Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:00, 13 August 2013

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

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

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

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

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

If you need help:

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

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

Become a volunteer

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

Volunteers should remember:

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

Open/close quick reference

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
15.ai	In Progress	Ltbdl (t)	30 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 4 hours
Tuner (radio)	Closed	Andrevan (t)	26 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 14 hours
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	21 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 7 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	New	Randomstaplers (t)	18 days, 4 hours	Conyo14 (t)	2 days, 10 hours	Randomstaplers (t)	2 hours
Genocide	New	Bogazicili (t)	6 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 9 hours	Bogazicili (t)	4 days, 17 hours
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf	Closed	Titan2456 (t)	3 days, 13 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 21 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 21 hours
Ikwerre people	Closed	ObiWali (t)	2 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 14 hours
Khwarazmian Empire	Closed	176.88.165.232 (t)	2 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours
Egusi	Closed	OmoIyaLeke (t)	2 days,	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 21 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 21 hours
Double-slit experiment	New	Johnjbarton (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Constant314 (t)	16 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 07:46, 5 November 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, 250

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

Current disputes

2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Robertiki.

15 July 2013

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

2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Robertiki (talk · contribs)
81.240.132.34 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User 81.240.132.34 insists on excluding any other hypothesis, unwilling to wait at least the end of the trial. I accept all the information he as added, but require a "supposedly" at least at the beginning, to remember that there are still some doubts. I have also offered a link of a official document about that, but he deleted it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on my personal page.

How do you think we can help?

Explaining what are the rules about controversial events.

Opening comments by 81.240.132.34

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.

Roberiki is of the opinion (1) that the marines did not shoot at all (2) that the shooting did not result in the deaths of the fishermen (3) that the court case is underway and so we should wait till the end of the trial before linking the Italian VPD team to the two dead Indian fishermen.

My perspective has been clearly outlined in the TALK page of the article : (A) the VPD team fired at a fishing boat (which is undisputed because the Italian Defence Ministry said so in a communiqué released immediately after the incident). (B) It is a fact that forensic and ballistic analysis has linked the shrapnel, found in the dead bodies of the slain Indian fishermen on-board the St-Antony, to the ammunition and weapons issued to the VPD marines on-board the Enrica Lexie (which also no one can dispute because of the Alessandro Piroli report by Italian military investigators and also Indian police case-report filed in Indian courts).

To conclude, we can safely assume from all the authenticated investigation information freely available in the public-domain that there is overwhelming evidence that the Italian VPD team did open fire on a fishing boat and that the bullets did hit and kill 2 Indian fishermen on the St-Antony. The opening paragraph of the article says exactly this. No more and no less.

On a side-note, kindly also read what Roberiki says about the Italian Government and senior Ministers in his contribution on the TALK page of the Talk:2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea, it becomes clear that his sole intention is to disrupt the Wiki article just because he dislikes Italian politicians.

81.240.132.34 (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Italian shooting in the Laccadive Sea 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 Howicus, a volunteer at DRN. So, the problem here seems to be that this incident's trial is currently ongoing, and Robertiki wants the article to make it clear that the incident has not yet been proven in court, while 81.240.132.34 says that the evidence already presented in the trial is enough to remove the "supposed", right? Well it seems to me that the shooting itself is not in question: the marines did shoot two people. Only the motives and intentions are being questioned. That's how it looks to me, feel free to correct me if this is not the case. Howicus (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some open questions: the bullets appear to have hit the boat with a low trajectory, too low to come from the deck of a big ship, the bullets are common use, and about the tracers, it's the first time I read that you can use it to identify a shooter; in the past too many times, italian officials have changed their results, we still don't know what happened at Ustica 1980, or what happened with Amanda Knox, and it still it is not ended. And today read (translate with Google) http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/politica/articoli/1106200/caso-kazako-a-rischio-4-funzionari-del-viminale.shtml it's normal in Italy. So the italian marines have no one they can trust, the "reason of state" comes first. After all it is easier the Indians find an acceptable truth. Read http://www.imo.org/blast/blastData.asp?doc_id=14506&filename=182.pdf page 17 about the Olympic Flair. Link also deleted by 81.240.132.34. Too many doubts. And about seriousness: have we forgotten Mr.Berlusconi ? --Robertiki (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@talk Thanks for your time as a volunteer to look into this and give your opinion as an independant and neutral 3rd party. I concur 100% with your perspective.

81.240.132.34 (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct your statements. I *never* wrote that "the marines did not shoot at all, that the shooting did not result in the deaths of the fishermen". Be correct.--Robertiki (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Robertiki, why do you think that the word "supposed" should be in the article? Howicus (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) 'Cause Wikipedia is not' a newspaper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper and that also means that there is no urgency to write facts (with or without consensus) "now".

b) Why 'what' Wikipedia writes affects jurors and judges (in the presumption that it is not a newspaper ...)

c) Why lawyers have no scruples to refer to Wikipedia as a consensus of experts ... when it suits them

d) Cause it violates the principle of neutrality of Wikipedia

e) Cause no voice raised to give the benefit of the doubt to the Italian military that have said they fired into the air and then in water.

