that DRN is non-binding. But DRN has moral value. That is why you came here: Hoping to have your original research validated. You started with an opening statement which attacked your "opponent" as a "nationalist POV pusher" hoping to impress the mediator with your false allegations since you knew that you could not support your flawed research by using reasoned arguments and reliable sources. But your gambit did not succeed. One of your peers has seen the evidence and rejected your POV position because some of your sources are inferior and you also misrepresent others. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις01:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.K, you haven't exposed anything but your own continued dishonesty, which is why you continue to badger me with irrelevant comments and chest thumping posturing long after the buzzer--a surprising turn for someone who entered into this month long dispute mere days ago--how curious. The DR/N is long over, yet here we are, why?--because you're more interested in talking personalities rather than content. Now you pretend like you were doing all this for my benefit--despite the fact that you have provided no evidence for "weasel words" or "original research", because a lie repeated a hundred times becomes the truth in your book. You guys treated Pingree like the high priest, then realized that western mathematicians themselves blew a planet-sized hole in his paradigm, then attempted to cover up the fact that your other sources are effectively citing his work uncritically, so your team did a hit job on a respected international astronomer like sidharth. You also continue to mischaracterize RS/N where two of the editors clearly pointed out that sidharth could be a reliable source provided certain criteria. Of the other two editors, one was a participant here (so there goes objectivity) and the other had the same odd/eyebrow raising things to say about Indian scholarship that team Athenean does--so the less said about him the better.
On the contrary, I came here because I recognized that this issue is going to need a long-term moderator given the type of intransigence and harassment and unprovoked threats your team likes to engage in (it is a consistent pattern of behavior seen on article talk, my talk page, page protect request, and here). I have already met the first required condition--DR/N. I have repeatedly thanked Noleander for his efforts and time, but I am well within my rights to disagree respectfully. By all means, if you wish to continue engaging in pointless badgering and harassing, go ahead--like I said before, you are only staining your own credibility--you just don't realize it. For my part, as I said earlier I am more interested in content and research. If there are article content related matters, I can be found on article talk. Devanampriya (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Wow, what can I say. You are completely mischaracterizing or ignoring everything I have said above, as well as totally ignoring all the sources Dr. K. and I have provided. You are misusing Ohashi, Mercier, and Billiard, endlessly repeating the same things. Regarding Ohashi, you made sure to omit in your post above that he clearly states Prior to this classical Siddhanta period, Greek astrology and astronomy were introduced to India. Does he state that, yes or no? And no, he is not describing Pingree's theory when he states that. You are misusing his thesis that the Siddhantas are free of foreign influence by attempting to extend this to Indian Astronomy as a whole. You are doing the same thing with Billiard and Mercier. Their work only applies to a particular aspect of Aryabhatta's work, yet you try to claim that their thesis applies to Indian Astronomy as a whole. This has been explained to you by several users above, yet you are ignoring it. Your attacks on Pingree are also irrelevant at this point, he is but one of many sources, as shown above, which again you just totally ignore. You are deep, deep into WP:IDHT territory, endlessly repeating yourself, and tuning out whatever you don't like. I notice you haven't moderated your position one bit since the start of this debate. It is due to such intransigence that we ended up here, and why we may yet end up somewhere else altogether. Noleander's proposal is eminently sensible. Please be reasonable. Athenean (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean, you're clearly missing the point and misrepresenting the dispute--as well as ohashi. All your allegations were clearly responded to in my most recent post. There is no misattribution of any authority or their quotes. Ohashi/Mercier/Billard all demonstrated that Pingree was dead wrong about whether Indian astronomers conducted original astronomical observation--which took colonial influence theories and pushed it to an extreme. They provided scientific proof of this and Pingree could only sputter because it was obvious he relied on conjecture and speculation. This naturally calls into question his other theories--including influence of siddhantas--which Ohashi very clearly contests--proof was provided for this too, and greek influence altogether (another vestige of the colonial period) contested by Sidharth, et al.
The whole point is to demonstrate uncertainty of the greek influence theory not to say authors x and y support my position. You failed to provide a single quote where ohashi says "influenced"--he only says greek astronomy was "introduced"--you clearly don't get this--these are two different words with two different meanings. And no, you are absolutely wrong, Pingree isn't just another source/scholar, his views are uncritically perpetuated today as Mercier himself complains about. Mercier attacks Pingree and his followers on this and I gave clear proof above. Please read clearly and stop misrepresenting facts. And please, let's not talk intransigence given your comments on article talk. Let's stick to content not personality.
