Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:54, 21 May 2013

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

Shortcuts

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

Open/close quick reference

To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Nivkh alphabets	In Progress	Modun (t)	17 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	14 hours	Kwamikagami (t)	11 hours
Wudu	In Progress	Nasserb786 (t)	9 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 18 hours	Nasserb786 (t)	2 days,
Dog fashion	Closed	RteeeeKed (t)	6 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours
Talk:Thunderball (novel)	Closed	Moneyofpropre (t)	4 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours
Amdahl's law	Closed	Jys673 (t)	3 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 9 hours
Repressed memory	Closed	NpsychC (t)	3 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 18 hours
Repressed memory	New	NpsychC (t)	1 days, 14 hours	None	n/a	NpsychC (t)	1 days, 14 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 03:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249

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

Francesca Hogi, Survivor Caramoan

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

Filed by MouthlessBobcat on 23:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Francesca Hogi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If Dispute passes, this is the version that should be posted.

Survivor: Caramoan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

MouthlessBobcat (talk · contribs)
Mr. Gerbear (talk · contribs)
Whpq (talk · contribs)
Katanin (talk · contribs)
Frietjes (talk · contribs)
Nathan_Johnson (talk · contribs)
Sandstein (talk · contribs) - Admin of the 1st Deletion review - No Consensus
The_Bushranger (talk · contribs) - Admin of the 2nd Deletion review - Speedy Keep
JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) - Admin of the 3rd Deletion review - Speedy Keep

Dispute overview

I created an article of a television personality with the subject being "Francesca Hogi".

It is properly sourced and had good enough reception to warrant an article. It was nominated for deletion twice and wasn't deleted as two seperate admins felt the article was sufficient enough not to be deleted.

However the members behind my back decided to merge the article to a television show that the subject was in. I don't think the article should be merged at all.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried talking to the users yet they claim they gave me a week to have a consensus and they didn't.

They talked about other cast memebrs on the television show not having an article. I told them what's stopping them. If you want something done, do it yourself. Properly source and cite references and I'm sure the article will be fine for publishing.

How do you think we can help?

Understanding my side of the issue and allowing my article to be unredirected.

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.

Opening comments by Whpq

My involvement started with the second AFD and continued with the merge discussions which was closed as a merge/redirect. I redirected per consensus and then the reversions started, leading us to this dispute. I believe the course of action should be to simply have an uninvolved administrator review the closure. -- Whpq (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by User:Katanin

I have been heavily involved in these discussions over the past few months and have argued for either the merging or deletion of the article. The reason for the conclusions of "keep" on the first AfDs were not due to the content of the arguments therein, they were because of "Poor discussion quality" and due to a "bad-faith sockvandtrollfest"; essentially due to a large number of sock puppets and ad hominems. I have stated my arguments both on the first AfD and the merge discussion here. I stand by my argument, and believe that this debacle falls under WP:OWN on the part of User:MouthlessBobcat. While I understand that he is proud of his contributions, I still stick by my argument. - Katanin (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Nathan Johnson

I simply closed the latest RfC as an uninvolved users per a request at WP:AN/RFC. I have no interest in the subject. Cheers. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Mr. Gerbear

I reverted MouthlessBobcat's edits because consensus had been established in the talk page, and warned him appropriately. I felt that the warning level I gave was appropriate as said user has a history of going against consensus and, obvious from his attitude in many of his comments, not a team player. Afterwards, I received this message on my Talk Page, which was reverted. MouthlessBobcat was then issued a 24-hour block for this personal attack.

MouthlessBobcat's accusations of racism and hate are unfounded. In fact, I had voted to keep the Francesca Hogi article in the second deletion discussion.

I believe MouthlessBobcat has acted and is continuing to act in bad faith. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Frietjes

I do not feel there was consensus to close the merger discussion on the article talk page. prior AfDs were marred by sockpuppetry and SPA !votes, and I do not feel that there were enough confirmed non-SPA non-sock !votes to close the discussion. I also feel as though the speedy closure of the previous AfD was unnecessary per Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY. In my opinion, if we just wait a couple months, the last Survivor season will be in the rear view mirror, and we will be able to better judge the notability of the subject. I have no objection to redirecting the article, just an objection to how the decision was made. Frietjes (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Hogi, Survivor Caramoan discussion

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

Hello, I'm Howicus, a volunteer here at DRN. MouthlessBobcat, could you please explain which user(s) are the other side of the dispute? Howicus (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Howicus, I added every single user involved with this dispute. I also added both users who closed the deletion discussions to keep the article the way it is. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it seems to me that consensus was against you in the merge discussion. Unless there is evidence that the consensus has changed (or Ms. Hogi does something else noteworthy) I don't see any reason to unmerge the article. Howicus (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me, but have you read the article thoroughly and looked through both deletion discussions? I don't see how the article isn't suitable for publishing. I have stated as to why she is notable outside of the franchise. If I didn't think she was, I wouldn't have taken the time to make the article. 108.13.115.48 (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Signed MouthlessBobcat (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read over the article, as of this revision [1], and I'm not really sure if there are enough reliable sources there. For sure, sources 2 [2] and 8 [3] are just the opinions of fans, so I don't think those sources can be used. A lot of the sources go back to cbs.com, and I can't seem to find a policy saying one thing or the other on that sort of source. I'll keep looking, and maybe I'll ask at the help desk. Howicus (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CBS is a primary source. Use of primary sources is addressed at WP:GNG which notes that sources "for notability purposes, should be secondary sources". -- Whpq (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So then my opinion is that there frankly aren't enough secondary sources to establish the notability of the article's subject. Howicus (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem. I'm willing to do anything to get my article published. It's just the principle. Right now I'm studying for my finals, but hopefully later today I will add and edit better sources and do a sandbox of it. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing is not the only reason that the article was redirected. As noted in the merge proposal, WP:BLP1E is also a consideration. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes you are correct, but you are also forgetting if the article is sourced well and has good enough reception outside of WP:BLP1E, such as season favorite, season winner, or controversial subject, it warrants an article. Like I said, you guys complaining about Russell Hantz not having an article makes me sick. I almost feel like making him a well written one just to make this whole thing fair, and I just might. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rising above the one-event would require significant and sustained coverage. Being a season favorite, season winner, or controversial subject alone is not sufficient. Whether Russell Hantz has a standalone article is largely irrelevant to whether a standalone article for Francesca Hogi is justified. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just about done with updating the article so this dispute can be ended. Thank you so much for keeping this dispute open a little longer. Just my studies come first. We shouldn't even be here as my original article was fine the way it was but I have updated it and I should post it this afternoon. The latest this evening. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revising the article won't necessarily end the dispute. If she is still deemed not notable to warrant her own article, then we will retain the redirect. - Katanin (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

uninvolved 3rd party opinion I am not taking an opinion about if this woman should or should not have an article, I stopped watching the show many seasons ago, and have no idea how important she is. I do note that after two AFDs, even ones where it wasn't a real "keep", I think an immediate merge discussion which was then closed quickly suspiciously looks like an attempt at gaming the system, and I would recommend a revert to the standalone article, followed by a full AFD/Merge discussion again that has neutral (admin?) closing and enough time ensured to gain a wide consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification, there was a 3rd AFD which was procedurally closed as AFD is not the venue for merge discussions so sending it for a full AFD discussion isn't a likely avenue. As the whole thing surrounds notability, the Notability Noticeboard is probably the best next step. -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sigh, The 3rd closure stinks of Wikipedia:NOTBUREAUCRACY failure. Per Wikipedia:Merging#Merger_proposed_after_a_deletion_discussion merge is a perfectly acceptable outcome of an AFD discussion, and the procedural close because the nominator said "merge" instead of "delete or merge" is stupid. However, even this 3rd AFd provides more evidence to my original point, which is that immediately making a merge discussion, and closing on the dot after one week, when 3 AFDs were closed under unusual circumstances seems like an attempt at avoiding gaining a true consensus. (Note that upon review of the article history, I would probably !vote merge in a discussion unless some other evidence for notability is provided, but I think that this railroading is a gross miscarriage of wikipolicy.) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Article to consider

Updated Article Please Read

I apologize for being so late. Got caught up in a few things. Nevertheless, here it is. The reception section is what I'm mostly concerned about as that is the make or break as to whether the article is suitable for wikipedia. I've updated the sources and added new ones and properly explained how they connect to her nobility. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll take a detailed look at it later, but just glancing at it, I noticed one of the sources is tumblr, which is definitely not a WP:RS. Howicus (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the sourcing seems weak, and typical of reality WP:BLP1E non-notability. Find a news/magazine article written about her that is focusing on something other than Survivor, and I would give it a weak keep as "BLP2E". Gaijin42 (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the sources are largely interviews, blogs, and fan sites. Regardless of whatever happened to the article in the past, there aren't enough reliable sources for an article now. Howicus (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, ugh I have to politely disagree with you. I'm giving you in the least a WP:NotJustYet.