Writing: "The Enrica Lexie Incident occurred on 15 February 2012 when Italian soldiers belonging to a Vessel Protection Detachment (VPD) team deployed on a privately owned oil tanker MT Enrica Lexie supposedly opened fire on a fishing boat." at least (and only) in the starting sentence serves to remember that all facts and verdicts are not definitive at this time. And I repeat: at least and only once, in the starting sentence. I have nothing to question about all the information that details the point of 81.240.132.34 and 91.182.239.46 in the full body of the article. The harshness with which one editor sistematically has canceled the insertion is reason alone, that says a lot why "supposedly" should be there, once, and only once, in the article. And I am skipping over the repeated threatening to report edit war to admins, with the roughness of a official. All started with the insertion of the word "supposedly" on 18:38, 13 July 2013 in article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Italian_shooting_in_the_Laccadive_Sea. Someone is really working hard at Bruxelles. --Robertiki (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, instead of using "supposedly" in the first sentence, another sentence could be added to make it clear that the trial is not yet decided? Howicus (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could fit if it implies that the circumstantial evidence is not yet found conclusively by all parties. On 15 February 2012 two fishermen were shot from a trading vessel at the height of the city Alappuzha. After notification to the Indian Coast Guard, eligible cargo ships in the sea were invited to submit comments. Only the Enrica Lexie told of an incident: "The aboard stationed Italian Navy soldiers suspected on an approaching fishing boat Somali pirates and opened fire." On the same afternoon, another tanker present in the area, the Olympic Flair, reported a boarding attempt to the Kochi Port Authority, stating: "About 20 robbers in two boats approached the anchored tanker and attempted to board. The lookout crew noticed the robbers, raised the alarm and crew mustered. The robbers aborted the attack on seeing the crew's alertness and moved away http://www.imo.org/blast/blastData.asp?doc_id=14506&filename=182.pdf^[1]. So, you see, some unclear activity was going on in that area.--Robertiki (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I draw your attention to the last phrase of the opening part of the article which already explicitly states that the case will go to trial after investigation by NIA is completed : "The Enrica Lexie case will go to trial in a Special Court in New Delhi set-up to deal exclusively with this incident."

The controversy surrounding MT Olympic Flair has already been discussed in detail (a few months ago on the TALK page of the article). It is pertinent to note that both Italian and Indian investigators (after the forensic and ballistic analysis) conclusively matched the bullet fragments found in the bodies of the dead India fishermen to the ammunition and rifle fingerprints issued to the Italian marines on MT Enrica Lexie. Furthermore, the Italian military investigation report states that the photographs taken by the marines shows a fishing boat with overwhelming similitude to the St-Antony.

The MT Olympic Flair hypothesis is propaganda coming out of a number of Italian 'right wing' neo-fascist parties (lead on by the folks at the SEENINSIDE.NET conspiracy website) who refuse to accept that overwhelming evidence links the Italian marines to the gunfire deaths on the St-Antony fishing vessel. This conspiracy theory has never been raised by the Italian Government at any point of time.

91.182.237.154 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand what "'right wing' neo-fascist parties" has to do here, but is the report coming from MT Oylimpic Flair correct/true ? --Robertiki (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could one of the IP users please link to the sources that they feel justify the removal of the word "supposedly"? Thanks. Howicus (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Howicus

Original court transcript is available here [1]

A full list of Indian court documents is available on the article page at [2]

Court documents contain ample information which shows that

(1) the VPD team onboard the Enrica Lexie provided a statement to Indian police that they DID SHOOT at a fishing vessel
(2) the Indian police forensic analysis POSITIVELY CONCLUDED that the bullet fragments extracted from the bodies of the slain Indian fishermen MATCHED the rifle bore 'ballistic fingerprint' of arms issued to the VPD team on board the Enrica Lexie
(3) the Italian military has independently confirmed that the photos of the fishing vessel involved in the incident have strong likelihood of being the Indian fishing vessel St-Antony.

At this stage, even the Italian Government accepts that the Italian marines shot at the fishing boat and that bullets from Enrica Lexie somehow killed the fishermen. The only thing that the Italian government contests in this entire episode is the question of JURISDICTION. Nothing else.

The Olympic Flair report to IMO mentions suspicious boats operating close to the Olympic Flair and appears to point to a SEPARATE incident which involves maritime thieves. The owners of the Olympic Flair have gone on record to state that they did not face any 'piracy' attack by armed pirates. The report [3] specifically does not talk of any shooting.