I have already stated my views on the DR/N recommendation and thanked Noleander for his time and interest. I do not however agree to his proposal and believe more formal proceedings are required so that more time can be invested for a mediator to properly flesh out the problems here. If there is anything else left to be discussed, let it be done on article talk as this DR/N is clearly over. Devanampriya (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good
Okay, it looks like we have some good sources identified above. Let me read through the information, and I'll see if i can come up with a proposal that might be acceptable to everyone. --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion from DRN volunteer
I've read through all of the above, and read portions of some of the sources. Based on that, my analysis is the following:
The issue here is how to describe the influence of Greek astronomy upon the development of Indian astronomy in the Indian astronomy article, particularly in the Lead and in the "Global discourse" section.
The historical events took place roughly 2,000 years ago, and the paucity of documentation from that era means that historians have a difficult time pinpointing events and influences with certainty.
There is general interest among historians of science in the possible influence of Greece upon Indian astronomy. In fact, two works were published on the topic in the mid 1970s: one by by Roger Billard in 1971 or 1974 ("L’Astronomie indienne"); and another by David Pingree in 1976 ("The Recovery of early Greek astronomy from India"). Their conclusions about the influence of Greece differed in some significant respects.
Subsequent scholars remarked on the conflicting interpretations, and elaborated on the topic, including Yukio Ohashi (1994), Hubert Van Der Waeden (1980), Raymond Mercier (2006), and others. Because of the substantial amount of top-quality academic sources, there is no need to consider sources that are second-rate, such as those published by new-age publishers and the like.
All of the sources agree that there was Greek influence on Indian astronomy. They differ only in the magnitude and timing: when was the influence? in which eras? Was it a large influence? or small? I think most objective observers would also agree that historians do not know, and probably never will know, exactly what the magnitude of the influence was ... in other words, there will always be some uncertainty accompanying any assertion about the degree or timing of the influence. The uncertainty continues: as recently as 2006, UK scholar Raymond Mercier published a paper analyzing the PIngree/Billard interpretations.
My recommendation is that the article should tell the readers:
There was significant and repeated influence from Greece ranging from 3rd century BC to 4th century AD
Following the 4th century AD the greek influence waned during the "classical Siddhanta" era, and Indian astronomy made major progress independently.
The initial Greek influences were initiated by the travels of Alexander the Great
Some scholars assert that Āryabhaṭa produced some of his major results independently from Greek sources.
I think that items (1) and (2) above are high-level facts that could be mentioned in the lead (as well as in the body). (3) and (4) should be in the body only.
For item (4), it may be best if the article names (in the text, not just in the footnote) the specific scholars that promote that interpretation (BIllard, Ohashi, and Mercier). It is clear from their writings that their hypothesis is very strong and deserves to be presented as viable and supported by solid research.
The above analysis is presented humbly, realizing full well that I know less about India or Astronomy than any of the parties. This analysis is presented merely as a suggested compromise. Parties are welcome to accept or reject it; or to take it as a starting point and modify it. Discussion can continue here in the DRN case or in the article Talk page. In any case, I'll be happy to continue to offer assistance in any way I can. --Noleander (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestions, I fully agree with 1), 3) and 4). Regarding 2), since we say that Greek influence lasted from the 3rd century BC to the 4th century AD, that kind of automatically implies it waned from the 4th century onwards, no? It might just be sufficient to say that from the 4t century onwards Indian astronomy made major progress independently. Thank you again for your efforts and your time. Athenean (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Noleander for taking the time to deliver a well-researched, clear, balanced, and fully rationalised decision. I can accept your points in their entirety or with the modification Athenean proposes. However, I disagree with you on one thing: I think you are being too modest about your knowledge of astronomy. :) Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις07:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander, thank you for taking the time to review the dispute, I appreciate it. It is unfortunate that a decision was issued so soon and prior to my being able to rebut many of the most recent assertions by the other side about Ohashi's views. I also noticed that Sidharth, Kak, Burgess, and Mitra were not mentioned by you in your decision--the latter two certainly were not published by "new agers", and Sidharth was effectively validated by RS/N editors (irrespective of publisher).