There are more sources of her being a judge in the Miss Maine, beauty pageant. http://bangordailynews.com/2011/11/20/living/reality-stars-hebert-underwood-help-crown-new-miss-maine-usa/ She has also done more projects outside of Survivor that should be noteworthy. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NotJustYet is the equivalent of saying "not notable now, maybe in the future". It seems to me that we are done here; notability continues to be elusive. -- Whpq (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna have to agree. The bangor daily news article doesn't say much about Hogi, just that she was present at that event. Howicus (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I still say the sources are accurate. Maybe I'll try again in a few weeks when you people want to stop being so incompetent. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, accurate is not good enough. Please don't accuse other editors of being wilfully incompetent just because they disagree with you.

Obviously, you have the ability to do whatever you like unless you get blocked or banned, but I would advise you not to try again unless and until you find some new, better sources to show notability - even if that means waiting until she's done something else notable. To keep bringing up the same thing that you know consensus is against you on is futile and, if it's carried on beyond a certain point, disruptive. CarrieVS (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just don't get why the article isn't suitable enough. Usually when I make articles, it has a Wiki:AFD. If it fails, I usually accept it and move on, it is passes, the article has no more problems. Because that's the point of an AFD. To prove if the article is set for the site. This article not only had one that passed, but I believe there were now three. I thought there were two but a third admin decided to keep the article. Keep that in mind.

It wasn't until unregistered members and sockpuppets decided to come up consensuses that the article wasn't fit for wikipedia when I believe it is. So far I'm not satisfied. I think I have more than good enough sources to support the article good enough for publishing. Articles like this, and let's not forget this are suitable, but this one isn't. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I really do. MouthlessBobcat (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been involved in this case, so I haven't looked closely enough at the article and sources to form my own opinion. Besides, as a volunteer I'm only here to mediate. But it seems clear to me that consensus is against you and unlikely to change. As frustrating as it must be for something you've worked hard on not to be kept, at a certain point you have to accept it, unless you can find some new reason.

Just because something wasn't deleted in the past doesn't necessarily mean it must be kept now; Consensus can change. And that other articles have been kept has little bearing on with whether this one should be.

Please also remember that unregistered users have as much right to an opinion as you do. Sockpuppets do not, but if you have evidence of sockpuppetry you should take it (unless it's already been dealt with) to WP:SPI. As I say, I haven't yet looked very closely at anything other than this discussion, so the consensus I was referring to is on this page. I see a lot of editors here and no-one besides you saying the article should be kept. Regardless of anything that happened at past AFDs, it seems that the consensus is to merge the article.

If you want to stand any chance of changing that, you will need to address the arguments the other editors have made. Do you disagree that the sources are "largely interviews, blogs, and fan sites"? If so, why? If not, why are they reliable sources to in spite of it? Why does the Bangor Daily News article prove notability if it "doesn't say much about Hogi, just that she was present at that event"? Complaining about past proceedings will not do you a blind bit of good: whether we put the matter to rest here or start another merge discussion or do anything else, in the long run, the only way this article will be kept is if someone can defend it on its merits. CarrieVS (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Port Imperial Street Circuit

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

Filed by Prisonermonkeys on 08:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Port Imperial Street Circuit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The issue centres on the inclusion of images in the article. There is some debate between editors as to their value to the article, and whether or not a consensus has been acheived.

Those in favour of including the images claim that they are needed because they show readers where the circuit is located, and that they provide a visual representation of the circuit environment.

Those against including the images claim that they do not actually show the circuit, since nothing has actually been built yet, and that building on from this, there is no evidence supplied to substantiate the claim that the images show the location of the circuit.

Furthermore, there is dispute over whether a consensus has been acheived, and what that consensus is - each side claims that a consensus has been reached, that that consensus is in their favour, that the other party is operating on a false assumption, and have been editing the article accordingly to the point of edit-warring.

There is a third image on the page, showing the circuit layout over the streets of New Jersey that it will use. This image is not being debated, as its merit has not been question, but rather, has been accepted as a useful image.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Users have attempted to resolve the dispute on the talk page, but exist in a stalemate.

How do you think we can help?

By offering some additional voices to the argument to try and reach a consensus.

Opening comments by Djflem

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.

Issues are being addressed at Talk:Port Imperial Street Circuit. Djflem (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by The359

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 The Bushranger

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.

As noted, I believe that the images add value to the article, but I have no problems with them being removed if that is the consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Port Imperial Street Circuit 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'll be glad to take the case. I know we do not have opening comments from both sides, but I have seen the page in question and the read the talk page to get feel for the issue. I'd like to open with a discussion on exactly how everyone feels about each of the images.

Port Imperial Street Circuit, in the nav box, the outline of the circuit.
Picture of the site of circuit overlooking Hudson Waterfront with New York and Jersey City skylines.
Map overlay of the circuit's location on the city streets of Weehawken and West New York.
View to the ferry terminal at the start/finish line shown as point #1 on map

An immediate concern comes to me on that last picture, which can be addressed by a simple cropping of the bottom half which removes the staircase. So please consider that option when you respond. Opening comments can still be filled in if you wish, so I can get a better perspective of your individual stances. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll take you up on that offer.

Firstly, I have no issue with the image in the navbox. Every single page on Formula 1 racing circuits have their own image in a navbox. Examples include Silverstone Circuit, Hungaroring, Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Autodromo Nazionale Monza and so on.

The picture of the site overlooking the Hudson Waterfront is one of the images that I really have an issue with. My problem is that this is an article about a racing circuit, and that the race will take place on public roads, but the imge doesn't actually show any roads. I have since changed it to be an image of the ferry terminal, which will be adjacent to the start/finish line.

I also have issues with the image of the staircase, primarily because it focuses on the staircase. I don't think that cropping it out is really an option, though, because it's not a particularly great photo to begin with, and also because it will be difficult to explain precisely what the reader is looking at; when finished, the circuit will use the two-lane road in front of the terminal and an undeveloped part of the waterfront that is partially cut out by the photo. I have since changed the caption, because the caption was wrong; point #1 on the map does not refer to the ferry terminal, but to the first corner of the circuit.

I don't have any problems with the map overlay of the circuit. Because the circuit will be on public roads, this image shows exactly which roads will be used. However, I don't think it is that big a deal if the image is removed - other pages for temporary street circuits (such as Circuit de Monaco and Marina Bay Street Circuit) don't show images such as these, while others (namely the Melbourne Grand Prix Circuit and Valencia Street Circuit) do. It's an inconsistency that should be addressed, but it's an issue for the Formula 1 WikiProject to address.

In summary, since the circuit is specifically being created for Formula 1 racing, then the priority should be in keeping the article consistent with the article for other Formula 1 circuits. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, just need the other editors to weigh in here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One other editor has declined to participate, saying it's being addressed on the talk page; the only person not to have responded has been active on Wikipedia since the filing was posted, so after this long I think we can conclude that (s)he doesn't want to take part either. As talk page discussion and editing are continuing, I would suggest closing this rather than going ahead with only two participants.