Therefore, IF for argument sake, we consider that the Olympic Flair was involved, THEN what explanation for the PLAIN FACT that bullets fired from weapons issued to the Enrica Lexie VPD team are found during FORENSIC & BALLISTIC analysis by Indian police and Italian military investigators in the bodies of the slain fishermen ?

This Olympic Flair hypothesis holds no water.

The word "supposedly" it therefore incongruent in the present context.

91.182.218.234 (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, after reading the source here [4], I would have to agree that the word "supposedly" should not go in that place in the article. The head note in that document makes it clear that the shooting has been proven to have occurred in a court of law. Now, the trial is not over, and the article should reflect that, but whether or not the shooting happened is not in doubt. Putting "supposedly" where User:Robertiki suggests would confuse readers. Howicus (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) which words in the "keralaw" source make you agree that the word "supposedly" would be, my word, misleading ? b) which wording are you proposing to reflect that the trial is not over ? c) what do you think about "The methodology used by the Indians for the ballistic assessment was not adequate, ... Even though the Leika-built comparative microscopes they used were a little older but still no too far from the ones we use, they worked at a magnification level that was insufficient. It was too low to properly assess the microscopic features of the ammo and identify the weapon they were fired from. Moreover, the methodology that was used would be considered insufficient by Italian jurisprudence. In Italy, a ballistic comparative analysis is done by two experts, who document it photographically. In Kerala the test was conducted by a young girl, by herself and *without including any picture*.” [5]. d) about the Olympic Flair: I am not stating (and never done it) that from the greek ship someone has shot on the fishing boat. But I find that their report, if true, would suggest the presence of other armed people on boats. Armed people that could also have Nato bullet firearms. e) the only statement of a confession is from the indian police. I don't know if in India che police is deemed "neutral", but in Italy it has no privilege in the courts. Note: "Il Sole 24 Ore" is the leading financial newspaper and one of the most respected italian newspapers. --Robertiki (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent opinion on this dispute : I endorse the decision by Howicus to reject the inclusion of the word "supposedly" in the lead text of the article. Official Italian and Indian court and investigation documents have discarded many of the hypothesis raised by Robertiki as either implausible or erroneous.

It apprears that Robertiki keeps repeatedly raising various stray hypothesis that are doing the rounds on conspiracy websites.

The wikipedia article as it stands today correctly reflects the current understanding of the chain of events of Italian and Indian investigators and courts. It also specifically states that the Enrica Lexie incident is still under investigation and that the trial will begin in a Special Court in India.

82.236.51.211 (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion, but I'd hardly call you "independent", seeing that you have made many edits to the shooting page. Howicus (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Howicus (talk) It is clear that I have been associated in editing this article a few months back and still follow the article quite keenly. I have not been involved in this specific dispute and therefore consider myself 'independant' to this specific instance of the dispute (just one among several occasions which repeat every few months where Italian IPs have vandalised this article page).

The only point worth noting in my comment is that I too find the word "supposedly" as being out of place in the view of the latest status of hte situation on this matter.

82.236.51.211 (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Robertiki's question, the sentence that convinced me that "supposedly" should not be in the article at that place is the one that begins "Whether the Italian Marines on board the vessel who shot down two Indian fishermen". This indicates to me that the court is not answering the question of whether or not the Italian marines shot two fisherman, so "supposedly" should not go there. Also, it doesn't really matter that Italian ballistics analysis is done with stricter requirements, because the case is taking place in an Indian court. Howicus (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The indian court has taken for granted the results of the Indian police ballistics analysis. If the Indian court jurisdiction was uncontested, that would be a argument. But there is a diplomatic row between the governments of Italy and India over legal jurisdiction. I should mention that the Enrica Lexie went voluntarily to Cochin Port. If it had put on his route, the question of jurisdiction would be empty. Now the Italian government has made a mess, as already remembered, flickering as the Italian governments are used. But that is no reason to present the story from one side. Anyway, the article is now so biased, that the question of "supposedly" is now moot. I will check my information, to try to give some explicit examples of bias in the talk page of the article. Next, about [6]. Reference of what the Oylimpic Flair had observed could be relevant ? If Italian responsibility is confirmed, it could give the reason of such an excessive reaction.--Robertiki (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertiki Contrary to your affirmation, the IMO GISIS webpage submitted by the MT Olympic Flair [7] does not mention anywhere that the thieves/robbers were armed.

The Italian government has accepted (see Italian Defense & Foreign Ministers statements cited in the article) that the case go to a trial in India. Italy is no longer officially claiming exclusive 'flag-state' jurisdiction as done in the initial months following the incident. Furthermore, if and when the marines are returned to Italy under the prisoner exchange treaty, then the Govt of Italy has to (among other things) accept the verdict of the Indian courts is final and that there will be no appeal of the decision in Italy.