I do nevertheless appreciate the time you took, though I'm afraid your recommendation does not take into consideration the state of flux theories on Indian astronomy remain in. Since I must respectfully disagree to the outcome of this DR/N ( I do urge you to reconsider given that my most recent comment posted after your decision was issued), I believe more formal dispute resolution should be pursued given how esoteric this topic is. More allocated time would have been ideal and allowed for more comprehensive treatment. In any event, thank you for your time and interest. Good day. Devanampriya (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Devanampriya: My suggestion above carries no special weight. I'm just an editor like you or the other parties. The essence of the DRN process is to try to reach a compromise that all parties can live with. My suggestion is just what I feel is best for readers, based on what I read in the sources. Let me ask you this: If you took my 4 suggestions above as a starting point: what specific changes would you make to them (with the goal of finding a resolution that everyone can live with)? --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander, let me just again sincerely thank you for your time and interest in this dispute. I know as a volunteer/non-admin you have better things to do with your time but are here because like the rest of us you want a better and more accurate (and we can only dream!) more collegial wikipedia. I too want this, but disagree that this recommendation is the way forward.
With respect to it, my concerns are no different than those previously stated--that the theories of greek influence on indian astronomy have undeniable uncertainty--as the debate within western scholarship itself on the topic shows. There is a vocal minority which contests the basis of these theories and has since the days of Burgess--there was even an entire book written on the topic by S.R. Das in the 20th century. While I know you really want to end the acrimony (I have no doubt of this) of the dispute while preserving what you deem appropriate based on what you read in the sources, that element of uncertainty is missing in the recommendation. As you can see going back to article talk, Kishore and I acknowledged the dominant Pingree paradigm of influence and suggested verbiage to reflect this as well as the current mathematical critique--which has repercussions for even the credibility of his non-astro observation theories--and the theories which reject Pingree's paradigm in whole. Mercier himself lamented that Pingree's views are uncritically repeated by the majority of scholarship on the topic today--despite mathematical demonstration to the contrary. The sources we provided demonstrated the full spectrum of thought on the issue--establishing the need for uncertainty.
I respect that you viewed certain theories with greater weight than others--our position is that none of these theories has any certainty and is uncontested--certainly no equivalents to scientifically verified evolution. Even suggestion 1 is a matter of concern because significant and repeated influence has not been demonstrated, only speculative theories that conjecture this and that(articles must reflect this). To be fair, you correctly pointed out that attributing influence is exceedingly difficult to demonstrate--but that does not mean it's not necessary. Alexander's presence in India was not responsible for the sustained interaction between indian and greek schools of thought (Alexander and his garrisons removed from India within mere years of his invasion). To say he "initiated" through his travels it would be implausible and inaccurate (even Ohashi says greek astronomy was "introduced" (not "influenced") in the second century CE). The indo-greeks (and possibly scythians and kushans) are thus the candidates for this interaction given that they actually had polities for whole decades in the northwestern parts of India. They themselves don't even enter the scene until the 2nd century BCE (vs 4th century BCE of alexander), by which time Alexandria, Egypt was also intellectually thriving. As such, given all this, and my previous concerns, I must amiably and respectfully dissent from your recommendation. Nevertheless, I sincerely appreciate your time and continued outreach even after your duties were discharged. Thank you and good day. Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Burgess was a 19th century priest, and Mitra has nothing to do with astronomy. And no, Sidarth was definitely not validated by RSN. Seems to me that you are just refusing to accept the outcome of this DR process. It's also not cool to imply that Noleander is somehow incompetent (the essence of your "esoteric" comment). If you continue along this path, it is not "more formal dispute resolution" that should be pursued, but rather disciplinary action. Athenean (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean, please moderate your comments. My response was addressed to Noleander not you and was nothing but respectful. Don't put words in my mouth--greek influence on indian astronomy is clearly an esoteric area--only a bad faith editor would find anything demeaning in the statement as it clearly was not intended. He himself said he wasn't an expert on two of the concerned topics. I stand by my comments. As I have said repeatedly, focus on content not personality.
Burgess translated the surya siddhanta (a classic text on indian astronomy) and like Mitra had actual academic knowledge of and familiarity with sanskrit--the language of hindu astronomy. Their branch of study and accomplishments are absolutely critical since topics frequently straddle multiple fields. Any historian of Indian astronomy has to either have scholarly knowledge of sanskrit or should consult an actual sanskrit scholar for clear understanding on the use of sanskrit terms in astronomy. It is not enough to say--oh this must be it, and then perpetuate it for a hundred years because it gives support for your conjecture even though the terminology actually has a wider meaning that undercuts your astronomical theory.