Editors would be welcome to refile if discussion doesn't resolve the dispute; I also note that the help requested was "offering some additional voices to the argument", so perhaps a request for comments would be worth considering if discussion isn't getting anywhere. CarrieVS (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

corporation, joint-stock company, shareholder, share, finance, corporate finance, and others

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Sigiheri on 20:20, 13 May 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.

Location of dispute

Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Joint-stock company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Shareholder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Share (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Finance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Corporate finance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
And others (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Corporations are legally NOT the shareholders. I have posted this on TALK and provided numerous references. Unfortunately, various users revert my edits that I make, which I make to avoided insinuating that shareholders are owners. I have asked them all to discuss on the TALK page, but they usually do not do it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to ask Admin on my TALK page for help and instead I was eventually blocked. Then, after the block, admin told me about this page.

How do you think we can help?

You can stop people from generally referring to shareholders as owners. I have made this same argument several times in the past. Admin archives these arguments and hides them away forever, making it impossible to simply refer to the argument. The result is that I must redo the whole argument every year or so.

Opening comments by Discospinster

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 Blue-Haired Lawyer

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 Srnec

I do not enjoy participating in this side of Wikipedia.

Sigiheri doesn't know how to edit or discuss at Wikipedia. Replacing reliably sourced material with contrary reliably sourced material is not the right way. Opening a discussion when you've been reverted by multiple editors and then restoring your text again and again claiming that the others must discuss with you is not the normal procedure. His point of view is in fact valid and there are reliable sources that back him up. He should add them appropriately to highlight to readers that an intellectual debate exists on the status of shareholders and the nature of ownership.

If you want to know why his assertions are extremely tendentious, see this and this (GoogleScholar searches). Overwhelmingly, reliable sources just plain assume that shareholders are owners. We have a right to do the same—not to suppress contrary opinions, if they are reliably sourced, but to build upon the basic definition of the shareholder as owner. Srnec (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Legacypac

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 editor is putting in junk that can not be sourced and deleting basic corporate law facts that are so basic they do not even need to be sourced. His sources do not agree with his POV. Further, he has been blocked for edit warring and I just nominated him for another block.

If shareholder ownership is such a "basic fact" why does contemporary legal scholarship insist that shareholders are NOT generally the owners? I have numerous cites while this person, Legacypac, has ZERO. His only evidence that he is right is that he believes it. Obviously, Legacypak does not understand that statements require more than personal beliefs for them to be facts.Sigiheri (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments might be taken more seriously if your sources did not completely disagree with you. No one needs to justify their position if you can't justify your minority view. Legacypac (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this action can be closed now that the proposer (or whatever they are called here) has been blocked for edit warring on the topic? Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

corporation, joint-stock company, shareholder, share, finance, corporate finance, and others 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.

Volunteer Notes: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, though I am a regular volunteer here, I'm not opening or taking this for discussion, just making a couple of notes:

I have notified the participants other than the listing editor as our notification bot is down at this time, apparently.
We cannot stop anyone from doing anything. All we can do here is to try to help you work our your disagreements through discussion and neutral advice and comments.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Volunteer Notes:

Please do not begin discussion before a DRN volunteer has opened the case for discussion.
Please do not post in other editors' opening comments sections. All discussion should go in this section (but see my last point, above).
If a primary participant were blocked indefinitely we might close this request, but a short block will not generally result in closure.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:27, 15 May 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.

Homeopathy

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Cjwilky on 19:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

A reference is being used to support the idea of cancer being a risk of using homeopathy. The study referred to discusses complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) which specifically includes homeopathy but its clear in the study that the authors claim CAM in general could lead to increased risk of cancer. They don't specify the use of homeopathy can increase the risk of cancer. Whilst we can guess or theorise that this may be the case, that is not said anywhere in the study. Wikipedia:No original research says analysis of sources is not acceptable. I claim that to say the use of homeopathy increases risk of cancer from this source can only be from analysis of the study, ie original research. Also, as this source doesn't specify the effects of using homeopathy and only generalises under the CAM umbrella, it is a study that relates to Alternative medicine not Homeopathy, and so should be moved to the relevant article, not used in homeopathy. All the other editors listed believe it is valid to make the analysis/assumption that the use of homeopathy on its own can lead to cancer as well as believe that this study is a clear study relating to homeopathy by itself.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing on the talk page including pointing out specific wiki policies.

How do you think we can help?

By helping clarify the wiki policy in this situation. A consensus is unlikely to happen without external help as this is an issue between me holding one opinion and several other eds who hold another.

Opening comments by Zad68

I think I'm going to have to apologize to Cjwilky and the other editors involved in this DRN. Although the explanation given in the Dispute overview is a bit unclear and does not identify the issue I am bringing up here, and I agree with the other editors in being confused about the objections to having the article state "homeopathy causes cancer" when it does not, I now agree with the end result of the edit suggested: In sentence in the 5th paragraph in the lead, source PMID 12974558 (Malik) should be removed along with the phrase "such as cancer", and Malik can also be removed from the "On clinical grounds, patients who choose to use homeopathy in preference to normal medicine..." sentence as well (no article prose change needed there). I said on the Talk page I thought Malik was a review article and I was wrong, it's not, it's a small 2003 prospective primary study. It's sometimes OK to use the background sections of primary studies but I don't think that's OK here: We have PMID 17285788 (Altunc), a recent systematic review article and a high-quality secondary source ~~, which doesn't appear to use that primary study, and that casts doubt on the quality of its results~~ struck out, see note below. I don't think Malik is necessary as we have Altunc, and the remaining sources don't support "such as cancer" (and it's not necessary to mention "cancer" either as it's just an example). Zad68 02:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I struck out my observation that Altunc didn't use Malik because it's irrelevant: Malik studied adults and Altunc is pediatrics, and so it wouldn't be expected that Altunc might use Malik. Thanks to Brunton for pointing this out. Zad68 13:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Brunton

The disputed statement in the article does not say "that the use of homeopathy on its own can lead to cancer"; it says: "Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer." This statement is adequately supported by the sources used. I'm not sure that there is much of a dispute here; it seems to be more a single editor disagreeing with every other editor so far involved in the discussion (who they describe as "the skeptic gang" and "signed up Skeptics ") based, apparently, on a misunderstanding of what the disputed wording actually says. Brunton (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by JoelWhy

First of all NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT HOMEOPATHY IS A CANCER RISK! The article (and the source) explain that people who use homeopathy may "risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer." (i.e. Had they gone to a doctor immediately rather than first seeking diagnosis/treatment from a homeopath, they may have been properly diagnosed sooner.)

The sourced article discusses Complimentary and Alternative medicine (CAM). Homeopathy is a type of CAM. Moreover, the article specifically says that 71% of the subjects in the study were using homeopathy. This is not synthesis. It's directly on point. JoelWhy?(talk) 20:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My poor phrasing, it is about the diagnosis issue as you say, but could you please quote where in the study it says what you claim in your first para? I don't see that. Cjwilky (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not respond to this question at this time, see my comments below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)[reply]

Opening comments by TippyGoomba

Cjwilky opens with the statement:

A reference is being used to support the idea of cancer being a risk of using homeopathy.

He objects to the following sentence in the article:

Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer.