82.236.51.211 (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you not to dispute with me here. Your statement the I had "affirmed" that: 1) Olympic Flair has seen thieves/robbers and 2) that they where armed, are both false: the words are not MINE! A "possibility" is no affirmation, and the repeated attribution of statements not mine is irritating. If you like, there is the article talk page. I will limit to reaffirm that the Italian government is doing a mess. Example: [8]. Italy should have a) promptly apologized (no matter what happened), b) pay compensation, c) bring back the six soldiers (ordering the Enrica Lexie to stay on course). If that had been done, today the question would be closed. I would give you ad explanation of what is the real story (if you are interested): the Italian Government has "made" the case to distract from the dire domestic economic situation. If you read the news, in Italy there is a growing anger, and the tone of accusation against italians is of no help. And the one to benefit are the 'right wing' neo-fascist parties.You are helping them. To Howicus, I would propose to purge the article of all the political sensible content or at least lower the tone ("privately armed security guards","did not fully follow IMO Best Management Practices (BMP)", "pre-maturely opened fire", "shrapnel(???) extracted from the corpses", "slain Indian fishermen", are only some of the bad examples) and freeze it for one year. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we can wait.--Robertiki (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to freeze the article. It's an evolving news story. Also, it's not really up to me to decide what content to "purge." That should be determined by consensus. Howicus (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... I see the point and I'm not sure about the policy, guideline or essay on topic. Could be WP:NOTNEWS ? Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. Wikipedia should also not to be written in a news style.--Robertiki (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "REPORTS ON ACTS OF PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY AGAINST SHIPS - Acts reported during February 2012, pp.17" (PDF). IMO GISIS database. 2012-04-30. Retrieved 2013-07-15.

Hello all, I am a volunteer in DRN. To ensure a balance between currently known and future speculated events, Wikipedia has a template . I suggest we use this for the article which would inform readers that the contents of the article may change over time. This will also address factual accuracy issues once the facts change. -Wikishagnik (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know about that one...good idea, Wikishagnik. Howicus (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, together a paste of at the beginning of the article to add a general warning. --Robertiki (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone still have issues with the page? I'll add the Current event template. Howicus (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing notice: There's not been an edit here in six days and this case is long past the date on which it would have been automatically closed and archived if this had not been filed during our subpaging experiment. Unless someone makes a strong case for keeping this open, a volunteer will close this as "Stale or resolved" after 18:30 UTC on August 13 14, 2013. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howicus edit suggestion has been reverted by Yellowdesk and the IP user are continuing edit warring and have already reverted another edit: I opened today a talk section asking explanations, but the user started with a comment on the contributor [9]. The IP users are unwilling to any compromise and very active. --Robertiki (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With Robertiki's objection, I've extended the closing notice by 24 hours and left a note on Howicus' talk page asking for his thoughts on closing. Unless he weighs in for keeping it open, I think it should be closed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is going nowhere. Yellowdesk reverted my edit because apparently the {{current}} template is not right in this instance. I don't think either side is willing to compromise, and the talk page discussion has turned into Robertiki and 90.42.252.79 accusing each other of personal attacks. Howicus (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in any 'personal attack' and am only responding to aggressiveness from Robertiki by pointing out his contradictory and disruptive attitude. Please read the talk page of the article and you will understand who is the user causing disruption and throwing around words such as LIAR, RACIST, etc.,

Robertiki earlier said some pretty outrageous and insulting things about Italy and Italians) and is now trying to portray himself as a 'victim' by attributing to others the allegations and insults that he initiated.

90.42.252.79 (talk) 08:09, 14 August 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.

Gračanica monastery

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by WhiteWriter.

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.

17 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Gračanica monastery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

A user is trying to push Kosovo as a state party of UNESCO WHS, despite the official reference in UNESCO. As a compromise, i added a location, but users are reverting back state party in order to completely remove mentions of Serbia as state part from article. As Kosovo is disputed territory between Republic of Kosovo and Serbia, we should not deal with Kosovo as with other normal recognised states, like France or Germany. Also, Kosovo is NOT member of UNESCO, so adding that would be obvious misrepresentation. When (if) Kosovo become UN member, and UNESCO recognise and change that on their own site, we should do that here. Kosovo article and related ones are subject of WP:ARBMAC restrictions, and must not be edited in non-neutral manner.

I would just state that all other disputed entities on Wikipedia have state party as it is referenced by UNESCO official website, as THE one authority about WHS. Also, other whs sites in Kosovo have Serbia, as sources say, with mentions of direct location. We already have strong consensus on this manner, and it is Republic of Kosovo ≠ Kosovo ≠ Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija. Again. Kosovo is disputed region, location of those monuments. Serbia is state party that nominated then, and that still maintain them, as those are part of Serbian Orthodox Church where after years of terror small Serbian population lives in a enclosed fortress-like territories.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Big talk page conversation, and a thread on Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site, in order to fix "Country" into "State party", in order to solve disputed locations problem like this one.