Finally, you seem to be unclear on the non-binding nature of DR/N and how it is the requisite first step to more formal proceedings. Please refer to the dispute resolution page to better understand this process. Also, between here and the talk page, you are building a fine record of unprovoked threats and other disruptive bad faith behavior. You should moderate this tendency, lest you find yourself facing the very disciplinary action you are threatening me with now. Devanampriya (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions to all involved, this is a disagreement that won't get solved here by Devanampriya own admission. Let the DR/N speak for itself, if he continues editing and prefers to go to Arbcom let him dig that hole himself. The discourse is crystal clear don't get caught on the other-side of WP:STICK. Give him a chance to disengage, he is trying to get away by some of his comments above (small thing in the grand scheme of thing), let him work on something else or take a break and things may improve. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Time to close the DRN case?
I notice that some of the discussion above is starting to go around in circles; and that there are even some personal attacks starting to show up. This DRN case may have run its course. Unless there is some constructive move towards a solid consensus, I suggest that the case be closed in the next day or two. If we feel that the situation is still not resolved, we can either (a) ask for additional uninvolved editors to give input here in this DRN case; (b) take the discussion to the Talk page; or (c) start an WP:RFC within the Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've tabled your proposal on the article talk page [77] in the hope of seeing where the community stands regarding it. Your participation there would be most welcome, as always. Thank you again for your efforts. Athenean (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Noleander's wish to close the DRN. I don't see anything constructive here given some of the comments directed at me. I have stated my views on the DRN recommendation, so must respectfully dissent. I think more formal mediation proceedings will be required at some point. Given the continuing acrimony, I don't see this happening anytime soon. Either way, the article isn't going anywhere, so people can reconvene when they please. Good day. Devanampriya (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No change perceived as having a negative impact on the rebel cause can be entered into the article. Being the graphic depiction of the conflict, the infobox is the focus of the WP:STONEWALLING:
Israel, in spite of sources explicitly stating its involvement in the conflict, cannot be entered into the box. A graphic representation of Israeli military actions against the Assad faction would obviously cast a bad light on the rebels.
Similarly, non-combatants like Saudi Arabia and Qatar must also be listed in the rebel column, not once - but twice.
In short, combatants shelling and bombing in Syrian territory are excluded, while non-combatants are included for the rebels. Kurds fighting the rebels are kept in the rebels' column. The inclusion of huge, pointless lists of "sinister" Syrian government agencies also cannot be amended. The POV is so thick one can barely see the article.
The cornucopia of ever-changing, irrelevant "excuses" is also a thing of wonder. Arbitrary declarations of supposed "undue weight" and proclamations regarding the Kurds' "true allies" abound. Misleading "precedents" were brought forth as well, articles on wars with four or five or six warring sides which always use a simplified two-column infobox out of necessity (the template only provides for three columns) - but all three-sided conflicts like the Syrian civil war naturally use three columns. All of these essentially appear to be without significance, as none have any impact on the simple fact that the Kurdish faction, fighting rebels(!), is listed in the rebels' column; or that Israel is sourced as a side-combatant in the conflict. -- Director(talk)14:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
A couple ultimately-pointless RfCs. On the first occasion the consensus was clearly in favor of amending the infobox (9 users in support, 3 opposed), but participants were simply edit-warred into the ground (primarily by Sopher99). Most recently, frustrated users posted a second RfC which unfortunately garnered input from only three users, two of whom (Knowledgekid87, Zombiecapper) supported the stonewalled amendments. -- Director(talk)14:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue about the third row is the most urgent one. (Following copied from a RfC) Kurdish factions in the Syrian civil war have generally not aligned themselves with either the Syrian government or the rebels, so it has been proposed several times before that they should have a third row for themselves in the infobox, since they fight both of those factions.[78][79][80] There is precedent in the article 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdistan conflict, as well as in the Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) and Algerian civil war, which have the exact same or similar division of factions. However, though the prior discussion has favoured a third row, three or four users keep reverting the change without any valid explanation, though "undue weight" is being repeated over and over by one editor.
Opening comments by Lothar von Richthofen
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.
WRT the first point (Israel), I'm not terribly invested in it. I think it does merit a mention in the infobox, but I'm not sure how best to represent it. The airstrike is really the main event Israel has had a part in, otherwise we're just talking about shooting whoever is firing artillery westwards so carelessly as to land shells in the occupied Golan (the army, generally speaking—just how the geographic orientation of combat there plays out) and beefing up border security to keep Islamist rebels out.