The claim that cancer is a risk of using homeopathy is a gross misrepresentation of what the article says. From what I gather, this is his only objection. The objection is addressed by the explanation that he misunderstands the difference between something causing cancer and something delaying cancer treatment. The sentence does even imply that the homeopathy preceded the cancer, a prerequisite for the causal relation that Cjwilky is imagining. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by LeadSongDog

Upon consideration, I think I'd better just sit back and watch this play out. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Alexbrn

I have checked the source and am happy it properly supports what WP says. I don't really get what this dispute is about, since the complaint seems to bear no relation to what the texts are actually stating. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Daffydavid

The dispute opened here is an inaccurate description of the article and the disputed material. I cannot see how it has been represented as CAM leads to an increase in cancer. They are clearly stating - " Breast cancer patients in Pakistan frequently (53%) delay seeking medical advice. Antecedent practice of CAM is widespread and a common underlying reason. The delay results in significant worsening of the disease process." They further state that the CAM used 70% of the time was homeopathy. CJ's argument is the same as arguing that a study on murder weapons states that 70% of the time guns are used but since the study title is "murder weapons" we shouldn't use it in an article on guns.--Daffydavid (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AndyTheGrump (not listed above)

It appears that Cjwilky has completely failed to understand what the source in question claims: it does not suggest that CAM increases the risk of getting cancer. Could I suggest that perhaps Cjwilky should read the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article and the skeptics here claim "Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer." My bad phrasing. Its about CAM and cancer nevertheless. Cjwilky (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not respond to this comment at this time, see my comments below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)[reply]

Comment by Gaijin42 (not listed above)

I am uninvolved, and have come across this dispute from this posting. The phrases in the article are absolutely adequately sourced by the study. Nobody is attempting to insert a claim that homeopathy causes cancer. The text is that those who delay standard medical treatment of cancer, and instead use CAM (including homeopathy) have worse outcomes. This is directly stated in the study. Frankly CJwilky has a really bad case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT as there is a clear consensus from other editors that the statements are adequately sourced. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JzG (not listed above)

The source says that people have worse cancer outcomes when they use alternatives to medicine. As the study notes, homeopathy is one of the most widespread alternatives to medicine. The study includes a figure of 70%, making homeopathy the dominant alternative to medicine among this group. Several secondary sources make the link.

Cjwilky does not like this. That's not a surprise, he doesn't like very much about the scientific consensus around homeopathy. He is a believer. His opinion is every bit as relevant as the view of a young earth creationist on matters pertaining to evolutionary biology, and for exactly the same reasons.

You can't resolve this dispute to everyone's satisfaction, because the dominant view among homeopathy believers is that the article should be deleted and rewritten from their perspective, which would be an abject failure of WP:NPOV (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy). Guy (Help!) 11:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy 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.

Volunteer's note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not "taking" or opening this matter for discussion at this point in time, but just want to make a couple of comments:

Please do not commence discussion of this matter until a volunteer has opened this case for discussion.
Please do not post comments to any other editors' opening comments space above. All discussion (once discussion has been opened) should go in this section, not above.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'll be glad to take this case and I believe that we should be able to resolve this issue in an amicable way to everyone's satisfaction. I would like to request that comments are posted below, or in response to this message, just to keep things tidy and easy to read for anyone else who wants to help out. From reading over the talk page and the opening statements, there appears to be a bit of an issue with what the provided reference is actually stating and it seems the context may have been misunderstood in some way. To clarify the current status of the dispute, as per the talk page and here:

The reference here is disputed (Please correct me if I'm wrong) and
the general editorial consensus is that the source is valid, and should not be removed.

I would like to open the discussion by asking Cjwilky why they believe the source states about cancer being a risk of using homeopathy and why they believe it should be removed. + Crashdoom ^Talk 01:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The core dispute appears to be that cjwilky appears to be arguing against a position that nobody is actually taking. I am not sure if this is out of a genuine misunderstanding of what is being discussed, or if he is just using a strawman as an argumentative device. In addition to the question you asked, I would ask him to accurately (ie, not a strawman) repeat the argument we are making that he thinks the source does not support. I believe that will shed significant light on the situation. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you volunteers for taking part here. I did initially put the issue in an unclear way, apologies.

The issue is, the source (Malik) states that patients using CAM therapies accounts for a delay in seeking medical advice in the case of cancer. Whilst homeopathy is one of the CAM therapies the patients in the study were using, nowhere does the study state that the choice of using homeopathy itself is responsible for this. Its a CAM factor, not specifically a homeopathy factor. To make the leap and say that seeking homeopathy is responsible for not seeking further treatment is orginal research.

A further point is that the source concerns breast cancer specifically, not "cancer".

To actually be specific about the original research, and illustrate the danger of doing original research, the study says: 53% of patients delayed. Of those, 34% because they chose to use CAM therapies. So thats 18% of the total patients delaying because they chose a CAM therapy. The proportion of the total patients using CAM therapy who used homeopathy is 70%. Do the maths - its perfectly feasible that with 30% not using homeopathy that they make up all of the 18% who are the significant population that delayed seeking medical advice due to using a CAM therapy. Cjwilky (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your dispute. You are correct that we should clarify breast cancer in the study and not generalize to all cancers. However, numerically I believe you are misreading the study. the 70% is not of the whole proportion, but of the portion that delayed due to CAM. "Fifty three percent delayed seeking medical advice. [...] Twenty nine percent practiced CAM before visiting any physician. Common methods used were homeopathy (70%)".

100% of study (n138)
- 53 % that delayed (n73)
  - Of those that delayed, 34% had "antecedant use of CAM" (n24) (As you stipulated in your comment just above)
  - Also of those that delayed 29% used CAM prior to visiting a physician. (n21) (followed immediately by breakdown)
  - It is unclear to me what the distinction is between the 34% and the 29% as antecedant means before. perhaps the full study would clarify.
    - Of those that used CAM prior, 70% use homeopathy (n14) (12% of entire study, 29% of those that delayed, and 70% of those that used CAM) ( 70% + 15% + 13% = 98%, 98> 34 98>53)

To read the numbers as you are interpreting would mean that 100% of the study used some sort of CAM Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct re my mistake. However, its not made clear if the people using homeopathy beforehand delayed as per the > or = 1 month period defined. They may have delayed by a day, a week. This is the problem with doing original research, assumptions can easily be made. The conclusion of the study is not about homeopathy and isn't that what we are supposed to be doing here, citing what studies conclude and not interpreting them? Cjwilky (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We know certainly that they did not delay a day or a week, because the study explicitly says "Delay in seeking medical advice was defined as time period of > or = 1 month between initial perception of lump and first physician visit" and " Fifty three percent delayed seeking medical advice. Common reasons were; antecedent use of complimentary/alternative therapies (34%)" and " Twenty nine percent practiced CAM before visiting any physician. Common methods used were homeopathy (70%)" If the study had the level of ambiguity you describe, than the whole "definition of delay" is meaningless for all of the CAM results and completely invalidating the study - it would not have passed peer review.

If Homeopathy was a small % of the CAM, I would say your objection had merit, but it is almost 3/4! The study says that Delay of mainstream treatment using CAM, 70% of which was homeopathy, results in worse outcomes. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that CJwilky's attempts here to shift the blame for delays in treatment to other forms of CAM are not only WP:OR, but a violation of WP:NPOV policy. I'm quite sure that if supporters of other forms of CAM engaged in similar special pleading, and suggested that homoeopathy was solely responsible, CJwilky would object most strongly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, first you misread the article, claiming that we had written homeopathy causes cancer. We clarified that, and then you argue that the numbers are misleading, because only 18% of the people in the study delayed treatment, meaning that perhaps no people using homeopathy were in that group. Again, you were shown that you were misreading the material. So, then you move on to arguing against its inclusion because they may have only delayed for a day or a week. Yet again, you misread the material. Please see the article Moving the goalpost. JoelWhy?(talk) 20:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going over what's been said just above it appears to me that the situation keeps changing. I've gone over the talk page and things still don't seem to add up. The source in question does state homeopathy as one of the common CAM methods, "[...]Twenty nine percent practiced CAM before visiting any physician. Common methods used were homeopathy (70%)[...]". It also states, "[...]CAM use was associated with delay in seeking medical advice[...]". From my understanding of this, Homeopathy is a CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) and there was a link found between CAM use and those patients delaying in seeking further medical assistance.