How do you think we can help?

We would need uninvolved editors to respond to this question:

Should we ignore UNESCO reference, fact that Kosovo is not member of UN and UNESCO, and fact that Kosovo is disputed entity, unrecognised by half of the world, and remove mentions of Serbia, despite consensus, official references, and fact that we already have location added in this article, or not?

Also, help would be to fix "Country" into "State party" on Infobox World Heritage Site.

Opening comments by Dirifer

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 Antidiskriminator

This dispute is not about Gračanica monastery but about Template:Infobox World Heritage Site which (naturally) uses UNESCO state classification which says that state party in case of World Heritage Sites on Kosovo is Serbia. I think that the template should be changed to include additional clarification which would follow the existing consensus to use Kosovo territory with a note. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Sokac121

In infobox should specify the actual situation. Serbia does not have any influence on Kosovo. These areas are managed by the Kosovo police, on the border between Serbia and Kosovo is the border police. Serbian President Nikolic said: "Serbia will never lose Kosovo, but I am not the president in Priština. This is what hurts and what, unfortunately, is already difficult to change," We also have some neutral sources that explain the situation :1 Judah. The Serbs. Yale University Press. p. 355. ISBN 978-0-300-15826-7., 2 Peace at Any Price: How the World Failed Kosovo. p. 12., 3 http://www.inyourpocket.com/kosovo/pristina/Gracanica-Monastery_72048f. Most readers would gain the impression that the monastery is actually in Serbia rather than Kosovo. In article several times mentions Kosovo (is a region in southeastern Europe.) and not mentions the Republic of Kosovo is very biased.----Sokac121 (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gračanica monastery discussion

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

Hello, I volunteer here at DRN. This doesn't give me any special powers or authority over the article or editors but I'll try my best to be an impartial mediator for the dispute. Once all parties have contributed their opening statements we can proceed. Until then, I'll ask that any further discussion remains on the relevant talk pages. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a volunteer here at DRN. @Dirifer:@Antidiskriminator:@Sokac121:, it would be most appreciated if you could write a little bit about how you see the dispute here so we can get started on resolving it :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since we've waited a week since this was filed and one party (@Dirifer:) doesn't appear to have had any on-wiki contribs since then I'll just go ahead and open this discussion. As far as I can tell, UNESCO doesn't recognise the Republic of Kosovo and lists the location of this monastery in Serbia. Depending on who you talk to (i.e. whether they recognise the Republic of Kosovo or not) this is either right or wrong. I'm assuming there is no dispute that the area of Kosovo is different from the Republic of Kosovo in such a way that you could claim that Kosovo is a territory within either the Republic of Kosovo or Serbia depending on who you talk to. Now, UNESCO are the final authority on what is a UNESCO WH site, they list the monastery as being in Serbia, this should be reflected in the Infobox. However, reading it as black and white when a shade of grey is required is not really suitable. As such, I think a solution that uses the UNESCO location listing but also mentions that it is in a disputed region by the Republic of Kosovo can be considered. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposed solution. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sokac121:, what do you think about the proposed resolution? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with proposed solution, that in infobox writes both Serbia and Republik of Kosovo.--Sokac121 (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not proposed solution. What is proposed is

"a solution that uses the UNESCO location listing" - not both
"but also mentions that it is in a disputed region by the Republic of Kosovo" - mentions, like within a note.