The second point is far more important in my mind. The PYD (one Kurdish group linked to the PKK—neither "PKK" nor "Kurds" broadly construed) fights rebels (Battle of Ras al-Ayn) at least as often as it does the government ([81]). I absolutely and categorically reject any attempt to make this out to be a matter of "undue weight" (explained in detail here)—this is a question of factual accuracy, plain and simple.
Firstly, thank you Director for finally initiating these proceedings.
The current combatant configuration of the info box should remain as two columns.
Unlike other preceding Wikipedia civil war articles, the anti-assad factions are extremely fractured. There is no clear governing structure. Although all the factions have one key objective - to overthrow the Assad regime.
If we were to grant the PYD an individual column, a precedent would then be set to provide other (SNC non-aligned) factions autonomy, by way of providing them with their own column. We could easily end up with four or five combatants, I am sure everyone agrees that would be hopeless.
To the extent of what this civil war is about....it is a battle between two different options...two different paths for the Syrian people. One path leads to a continuation of the neo-baathist Assad republic or two a "Absent Assad non neo-baathist republic."
Therefore, I submit that we have the following combatant titles (bold and break-line, absent of flag and/or insignia): Government (Representing the Assad government and their allies) and Insurgents or Anti-Assad Forces (with all the factions/insignia listed directly below in order of political and military influence within that camp).
On the subject of Israel, currently the air strike has not yet been acknowledged...the Israelis governments intentions, all though strongly suspected, remain to be confirmed by senior leaders. It should not yet hold a place in the info box. User talk:Zombiecapper.
Opening comments by Futuretrillionaire
So I guess the rfc failed and one of the parties decided open up this. Anyways, the current infobox in the article is based on the model used in articles such as Iraq War, Mexican Drug War, and War on Terror, in which the government and its supporters are put in one column and the insurgents/irregulars are put in the other, with a note included that indicates that there is also fighting between insurgent groups. The Kurds have played a very minor role in the conflict, and there is no source defining the scope of this civil war as a 3-way battle. Therefore, giving a 3rd column for the Kurds is completely undue weight. I don't see any problems with the current model, and I don't see any need to screw it up.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 infobox Should remain as two columns. Adding a third row is undue weight as the civil war is beyond overwhelmingly a battle between the opposition and the government (in casualties, combatant numbers, territory, and reliable sources). There is a not a single reliable media source describing this as a three way fight. The PYD leader in fact has described the Kurdish factions as being friendly with the FSA. Sopher99 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already have the solution of putting a double line between the rebels and the Kurds, plus a note linking to the Kurdistan conflict. If this doesn't satisfy, then it is best to keep the kurds out of the infobox and elaborate on them in the article. Sopher99 (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of Israel, it should not be added anymore than Lebanon/Jordan/Turkey all of which has several casualties but are not considered combatants in the civil war. Mainly because they are not fighting eachother. They are participants in incidental events, not belligerents. Sopher99 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opening comments by EllsworthSK
Frankly, I am not really sure what is this about. Is this about Kurds in third column or about infobox in general as listed in dispute overview? I´ll take a shot with later and make these points
1, Israel shelled also FSA position in Golan, in response to that FSA released a statement warning Israel from meddling into Syrian affairs [82] listing them as combatant on side of rebels is POV of POVs since no direct support was ever proven and is only propagated by Iran and Syrian gov
2, Frankly, sticking the support countries in the infobox seems counter-productive to me, especially given that we don´t know if support which goes to jihadists in Syria is from Gulf private donors or Gulf government (KSA, Qatar). Also listing countries twice, I don´t see much point in it. If it was up to me I´d remove it outright and keep it in the article only.
3, Unnecessary many combatants under government section. Agreed - would keep only army, Shabiha and foreign militants. Lijan militias are widely unreported and unknown, Jays al-Shabi was first heard from US government and that´s that, mukhabarat is not direct combatant etc. As for Iran, from what I read their main role is in support, logistic and training not in direct combat. Remove or move to support section.
4,Kurds - well I can see it from both sides and I don´t think that any of them is explicitly wrong. There are many aspects and I am really on line in this case. I will just simply stick with a consensus. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian civil war discussion
There seems to be some very clear POV pushing with this dispute. The best way to solve this dispute is to take the issues one at a time.
First Issue
The first issue we'll solve is
Israel, in spite of sources explicitly stating its involvement in the conflict, cannot be entered into the box.