The argument presented by CJwilky appears to differentiate based on the discussion and it's quite perplexing to say the least while trying to analyse and come up with a solution. So, a question for CJwilky: Is it just that the source is not explicitly related to homeopathy or is it related to the interpretation of the source in the article? If either, what would you prefer to be done in order to resolve the situation amicably? Crashdoom ^Talk 22:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right from the beginning of the talk page I said " ....is about CAM not specifically homeopathy." That is my point. The study clearly does not say that the use of homeopathy relates to that delay. It could easily be that 70% of the people who did not delay also used homeopathy - we can look at the numbers in many different ways as we do our original research. There is significant assumption about the numbers that the skeptics here are talking about to make their claim that use of homeopathy and not just CAM in general is a cause of the delay.

Joel, if you follow the talk page you'll see it was clear what the issue was. I made a mistake part way through the talk page in abreviating the issue and continued that at the beginning of this DRN, thats what it was, a mistake, acknowledged and dealt with. I claim that skeptics are making assumptions about the numbers. Without knowing the full details its impossible to say exactly how things lie specifically with homeopathy, ajurveda etc.

Crashdoom, the source is related to CAM in its conclusion. Nowhere is it clear in the source that homeopathy leads to choosing to delay medical help. The interpretation of the source is original research, and is advised against in the wiki guidelines. Resolution would be to remove the source from the Homeopathy article, and remove "of serious conditions such as cancer" (There is nothing in the Altunc source that refers to "serious conditions" in this context). Cjwilky (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You agree that the study shows a relationship between CAM and cancer outcomes. 70% of the CAM was homeopathy. Your insistence that this study has no relevance to homeopathy is ludicrous. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To act according to CJWilky's insistence that we should conclude that this study has no relevance to homeopathy would imply a gross violation of WP:NPOV - he is proposing that other forms of CAM (which make up only 30% of the instances in question) are solely responsible for delays in seeking treatment. There are no legitimate grounds whatsoever for making this partisan assumption, and it is entirely unacceptable to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your passion in your belief Andygump and Gaijin, but as you say, WP:NPOV is the way forward. The burden of proof is on showing clearly, and not merely that you consider in YOUR analysis that its likely, that the study shows use of homeopathy specifically leads to delays in treatment. Maybe it is known what proportion of homeopathy users compared to non CAM users did not delay? Is this less or more than those that did delay? Is that statistically significnat? So far I only see people making assumptions. Its not about what you believe but what the source clearly states. Cjwilky (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty clear to me. Does anyone agree with Cjwilky? Sounds like he's just being difficult here. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have postulated several possible flaws in the survey (in particular non-delaying users of homeopathy). Such hypothesis are interesting, but pure conjecture, and in any case WP:ORGIGINALRESEARCH We do not second guess reliable sources. Regardless, even if your conjecture is right, it does not change the result of the study. What the source clearly states is "use of CAM , 70% of which was homeopathy, for whatever reason it was used, in lieu of prompt medical treatment, results in worse outcomes". Delay is the ultimate problem, whether by Homeopathy, other CAM, or any other reason (as the study clearly says), but as Homeopathy is the single most common reason for delay in the study, it is directly relevant to the article. We can debate the best wording for this, that does not misstate what the article actually says, but your position that it must not be included at all is completely untenable. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tippy goes for rhetoric :-/ Responding to the points is what this is about.

Gaijin, you are clearly doing WP:ORGIGINALRESEARCH or maybe you can show where the authors say what you are claiming? What we use in the article is what the source says, not what your interpretation of it is. It mustn't be included because its not supported by that study, only your interpretation of it - it really is very simple. Cjwilky (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break/proposed wording

Cjwilky — there's a distinction between "original research" and faithful presentation of certain ineluctable facts implicit in the source. Granted sometimes there is a grey area between the two, but not, I think, in this case. To be ultra-cautious I could live with some qualification like "homeopathy (as a type of CAM)", though in the context of the wider article this is probably redundant. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite inclined to say that the revision in dispute is not a violation of WP:OR, but as stated by Alexbrn there is a fine line that can sometimes be blurred. From reviewing the source and the article cannot find an issue that would cause the article to be in violation of any policies or editing guidelines, nor to deviate from the context of the source which appears to be the issue Cjwilky is worried about. However, would a rewording of the offending sentence, as suggested above by Alexbrn, work for all involved editors? If not, then I would be inclined to say that perhaps a WP:RfC on the issue could be more appropriate in order to gauge consensus on the matter as the discussion appears to be at a standstill here between the involved parties. Crashdoom ^Talk 09:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another potential wording "In a study of the effects on CAM on breast cancer outcomes, the study showed that use of CAM which caused a delay in traditional medical treatment resulted in worse outcomes for the patients. 70% of the patients who used a form of CAM used homeopathy. " This addresses cjwilky's complaint, that the study is about CAM, but also states the relevant fact that 70% of the CAM was homeopathy. Zero original research as everything is plainly stated in the source. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex - thats kind of messy and as such is making clear the point that I am making, which is without the details of the data it is impossible to be sure.

Like I said, maybe 95% of the population of the people didn't delay used homeopathy. There are multiple ways this study may not show what you are claiming, despite stubborn skeptic evasiveness. The burdon of proof lies with showing that the study clearly supports the statement. It doesn't.

Gaijan - can't you see how you've mislead in that statement? We don't know what percent of patients who used homeopathy delayed and in that wording suggestion it is implied to the average reader that its significant. Cjwilky (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is misleading, it is being done by the survey, not us. We are faithfully repeating what the survey states. the percent that use homeopathy that didn't delay is irrelevant. Those people are fully counted in the "got treatment" cohort. The study shows that those who got treatment had better outcomes than those that didn't. The point of the study is that CAM (70% of which was homeopathy) is not an effective substitute for real treatment, not that it causes any problem itself.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to grips with the data in Original Research

Lets try and sort this proportion business once and for all and avoid some of the generalised statements we've had above. Here's my attempt, please correct anything I've done wrong. I thought its easier to use the percentages as thats what we have in the abstract. You may well feel 5) below is a hypothesis, it is, but its logical for it to be true. Having said that, repeatedly on wiki in the homeopathy article in particular, I hear skeptics say logic is not acceptable, in which case we are left with even less than the below to go on.

1) We have a population of say 100.

2) We know 53 delayed, 47 didn't delay.

3) Of the 53, we can calculate that 18 did this because of "antecedent use of complimentary/alternative therapies".

4) Of the 47 we don't know how many had "antecedent use of complimentary/alternative therapies". It may be anywhere between 47 and 0, though in 5) below we can.

5) We are told "Twenty nine percent practiced CAM before visiting any physician." This is likely to be 29 of the total population or I can't see it makes sense. If it is 29 in total then assuming that all people who used CAM who delayed gave this as a reason, that leaves 11 of the 47 who didn't delay having used CAM before seeking medical advice but not delaying. If some of them didn't give it as a reason, which is likely, then the proportions below change in favour of more homeopathy users as giving their reason delaying as being due to CAM use.

6)Following from this it is said "Common methods used were homeopathy (70%)". So of the total population that is 70% of 29 used homeopathy, ie 20, and 9 used other CAM.

7) If 18 delayed because of CAM, that means at least 9 were users of homeopathy, which also means 11 at the most of the 47 who didn't delay used homeopathy. At the other end of the pole, it may be all 18 of those who delayed because of CAM were homeopathy users, which would leave 2 homeopathy users who didn't delay.

8) So, it could be we have homeopathy users as low as 9/53 (17%) who delayed, and so 11/47 (23%) who didn't delay.

9) It could be we have homeopathy users as high as 18/53 (34%) who delayed, and so 2/47 (4%) who didn't delay.

10) At the level of 11/53 (21%) v 9/47 (19%), homeopathy users begin to appear to delay more. At which point would this be statistically significant in such a small population? I don't know.