Is it correct Steven Zhang? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the intention of my original proposal. The current version of the page is an example of this. It mentions that it is in Serbia as defined by UNESCO and the location is described as Kosovo. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with it until UNESCO classification changes.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides sources UNESCO, we have another source that gives the real situation. I'm against that, Republic of Kosovo is mentioned at the bottom of article. It's pathetic and biased. --Sokac121 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UNESCO is the final authority on UNESCO World Heritage sites, it's their thing. As much as we may know it's not as simple as just saying Serbia or Republic of Kosovo, the UNESCO listing states Serbia so we use that. We can add a note (like the version I linked yesterday) which shows that it is in the region of Kosovo. If we start saying this like "They said X but they actually mean Y, we know it" then we're getting close to WP:SYNTH. Now there's nothing stopping the article going into a little detail about Serbia/RoK but for the UNESCO Infobox, Serbia should be listed. Thoughts? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. UNESCO is the final authority on UNESCO World Heritage sites. Maybe their classification is indeed "pathetic and biased" but until they change it Serbia should be listed as a state with clarification that site in question (Gračanica) is in the region of Kosovo with added note about its disputed status by RoK.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newsletter of UNESCO and Republic of Serbia. @Bobrayner: here is well written Talk:Gračanica_monastery Serbia may well be the "state party", but in the article that displays as "country". Most readers will interpret that to mean location. Whilst it is technically accurate that Serbia is the state party, that is deeply misleading to readers as most would gain the impression that the monastery is actually in Serbia rather than Kosovo.. We need to have accurate information, like this we give wrong information to readers and it is not a rule of Wikipedia--Sokac121 (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "it is technically accurate that Serbia is the state party". The comment about misleading of the readers was written when previous version of this article did not clarify Kosovo dispute. The clarification about Kosovo being disputed by RoK is enough to prevent any misleading.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, Sokac, lets play honest. Your agenda here was not to fix possible misleading, but to push pro-Albanian propaganda about Republic of Kosovo. I would just mention for other users that we should not invent some new clarifications about Kosovo status, but we should use {{kosovo-note}} for that, as we are doing it in current version of article, and in other thousands of articles. If you ask me, this is closed question. Other users disbanded the discussion, and i will send evidences that Dirifer is DE sockupuppet by master puppeteer. Therefor, his attitude should be ignored anyway... But i think he will not pop up anymore, after recognition. Anyway, this is not question for this venue. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I again repeat: We need to have accurate information, like this we give wrong information to readers and it is not a rule of Wikipedia. If I go to visit monastery of Gračanica monastery, I go to the Republic of Kosovo, I cross state border between Serbia and R. Kosovo, there patrolling Kosovo police no Serbian police. Wikipedia reader from Brazil, Canada, Japan who does not know clear situation on the Balkans will have the wrong information. WhiteWriter about your problem with Dirifer discuss to other pages thanks.--Sokac121 (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I was there Gracanica was patrolled by Swedish UN troops, and the Kosovo police was not welcome there. It does not matter though.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Around Swedish UN troops is Kosovo police :)--Sokac121 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So where are we on this? earlier I proposed using the UNESCO listing and noting the disputed territory. Am I correct in saying it is only Sokac121 that disagrees with this proposal? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe so.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it's obvious that some editors have a personal connection with the Serbia/Kosovo dispute, I'd suggest all editors take a read of WP:TIGER, it's a great essay and pertinant to a lot of disputes on Wikipedia Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied the current appearance article.--Sokac121 (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current appearance does not resolve this issue. It does not mention state party. How can you agree with it although you said that you support the solution that " in infobox writes both Serbia and Republik of Kosovo"? Have you actually read WP:TIGER?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Antid addition. That would be it, if you ask me... I also added other designation of this object, as in other articles... --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this dispute still active? Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cabe6403 you can conclude this discussion. I'm pleased appearance article, but I'm not satisfied with these actions [10] during a debate in DNR they edit article. Thanks for your help in the discussion!--Sokac121 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it's polite not to edit the article during an active DRN dispute it's not manditory as this is a voluntary process. If everyone is happy, I'll close the dispute. If I don't here within 48 hours I'll assume everyone is and close it Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 06:46, 12 August 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.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by GreekParadise.

26 July 2013

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

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

From 1939-2008, US courts held that the Second Amendment protects bearing arms in a militia but was not an individual right. Two Supreme Court cases, dozens of appellate cases, the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, and hundreds of articles (including a good report in the New York Times) from 1939 to today back up that that was indeed the law at that time.

In 2008, in the landmark Heller decision, the US Supreme Court changed the then-prevailing legal interpretation of the Miller case of 1939 and held that the right to bear arms was an individual right unconnected to service in a militia. A 5-4 opinion written by Scalia in 2008 said they were clarifying but not actually changing the law and the earlier cases were wrongly decided. Four dissenting justices disagreed and would have maintained prior law.

CRUX OF DISPUTE: Should we (A) state the law as it existed from 1939-2008 and cite the post-2008 law as well? Or (B) should we ignore all prior law that conflicts with current law?

Some editors claim there is no need to mention the prior interpretation of law because, they say, the law as it existed in 2008 IS the same as the law as it existed from 1939 to 2008 because, citing Scalia, the earlier cases were "wrongly decided". They have therefore deleted all reliable sources from 1939-2008 that describe the law as it existed pre-Heller.

Other editors believe both pre-Heller and post-Heller views should be in the article (including the Heller view that the pre-Heller cases were wrongly decided). This would be similar to the article on Brown v. Board of Education, which mentions prior law (Plessy v. Ferguson) even though saying earlier law was wrongly decided.

Some also want to quote from an article in the NYT that states how activists managed to change the legal interpretation from "militia" to "individual" in the late 20th Century.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There's been detailed discussion on the talk page that has gone on for pages and pages since I've been involved in January. Probably hundreds of thousands of words and sharp disputes. Interestingly, if you check the archive, you can see a version of this question (how to describe the "militia v. individual view") has been argued over for 35 archived pages dating back 5 years, often with many of the same editors.