I perceive this dispute to be to determine weather we can verify from a reliable source that Israel is militarily involved in the conflict.
For this:
Please provide the most reliable sources to verify that "Israel" is militarily involved in the conflict. You can also include sources which verify Israels involvement.
Please comment below weather you think my understanding of the issue is correct and if you agree to solving this issue this way.
Another thing I note is that the "commanders and leaders" box seems to be overcrowded, I should include the the highest commander/leader from each Belligerents
Eng.Bandara (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me say first off that noone is contending Israel is one of the main combatants in this conflict (that's a straw man), merely that it warrants inclusion as a marginal combatant, which is imo beyond debate. After several border artillery exchanges, Israel had launched (either one or two) air strikes against targets in Syria. This is nothing spectacular, but its a military conflict and warrants mention in the military conflict infobox - particularly one where non-combatants like Qatar and Saudi Arabia are listed twice. Turkey's involvement, for example, is comparable to that of Israel, with minor border clashes and shelling.
In my opinion, mere confirmation of a country's military involvement warrants inclusion in the relevant infobox in and of itself. However, even if we raise the bar, in addition to the said (undisputed) military involvement, respectable mainstream news agencies in Israel and the US (not to speak of Syria, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc.) do explicitly interpret these events as Israel's involvement in the war:
etc.. The proposal is to enter Israel in the infobox, clearly denoting its non-association with any other warring parties (via the usual horizontal dividing line). -- Director(talk)08:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I would encourage you in that case to sign your agreement in the section Eng has set for all parties. From looking at the previous disputes I can see this is a hot topic with many strong opinions involved. There is literally tens of thousands of words on talk pages and discussions about this and related topics so lets try keep things brief if possible. I would encourage all parties involved to take a read of WP:TIGER and continue the levelheaded discussion that persisted so far. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign)09:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Turkey cannot be compared to Israel. First, Turkey is in support section because it supports rebels. For a long time it hosted FSA HQ (symbolical HQ but still closest thing to HQ there was), it gives shelter to Syrian rebels and defectors and supports opposition with both arms and money. Border shelling are minor incident that have no weight in the infobox and Turkey was there before that happened. So far I´ve seen no reports about Israel arming rebels or giving them safe passage through Golan or providing C2 support. Listing Israel as combatant, and above that on side of rebels who are anything but Israel-friendly, is POV. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is the {{Infobox military conflict}} template. Its about military conflict. Its not about political or logistical support. When I say Turkey's role is "comparable to Israel" - I'm referring to the military involvement of Turkish armed forces (border clashes). If we had a situation where Israel was, in fact "arming rebels or giving them safe passage through Golan etc." - but without the military involvement of Israel, I would not support the inclusion of Israel. Especially when we've got an entire separate article devoted to precisely that kind of foreign support - with a note in the infobox pointing the reader towards it. Again I stress the infobox is about military conflict, nothing else. If we, contrary to sources(!), selectively omit and add factions regardless of their military involvement, we are creating a POV picture of the conflict. -- Director(talk)13:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1, What FunkMonk wrote
2, Infobox lists also non-military participants as was established in many articles before (like Vietnam war or Korean war). Participants in military conflict which significantly helped shift the conflict one way or another by either direct military help or indirect - support. Israel falls in none of these criteria and again - Turkey was in infobox before cross-border shelling.
3, Israeli airstrike was not part of the ongoing military conflict, it was not response to either Syrian army offensive against rebels or vice versa, it was simply prevention of arms reaching third-state actor (Hezbollah). It is separate WP:EVENT. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. Wow. :) Now that's really "raising the bar". I guess "Israel enters the civil war in Syria" is unclear and misleading. We should find a source that says "Yes, we define Israel as a combatant in the Syrian civil war". Then we'll probably need to find one that says "yes, we most definitely define Israel as a combatant"...
The bare fact that Israel and Syrian factions have engaged in border clashes and air strikes is sufficient cause for inclusion. Sources provided in support of that fact should suffice alone. Additional sources that explicitly (and irrefutably) state Israel has entered this conflict should serve merely as the final confirmation that ends all debate. Here, amazingly, even the latter are rejected by you fine gentlemen. All I can say is.. wow.