As you see, whilst it may be likely that more than 11 of the 20 users of homepathy delayed, its possible it could be 11, 10 or 9, (all of which don't show the claim made by skeptics... and maybe 12, 13, 14 are not significant either?), we really have no idea. I though skeptics were in favour of rigorous trials, and this has a hole unless I have made a mistake. Cjwilky (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

Per Crashdoom's comment above I think we are really not making substantial progress in this dispute any longer. I personally think it is clear that we have consensus (which is not required to be unanimous) with cjwilky as the lone dissenter. I move that this discussion be closed, and if any participant is not satisfied with the outcome, they may open an RFC, moderation request, or arbcom. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin, stay with it pal ;) Zad68 agrees that the changes should be made in exactly the same way as me, albeit for a slighlty different reason. Interesting no one commented on what he said.

You haven't anything to say about the data that I attempted to clarify? Cjwilky (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re zad, he has made no additional comments since the discussion started, and the discussion (and goalposts) have moved far afield since his comment.

I think that your analysis far exceeds WP:CALC and is an attempt to find flaw in the survey methodology. In RL that type of logic is fine, but in wiki world that is WP:OR.

Further, as stated, your objections have no relevance to the main point - Nobody is saying CAM/Homeopathy causes anything. Quite the contrary! We are saying they explicitly cause nothing! The study compares getting treatment, to not getting treatment. If people pray on both sides, or do homeopathy on both sides, or get placebo on both sides (but I repeat myself), or sit and contemplate their mortality on both sides, it does not affect the result whatsoever - delaying real medical treatment results in worse outcomes. The participants in the survey self identified that the primary method they used instead of real treatment was CAM, and of CAM users the primary method was Homeopathy. This is an irrefutable conclusion as to the study results.

Nobody is making any claims as to what percentage of homeopathy/cam users avoid treatment or that CAM . Analogous statistics are very well known - crime breakdown by race vs % of race that are criminal, Car models involved in accidents, vs % of a particular model involved in an accident, gold medals won by country, vs medals win percentage of a particular country etc. It is not a valid objection that the study asks and answers a different question than the one you are trying to discuss. Go find a study that does ask and answer that question.

Beyond that, even if I accepted your objection as facially valid, I think you have made major errors in your analysis (again!) The study has not provided any information about non-delaying CAM users. between points 6 and 7 you are attempting to combine answers to different questions in a ay the data does not support. 29% used cam before any vixit. 70% of those that delayed using CAM used Homeopathy. That result stands alone, but attempting to mix those numbers against the 53% or attempt to deduce the number of non-delaying homeopathy users is futile as the information to do so is not provided. This is an error similar to the one in the following math problem http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.missing.dollar.html

Although they have not provided the information in the abstract for us to do that analysis, it is explicitly stated in the study that your core objection is wrong. "CAM use was associated with delay in seeking medical advice (OR: 5.6; 95% CI: 2.3, 13.3) ". As 70% of the CAM use was homeopathy, this correlation is directly applicable to homeopathy. Again, this is not causation, but correlation. You may try to argue that all of that correlation could be due to CAM users other than homeopaths, but that is pure WP:OR. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin, my analysis was unpicking the data and looking at all options including those that could validate the study being used as it currently is. Anyone saying that the study should be incuded in the homeopathy article is making an analysis too, and before I presented my unpicking of the data, it was based on assumptions not consistent with the data. I maintain that it up to people to show without doubt that the study supports the statements in the article. There is nothing in this way to date. How you can say their analysis is not OR and mine is, doesn't follow. Please explain this.

We've gone past my mistake in how I stated what the article was saying. You also claim that the study says 70% of the population that delayed, used homeopathy. It doesn't, it says 70% of the total population, including those that didn't delay, used homeopathy. See the difference? I'm saying we do not know the percentage of the population that delayed who used homeopathy. Its not there and is only deducable by OR.

You then go on to say again that CAM was associated with delay in seeking medical advice. I accept this, thats not being questioned. You, and others make the assumption that 70% of that group use homeopathy, and that clearly isn't said in the study. You again repeat that for me to argue the proportion of those that use homeopathy is OR. THAT is my point, we cannot say what proportion of those use homeopathy, as it would be OR. Cjwilky (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Position of Zad68

Just to explain my absence here: Apparently I'm the only one in this discussion who is questioning whether the source is a WP:RS in the first place. My concerns are based on WP:MEDRS (it's an old, small primary study limited to one cultural environment), but an argument can be made that WP:MEDRS is not the appropriate guideline because what the source is being used for might not be considered "biomedical information". We do have an up-to-date secondary source (Altunc) that says pretty much what Malik says but is specific to pediatrics and doesn't specify "cancer". The overall message that homeopathy is associated with a delay in seeking treatment and therefore worse outcomes is generally supported, including by Altunc, and I don't think that anyone including Cjwilky is arguing to remove that, at least not in this discussion. So my position is that because the overall message isn't fundamentally changed by the removal of the Malik source and the "cancer" clause, and because I have questions about Malik and WP:MEDRS, I don't really feel strongly enough about it to actively argue here. Again I apologize for not recognizing the weakness of Malik before recommending using WP:DRN (I had both Malik and Altunc up in my browser at the same time and I was looking at Altunc's "pedigree" when I thought I was looking at Malik's). I am traveling now and probably won't be able to engage here until later this weekend, and probably wouldn't anyway. I'm OK with either outcome at this point, I don't feel that strongly about it. Zad68 22:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping in. I would fully support the text "homeopathy is associated with a delay in seeking treatment and therefore worse outcomes". and agree that a secondary source is better so we should use Altunc, but since Malik says the same thing, are not two references better than one? Gaijin42 (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Altunc, the opening statement "Parents increasingly use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for their children's ailments" is sourced to the article Complementary and alternative medical therapies for children with cancer; since this aligns with the weaker source, a mention of cancer (as an example of a serious illness) is adequately sourced in my view. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that opening sentence has 9 sources, one of which is Complementary and alternative medical therapies for children with cancer, but the others are either more general, or are specific to other diseases, like asthma. More to the point, though, is that the opening sentence doesn't mention anything about a delay in seeking treatment, which is what we're using Altunc for. The two sources Altunc cites in support of the statement we are actually using, "Also, [homeopathy] may delay effective treatment or diagnosis", talk about pediatrics but are not limited to cancer. Malik is talking about middle-aged women and cancer, and it's a small primary study in one particular cultural location. Malik has done another study PMID 10845265 which includes "This study suggests that use of unconventional methods [including homeopathy] by cancer patients in Pakistan is widespread. Unlike western countries, these methods are often employed before receiving any conventional therapy." so that one says that the findings for Pakistan, as the Malik we are using is, might not be able to be exported to other cultural environments. But looking back to the article, Homeopathy says "Patients who choose to use homeopathy rather than evidence based medicine risk missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions such as cancer." (underlined risk) which isn't quite the same thing as "do miss timely diagnosis", and again "such as cancer" (the whole focus of this discussion) is just an example of one of the "serious conditions" at risk... this is why I'm so on the fence here. It's very fuzzy, I can kinda sorta see both sides, and honestly there's not all that much at risk here: the main thrust is that homeopathy may be associated with delay in seeking treatment, "such as cancer" is just an example. I could spend many hours over the next week arguing one side or the other (or both!) on this, but really it wouldn't make that much difference, and I need to use my Wiki volunteer hours to make progress on another article I've got going. Again, I'm OK with either outcome here. Zad68 03:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just burned another 20 minutes on this... I have been trying to look on PubMed for more sources that talk about individuals who use homeopathy and time to seek treatment. My PubMed search string was "Time Factors"[MeSH Terms] homeopathy, but I did not find anything beyond what we have. Others might do their own review, hope it's helpful. Zad68 03:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, do pardon my idleness in the discussion, there's been a few issues offline that have kept me rather busy over the last few days. I can see that from the above by Zad68 it's just the wording of the article which has everyone on the fence. I'd be inclined to suggest a rewording of the sentence to "[...]missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions." which removes the potential implicit connection between homeopathy and cancer. Would the involved editors be in favour of this change in order to resolve the issue and close the discussion? Crashdoom ^Talk 16:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the specific mention of cancer being removed from the lede might be appropriate, not because it isn't adequately sourced but simply because it is going into too much detail for the lede. I see no reason not to mention cancer in the equivalent passage of the "Ethics and safety" section of the article, where Malik et al. is also used as a reference. Brunton (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping the other participants in the discussion, but I think this would probably resolve the situation. :) Crashdoom ^Talk 08:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd not argue with Brunton's suggestion. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that. Zad68 12:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