How do you think we can help?

If you can answer the fundamental question of whether to include the law as it actually existed from 1939 to 2008, this will solve the primary problem. Half of us believe all prior law should be included. The other half believe only this 70-year period of law should be excluded from the article or de-emphasized.

Secondly, can a relevant quote from a clearly reliable source be removed if an editor says "it isn't true"? I believe we should show both sides of a controversy rather than just delete

Opening comments by North8000

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 opening statement is a complete mis-representation of the situation. Ironically, I think that everybody already agrees on the answer to the question that is defined as the "Crux of the dispute" and in fact such is already implemented in the article The fallacy is pretending that it hasn't, and pretending that the "law" during that period is what GreekParadise wishes it was rather than what it actually was. If there is some evidence that there would be a genuine discussion of the question, (including a more factual and specific rewrite of the opening statement and dispute) I would participate. Otherwise not. There is a long list of things that GreekParadise has done at eh article and talk page that are badly out of line, to put it mildly; Grahamboat's, SMP0328's & Gaijin42's comments are accurate. North8000 (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Grahamboat

GreekParadise’s opening is full of half-facts. He claims half of contributors support his views when in fact, since March, he is the only one pushing a dispute – we reached a consensus on this issue back in March 2013. He failed to include many active editors in this dispute. GreekPardise is trying to synthesize that the 2A only protected a firearm right in conjunction with a militia from 1939 to 2008. He wants to use the scant number of lower court cases to prove his point. The problem with that strategy is none of those cases dealt with individual vs collective firearms rights but rather they dealt with restrictions on those rights. Even Miller did not deal with that issue. His latest example, United States v. Lewis, he wants to quote from a footnote dictum taken out of context in a case that had nothing to do with the 2A. His claim that the law of the land was dictated by these few cases does not hold water.

GreekParadise has been difficult to work with as he has vandalized the article HERE , accused his fellow editors being unscrupulous, charlatans, and pushing NRA-POV HERE . He dumps 10 K rants that are difficult to follow and turn out to be just rehashes of material already discussed. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus – I believe we have reached a consensus here. GP is the only one holding out. No matter what happens he is unlikely to agree with any of us and will probably reappear at a later time with a rehash of the same old: as he has in the past. I recommend we wait a few days for others to respond: then close the dr. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am declaring a de facto consensus. Thanks for your guidance TransportorMan. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by SMP0328.

GreekParadise uses hyperbole and ad hominem attacks in an effort to intimidate editors in to allowing him to convert the article into being a reflection of his POV regarding the Second Amendment. I'm sure he can offer improvements to the article. A few months ago he wanted a reference to pre-Heller Court of Appeals decisions to be added to the article. A consensus was reached allowing for that addition via a reference to such decisions and a footnote containing citations to those decisions. After that, GreekParadise stopped communicating on the talk page. It appeared he was a member of the consensus. Now GreekParadise has returned with the same claims he originally brought. GreekParadise needs to stop attacking his fellow editors and stop asking for what basically is a total rewrite of the article. This article, like every Wikipedia article, is capable of improvement, but this article is not in violation of NPOV. Suggesting otherwise is an exaggeration, no way to obtain consensus, and wrongly accuses editors of bad faith. SMP0328. (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by SaltyBoatr

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 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.

The article suffers from many problems, including lack of neutrality, original research, errors and over-reliance on primary sources.

While it is true that a majority decision by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is binding on US courts on how any law is interpreted, and belongs in the article, our reporting of the opinions on the amendment should be governed by WP:WEIGHT, i.e., providing proportionate weight to all views expressed in secondary sources. The judgment itself is a primary source and secondary sources are required to establish the weight of the opinions expressed in it.

Also, instead of summarizing case findings, we should use secondary sources that explain them. We are not supposed to base articles on primary sources and Wikipedia editors lack the expertise to analyze judges' comments.

The approach taken leads to OR. For example Blackstone's 18th century legal text is cited as saying the right to bear arms was an auxiliary right, supporting the natural right to self-defense. This gives the false impression that natural rights theory played a role in DC v. Heller, when in fact the CJ who wrote the majority opinion rejects the existence of natural rights.

While DR should only be used after other attempts to resolve issues have been taken, many issues have been taken to other fora. However, the differences of opinion cover so many aspects of the article, that use of any other forum is likely to fail, since they are more appropriate for more narrowly defined disputes.