2. Just... no. We simply do not require that combatants "help shift the conflict one way or another" before we include them in the infobox. What matters is if they're combatants. I don't have to go beyond World War II and World War I, but frankly I consider it kind of beneath me to even respond to this seriously, say with some extensive list of the dozens of mc infoboxes that include combatants who's involvement did not "shift the conflict one way or another". And, of course, the infobox guide itself states that the parameter is for "countries whose forces took part in the conflict". You're just inventing your own custom criteria at this point.
3. The sources say otherwise. And the idea that they somehow don't, to me seems pretty laughable. This isn't really "point #3", its essentially point #1 repeated.
Lets take this one issue at a time please, Israel first. It is quite clear that this issue is highly sensitive, However I'm encouraged by the level of POV pushing has seemed to have reduced. There seems to be some misunderstanding about what countries to be included in the info-box. From what I am seeing form the above dialog is:
Whether the 'involvement' has to make a major shift in the combat theater
Whether the 'involvement' has to take a particular side in the combat
Whether the 'involvement' has to be purely militarily or is 'logistics and supply' sufficient to warrant inclusion
After studying articles from other civil conflicts, and my own logical thinking, it is of my opinion that.
The main policy for inclusion is based on militarily action during the conflict
The involvement does not have to make a major shift in the combat outcome
"logistics and supply" involvement is not sufficient to warrant inclusion
Taking a particular side in the conflict is irrelevant to whether it should be included, however where to include it may need to be discussed
The sources the user has posted above are good and satisfy WP verifiability policy. Based on these I find
Israel has a clear militarily involvement in the conflict, regardless of whether its a full drawn out involvement to the end
It is not clear, as to which side Israeli military action was targeted against, going by the source it simply states "Syria" So I'd assume its against the Syrian government.
If editors can agree to work out the following questions we can decide where to include Israel.
If Israeli is action was directed towards a particular side then list it under the opposing side. The info box is based purely on militarily action, it does not require to have a political affiliation with that side
If Israeli action was directed towards both sides, it should be listed on a third column.
Lastly it would greatly help if everyone focused on these issues, so we can take this one at a time. Eng.Bandara (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
No. Israel did not attack either side in the civil war. It attacked an arms shipment going to Hezbollah. Isreal is involved in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, not the Syria conflict. Israel attacking Hezbollah is nothing unusual and has happened before the Syrian civil war even began. I repeat Isreal itself denies being involved in the Syria conflict. It has said its policy is not to get involved in the Syrian conflict.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[source] states "With the attack in Syria, Israel took its first overt military step into the "Arab Spring" .... But whether by intent or circumstance, Israel has inserted itself into a civil war that thus far had very little to do with it". Going by this I'm happy to justify Israel into a third column. Again I emphasize this military involvement not political. Israel may have policy of non political involvement, however by attacking it is involved regardless of weather its politically involved or not. Eng.Bandara (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to stack the infobox with combatants. Countries that had both minimal and short term engagements can be elaborated on in the article, and not the infobox. The Infobox is not an encyclopedia which holds every single detail to the point where it gets controversially absurd. There is no rule that the infobox has to have every "combatant" particularly if there are major arguments against identifying them as a combatant. Sopher99 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second of all if Israel is taking its first step into the Arab spring, that is directly saying Israel is taking its first step into political issues. It does not mean its an official combatant. Sopher99 (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Military involvement does not mean its a combatant, combat (Noun; Fighting between armed forces) is what determines a combatant (notice the "combat" in combatant. Israel and Syria are not fighting each-other). Sopher99 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we don't have to list combatants with 'minimal to short term engagements' with the principal of maintaining clarity. However in case of this conflict as there are not many military actors, it wouldn't hurt to list Israel, when it is clear that Israel had in fact lunched military attacks into Syria, engaging itself in the civil war. I am satisfied that Israel meets the criteria to be listed as a Belligerents in this conflict. Eng.Bandara (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is correct, However I would like some responses from the other members, instead of just staying quite if you don't have any disagreement. Eng.Bandara (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source you quoted said 'Israel has inserted itself into a civil war' - this becomes 'it is clear that Israel had in fact lunched military attacks into Syria, engaging itself in the civil war.' -- are they homologous terms? 'inserted' and 'engaged'? - just saying because one has to watch for pov pushing. to me they suggest different types of thing, those words Sayerslle (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israel only launched an attack on a weapon depot that was going to be sent to Hezbollah,israeli involvement is minimal ,and it doesn't favor both sides especially the rebels.