im good. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for that statement ("[...]missing timely diagnosis and effective treatment of serious conditions.") in the lede. I'm not happy for cancer to be mentioned in the Ethics and Safety as its not supported, as I have made very clear above it would be OR. I'm also not happy for Malik to be used anywhere in the article as it is specifically about CAM and doesn't isolate homeopathy in the population who delayed. No one has shown the proportions of homoepathy use to be a direct factor in that delayed group, not least the conclusion of the study (Malik) itself. Cjwilky (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to attempt to introduce a novel argument (proportion) into this discussion. If you wish to raise that point, find reliable sources doing it for you. In any case, it is clear that there is a strong consensus for inclusion with you as the lone dissenter. WP:NOTUNANIMOUS Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Modi

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Soham321 on 04:14, 17 May 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.

Location of dispute

Narendra Modi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Drmies#Regarding your removal of my edits (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Soham321 (talk · contribs)
Drmies (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I made some edits on this page. They were all deleted. In retrospect, I believe there is justification for the deletion of some of my edits on this page. On the other hand, i believe one particular edit definitely needs to find mention in the wikipedia page of Narendra Modi. The background is this: Narendra Modi is the Chief Minister of the Indian state of Gujarat as of now. He was also the Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2002 when communal riots took place in Gujarat. By unofficial accounts the death toll was over 2000. The Chief Election Commissioner of India at the time was JM Lyngdoh. Lyngdoh had postponed the state elections in Gujarat which were scheduled to be held shortly after the communal carnage on the ground that the atmosphere in the state was vitiated and not conducive for holding elections. By all accounts Lyngdoh was a highly respected officer. Modi's response was to target Lyngdoh for being a Christian and speculating that Lyngdoh meets Sonia Gandhi in Church and falsely insinuating that Lyngdoh is an Italian (like Sonia Gandhi) etc. This constituted an undermining of the constitutional post which Lyngdoh occupied. The Prime Minister of the time Atal Bihari Vajpayee was from Modi's own party and had reprimanded Modi for using foul language against Lyngdoh. And Lyngdoh hat hit back at Modi claiming that Modi was using the 'language of menials' and that he did not understand things like athiesm. Basically i want this information to be included in the wikipedia page of Narendra Modi. I am noticing a lot of criticism in the wikipedia pages of Mr Modi's critics (see for instance the wikipedia page of Digvijay Singh) and there is no reason why Mr Modi should be treated like a holy cow on his wikipedia page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried discussing this on the talk page of User:Drmies

How do you think we can help?

Allow me to include this information (of Mr Modi's attack on Mr Lyngdoh shortly before the Gujarat elections of 2002 and shortly after the Gujarat communal carnage of 2002) in the wikipedia page of Narendra Modi. I am prepared to keep this very brief but i do not believe this should not be mentioned at all in the wikipedia page of Mr Modi.

Opening comments by Drmies

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.

These edits constitute a BLP violation, basically: undue negative information of a fairly trivial kind whose effect can only be to disparage the subject. That something about a politician, something supposedly bad, is reported in the paper is not immediate grounds for inclusion. Read the material proposed by this editor, judge if its tone is neutral, and weigh if it has any encyclopedic value. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The plaintiff didn't add any diffs--here is a section accusing the subject of using "foul language"; here is a section devoted to an accusation that the subject was complicit in a murder. Both were stuck in the article twice. Drmies (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Modi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies 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.

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a regular volunteer here. Though I am opening this for discussion and posing a couple of questions, I may not be available to take part over the next two or three days and I invite all other DRN volunteers to jump in. Next, please do not take these questions to imply a particular predetermined answer or POV on my part or an attempt to be critical. They are genuine, neutral, uncritical, "I'm uninformed and want to hear your answer" kinds of inquiries.

@Drmies #1: Soham321 seems to be attempting to limit this request to a single topic (the one in the second paragraph of the first diff you provided), whereas you seem to be raising a wider issue as indicated by inclusion of your second diff and your statement, "Read the material proposed by this editor, judge if its tone is neutral, and weigh if it has any encyclopedic value." It is axiomatic at Wikipedia that we judge edits, not editors, and thus an editor's motivations are generally irrelevant. As a matter of principle, shouldn't edits be adjudged on their own — for example, in this case, on the basis of BLP issues and undue weight — without taking editor's motivations into consideration? (To say it differently, shouldn't POV pushing be dealt with entirely as a conduct matter rather than a content matter?)
@Drmies #2: In reference to the Lyngdoh issue only, I take it that this is not a reliable sourcing issue under either WP:V or WP:BLPREMOVE, but entirely a balance issue under the lede of WP:BLP which says,
Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
(Emphasis added.) How, then, does the WP:WELLKNOWN section of the BLP policy play in? It says:
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
(Emphasis added.) Whereas WP:V or WP:BLPREMOVE provide minimum standards for inclusion, the "belongs in the article" language of WP:WELLKNOWN (and it's repeated in the second example of that section, not reproduced here), seems to say that material reported in multiple reliable sources should be included, and would appear to have been adopted as a bright-line test to resolve disputes just such as this one. It would take some digging to find it, but long ago I went to some effort to find out what "multiple sources" means in Wikipedia policy (though more in the context of the various notability standards, rather than this particular policy) and found a very clear answer that it merely means "more than one," and does not mean "many." Since Soham321 has provided two RS for this edit, WP:WELLKNOWN would seem to indicate that it ought to be included. If that is not correct, then why not?
About the edit itself: Subject to the answers to my questions above, I also have to say that the material in this edit seems very trivial and unnecessarily detailed for this article. Soham321 has said on Drmies talk page that he is "simply trying to balance the article by providing the views of Modi's critics." To that I would comment that if there is similar trivia in the article which supports Modi, then the proper remedy would be to edit that trivia out, not put this in. If on the other hand, the positive material about Modi in the article is substantial, not trivial, then adding negative trivia just to tarnish Modi is unacceptable. In any event, setting this off in a section by itself and in this much detail rather than incorporating it into a broader section of the article (about, say, Modi's relations with his opponents, or criticisms of Modi in general, or some such) is, in any event, certainly inappropriate by making it far too conspicuous and prominent.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: In reference to Drmies #1 above: I'm not suggesting or promoting this by mentioning it, nor am I implying anything at all about whether Soham321 is or is not POV-pushing, but if Drmies wishes to withdraw from this case and pursue the matter entirely as a conduct matter at ANI or RFC/U or some other conduct venue, I or some other volunteer will close this listing as futile due the lack of Drmie's participation here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transporterman, you must be a pro. These are valid points you raise. In regard to the second paragraph of the first diff, if such material is, as you suggest, properly incorporated in the article rather than set off in a "criticism" section, it can be a valuable addition, but I'd like to see more than just one newspaper article cited. I have, in fact, removed other trivia from the article--about his having had a tea stall and handed out sandwiches, for instance, edits which were decried as censorship on the talk page. My point about Soham's possible POV here relates only to those two edits: I see they've edited a few other articles, but have not delved deeply enough into them to even want to pursue that in some other venue. My direct concern is this article, which attracts POV attention from the pros and the cons.
To me, "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented" means indeed multiple sources" (more than one, no need for a dozen), and that the information be noteworthy and relevant is an editorial decision based at least in part on whether the sources agree that the material is relevant to, for instance, the way in which a politician (in this case) goes about his business. To cite a different example, one could argue that information on President Obama seeking the bully pulpit more in his second than in his first term is noteworthy and relevant since it seems to have become his MO; thus, one could argue, it is relevant since it is or has become a personal style. To cite another example, that President Clinton plays the saxophone is trivial until he appears on MTV playing it to attract younger voters. If Modi has insults and sneers as an MO, it can be cited, certainly--but it needs to be properly contextualized and it needs to be made clear that there's enough sources to warrant inclusion in the first place.
As for my supposed disinterest--I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make it that clear, but this is, in my opinion, way too minor to go to DR for. It is also partly caused by Soham's argument, which is too lengthy, too difficult to read and in too-long paragraphs; that I had to supply the diffs is telling, and I appreciate the time you've taken, Transporterman, to tease out their argument. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "pro" I hope you mean something other than the pros you might find in Rosse Buurt