Abdo45 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you addressed the issues with the inclusion parameters we discussed above. Otherwise this discussion doesn't appear to be going anywhere, I'll wait another 48 hours if flow of discussion is still being constantly derailed, I will mark for closure as unable to reach consensus. I would suggest formal mediation as a next step. Eng.Bandara (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Eng.Bandara for your efforts to resolve this dispute logically, peaceably, and with a neutral perspective. I've only contributed occasionally to this article but have been following this discussion. I wasn't convinced by either side but I think the guidelines you've set down are appropriate in this case. -Darouet (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Also, it has come to my attention that the user has a previous record of such behavior under DIGWUREN
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I left a warning on their talk page 1 and encouraged talk page use, but it was deleted under the edit summery "rmv nationalist trolling". I have been active on the Kievan Rus' talk page trying to import quotes & sources to help with the article, Ghirlandajo doesn't appear to use the talk page at all despite being a top contributor.
How do you think we can help?
I was hoping to engage in a WP:BOLD cycle of article improvement, but with the 2 reverts now (on directly related content) and the accusation of "trolling", I feel dispute resolution may be necessary, because call it foresight, I see more reverting happening if I try to work on the article based on that tone. Perhaps an admin warning to ensure that I'm not 'trolling' or some measure to ensure this doesn't turn into a WP:3RR nightmare, battleground, etc.
Opening comments by Ghirlandajo
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.
Kievan Rus', Rus' Khaganate 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.
too many other things going on -- copyvio and CoI most prominently. I can't get a bead on a specific content dispute, maybe needs to go straight to mediation. "Nuke the entire site from orbit -- it's the only way to be sure." UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Two issues, first lack of interest in resolving the Copyright violation. Attempts in correcting are repeatedly undone and are not explained why. May need someone with more knowledge in resolving copyright violations.
And second, there is no consensus on what should be added or removed from the page or what qualifies as criticism or NPOV. Especially the discussion of the subject's political views.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Have tried compromising and trying to continue discussion but just results in edit warring and vandalism. Page has been stagnant for months.
How do you think we can help?
Attract more editors so greater consensus can be built. Editors who consistently engage in vandalism and edit wars should be banned. Anything that can resolve the disputes regarding NPOV, Copyright Violation, and COI.
Opening comments by Qworty
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.
User:Liberty20036 vandalized the copyvio tag [83] and was duly blocked for vandalism [84]. For some reason, which merits investigation, he also vandalized a COI tag placed by User:Plot Spoiler regarding User:Mad256[85]. User:Liberty20036 is a WP:SPA who edits only on this article and who has been assessed, by an editor other than myself, as having a connection to the subject and an evident WP:COI[86]. His preferred version of the article [87] is loaded with primary sources in violation of WP:PRIMARY and secondary sources that praise the organization in violation of WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV. User:Liberty20036 has admitted to newbie status and has said that he is “annoyed” by Wikipedia’s requirement for consensus [88]. He has violated WP:CIVIL by smearing editors who disagree with him as “uninformed” “stone throwers” and claiming that Wikipedia is a “joke” [89]. He has reverted every edit that I have ever made to this article, and I find him impossible to work with. For all of the reasons I’ve given here, I believe that his sole interest is in promoting FDD in violation of WP:PROMO, that he has no interest in working with anyone else, and that his only policy and guideline interests lie in advancing the causes of this particular organization. Given his history of vandalism, WP:COI, POV-pushing, edit warring, and stated lack of interest in consensus, I regrettably believe that the best interests of the encyclopedia can be served only by permanently blocking him. Qworty (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opening comments by Psychonaut
First, a note that I have not been involved in editing the article except to add {{copyvio}} tags to infringing sections, and to restore these tags when they are removed out of process. (Presumably the out-of-process removals are the vandalism which Liberty20036 is referring to.) I have been trying to assist Liberty20036 with Wikipedia policy on the article talk page and at some of the other project-space reports concerning this article (some of which Liberty20036 themselves instigated):
The copyright violation tags have remained in the article due to a backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems; there's not much we can do except to wait for a copyright clerk or administrator to process the case. There is certainly interest in solving the issue; there is just a lack of human resources. In any case, I suspect this particular issue is out of scope for WP:DRN because it's already the subject of an active report at WP:CP.
As for the NPOV issues, I have some sympathy for Liberty20036's concerns and have repeatedly asked that they propose specific changes on the article talk page so that it can be established whether there exists a consensus for them. I am still waiting for such proposals. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Foundation for Defense of Democracies 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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
– Discussion in progress.