. More seriously, you say "but I'd like to see more than just one newspaper article cited". Soham321 has provided two sources in that edit, Times of India and Express India, apparently from two different Indian newswires, not just a regurgitation of the same original source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting as a passerby, I have to wonder if this is truly an appropriate topic for DRN. There are far more than two people concerned with this article. About a dozen editors are active in the article right now (that's in just the last 24 hours) and there is even more activity on the article talk page (including two open RFCs) than there is in the article. Just wondering... --Orlady (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were only two editors involved in this particular dispute, however, except for a couple of IP's who weighed in on Drmie's talk page on Drmie's side of the argument. I'm hoping that with the exchange above that this is ripe to go back to the article (see below). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Soham321: Drmies has indicated that with some reworking and proper contextualization that the edit in question may well be suitable for the article. Are you all right with this going back to the article talk page — please, let's do it there rather than on any individual user's talk page, so that the community has a better chance of weighing in — to work out the details? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ready and willing and i will also try to give references to more than two sources if i can. But i may only be able to do so over the week-end. Please accept my gratitude for your complete impartiality and neutrality in this dispute. Soham321 (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just write it like it's not an attack. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 18 May 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:Conservatism in the United States

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 50.128.155.168 on 19:37, 18 May 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.

Location of dispute

Talk:Conservatism in the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I intend to add a very relevant, highly important, but small section to this article. As I had figured, the article is captured by subject interested editors and stone-walling by them is keeping this historically significant section from being added.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Long dialogue on the Talk page for the article.

How do you think we can help?

Make the users aware they are being overly protective of an academic page which reads like a virtual Fan-page, to the topic it deals with. Please read the discussion in on the Talk page titled, "Communist Emulation Section Missing". Yes, I'm the IP Editor.

Opening comments by Rjensen

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.

a recent scholarly book by Kabaservice says Clifton White (when he was a liberal in the 1940s) was outmaneuvered by Communists and decided to use "Communist tactics". The editor in this case wants to make this an entire section of the article. Clifton White is a minor figure and does not deserve that attention. White thought he shojuld be Goldwater's choice as GOP national chairman in 1964 but Goldwater rejected White and White's top aides, and late in the campaign publicly repudiated White. The "Communist tactics" supposedly borrowed from the Communists included using lies and smears, and showing up early at meetings and staying late into the night--all very standard in American politics since the 1790s (Burr killed Hamilton in a duel over smear tactics in 1804 and Jackson shot several politicians who smeared him). It's a minor theme in Kabaservice when he deals with White, and no other RS has highlighted it, so it does not belong in a wide-ranging survey of conservatism in US since the 18th century. Bottom line: this is a proposed a POV edit designed to denigrate Conservatism by attacking one second-tier person (White). Rjensen (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by The Four Deuces

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.

A source presented by the IP briefly mentions that a conservative activist, who is not even mentioned in the article, conducted a smeer campaign against a moderate Republican candidate, which he apparently adopted from tactics used in internal fighting in the Communist Party. To generalize from that story that conservatives emulated the Communist Party's tactics is to provide undue weight to a single incident. In order to include this theory we would need to show that it has been advanced by scholars and received significant attention.

I request that this submission be refused because no other dispute resolution method has yet been tried, beyond discussion on the talk page, and no other editor has expressed support for the IP's view.

TFD (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Conservatism in the United States 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.

Economy of Greece

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Farolif on 05:30, 19 May 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.

Location of dispute

Economy of Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Citation overkill; multiple sources used to make the point that "shipping" is a major component of the Greek economy in order to include the item in the article's factbox.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion

How do you think we can help?

Explain to the other parties that they do not need more than 2 sources to make the same one-word point, and that the sources should be current in the context that they wish to include the item in question.

Opening comments by Dr.K.

This is a misuse of the purpose of this noticeboard. At the very top of this page it is specified that this noticeboard is for content disputes. References are not content. References are used to support article content. The OP has waged a longterm edit-war to remove references supporting the content in the article of Economy of Greece. Ironically the references the OP is asking that they be removed are used to support content that he removed without a valid reason in the first place. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot remove content and ask for sources for the content and when the sources are supplied to complain that they be removed. There has also been a long, relevant discussion on the talkpage of the article which the OP abandoned on 14 April only to return more than a month later to restart the edit-war without apparent reason. In conclusion: The request by the OP on this noticeboard that this is a content dispute is invalid. Also his edit-warring to remove valid, reliable sources from the article is unjustified and his points have been rebutted on the article talk after a lengthy discussion. Let's not waste any more time on non-existing content disputes. Let's instead find a few articles to improve by adding references and not removing them as requested in this case. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Thanatos666

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.

Economy of Greece 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.

Bolding of article titles in lead sentences

– New discussion.

Filed by 2001:db8 on 18:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

User talk:2001:db8/BOLDTITLE (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:2001:db8#WP:MOSBOLD (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Boston Marathon bombings#MOS:BOLDTITLE (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:2013 Moore tornado#Consistency (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I have a dispute with User:Shadowjams and User:My76Strat over the interpretation and application of MOS:BOLDTITLE. The specific disputed content has been summarized at User talk:2001:db8/BOLDTITLE.

I believe bolding and inclusion of a descriptive title in an article's lead should not be done in many cases per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:BEGIN, while the other two editors believe in more widespread use of bold titles.

The end result was that User:Shadowjams reverted several of my edits, which I believe contravened MOS guidelines, and should not have been done when we had an open dispute over those guidelines. (However, I don't think we need any dispute resolution over that, simply clarification of the actual MOS issue.)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Significant discussion on the Boston Marathon bombings and 2013 Moore tornado talk pages. All discussions ended in deadlock, and finally in reversion of several of my edits.

How do you think we can help?

I am unsure whether this should be handled as an RfC, posted to a WP:MOS talk page, or handled elsewhere. Primarily, I think all of us would just like to reach a definitive conclusion on what the proper interpretation of MOS:BOLDTITLE is here.

Opening comments by Shadowjams

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 My76Strat

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.

A Momentary Lapse of Reason

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.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

I have attempted to do so at Talk:A Momentary Lapse of Reason#Beds on a beach. See also preceding edit summaries; and this notification.

Location of dispute

A Momentary Lapse of Reason (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs)
Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Parrot of Doom has repeatedly reverted a number of my edits (beaching WP:3RR), while claiming to be "protecting" the article. His talk page replies have not addressed the concerns I have with the article as it stands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 633: / Line 633: @@
 {{DRN archive bottom}}
+== Bolding of article titles in lead sentences ==
-== User talk:2001:db8/BOLDTITLE, User talk:2001:db8#WP:MOSBOLD, Talk:Boston Marathon_bombings#MOS:BOLDTITLE, Talk:2013_Moore_tornado#Consistency ==
 {{DR case status}} <!-- Bot Case ID (please don't modify): 706 -->

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