TFD (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Gaijin42

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 high level content that Greek wants is already in the article. We are more than open to addressing specific concerns, or additions, but he comes in and posts 10k rants and basically saying the entire article needs to be wiped out because he doesn't agree with it. The supreme court spoke. It said what the law is. It clarified its own 60 year old ambiguous ruling. It further said that that is ALWAYS what the law has been. Lower courts previously disagreed on what the 60 year old ruling meant. They were retroactively made wrong by the supreme court decision. We discuss them. We can possibly discuss them more, but content should be added with a paintbrush, not a dumptruck. And anything added needs to be in the context that if it was written pre-heller, whatever that source might say is objectively, absolutely wrong (insofar as it disagrees with heller). If it is written post heller, but wants to discuss things pre-heller - then and discuss them in the context of how miller was previously interpreted by lower courts - then we should discuss that.

Multiple multiple multiple academic and other reliable sources of all political stripes say that miller was ambiguous. The supreme court has stated TWICE that the miller decision did not rule on collective individual rights. Lower courts interpreted it to be collective. Sure. Then scotus said they were wrong. We have the history in the article already, but GP insists on reformulating the entire article to fit his POV, which is directly contrary to the rulings of SCOTUS, and all up-to-date reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As requested by transporter, I have re-notified all participants that this DR is re-opened. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re Consensus : I think there is consensus (with the notable exception of GP) that the Miller->Heller "collective viewpoint" period is real, but already sufficiently covered in the article. Many would be open to tweaks to wording or an additional detail here or there, but there is also strong consensus against a major reformulation of the article to emphasize this viewpoint or section of time. GP is essentially trying to argue that Heller is wrongly decided based on historical evidence X. In 20 years, maybe SCOTUS will prove him correct, but in the meantime SCOTUS has ruled, quite explicitly and unambiguously, and in a way that specifically addressed GPs assertions that Miller did not say what GP says it does. Further, Heller, its meaning, and the issue of how that affects Miller have been widely covered in reliable sources. However, I think going through the DR motions would be valuable if only to give GP one more vent, and the consensus one more piece of proof that we allowed him to make his argument, and that consensus is not in agreement. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Inijones

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 Kvng

I've actually not been following this for several months now (and I'm happier for it) but I've gone back and reviewed changes since I left and I think the article has definitely been improved. I sort of agree with User:North8000 that the complaints don't seem to match the state of the article. ~KvnG 20:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on consensus question. Way too much talk page chatter to wade through for me to make an assessment. ~KvnG 13:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Wzrd1

I had my input in the past archive of the talk page, where I did go on at some length regarding the history and practice of law in the US regarding the right to keep and bear arms, as well as explaining who the militia was and remains. Noteworthy in GreekParadise (talk · contribs)'s dispute is in the opening of the dispute comment: "From 1939-2008, US courts held that the Second Amendment protects bearing arms in a militia but was not an individual right." Many, many rights were considered not applicable to the populace during that era, including every enumerated right. Indeed, the states were considered to possess all of those rights. On the face of that absurdity, the courts finally recognized the intent of many of the enumerated rights, as it most certainly is nonsensical that a state has the right to be free of warrantless search of its home and papers! The same is true of the remainder of the enumerated rights, which were designed to be reinforcing that which already existed, but were on occasion curtailed by the Crown over the centuries. One considers that the Constitution was not ratified in 1939, but was ratified and came into effect on March 4, 1789! In all of that time, men over the militia age still were permitted to possess and retain possession of firearms. It has only been since Heller that revisionist historians seek to change that which Scalia, for a rare change, got correct. That the second amendment was for all citizens of the land, not only the militia, which was and still remains every able bodied male between 18-45 and prior active duty military to age 60.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't purely one of consensus. There have been multiple RfC's that arrived at consensus only to be challenged a month later. At this point, it's become a dispute that needs resolution.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by 10stone5

This dispute has reached a point far beyond where it should have been resolved. I had thought an RfC had already resolved this dispute, ongoing since at least March 2013. The RfC process seemed to me the most likely and useful process to address the above user's concerns. However, The problems inherent in the above cited dispute remain:

The central problem, the above user is looking to invalidate DC v Heller. That's hard to justify within any Wikipedia guidelines, that is support for original Constitutional interpretation to be included in Wikipedia articles divorced from existing constitutional case law.
The original dispute concerned citing the 2nd Amendment as a collective right in the introduction, the DC v Heller opinion notwithstanding. Again, an RfC resolved this dispute, whereby instead of citing any collective rights in the intro, the 'Notes' section was used to provide an area to address this concern. Unfortunately, there was not a good faith adherence to the Wiki RfC process by the above user, who subsequently opened a DR. So the obvious question, What happens if we go through with the DR, the findings are the same or similar, and the above user still does not accept the Wiki finding?
Neither Plessy v Ferguson nor Brown v Board of Education seem to be reasonable comparables to DC v Heller. The user suggests following a similar article template in citing prior case law. Brown v Board resolved the 'separate but equal' issue already present in the Constitution, problems which were not resolved when the original Constitution was ratified. DC v Heller was different in that it spelled out rights already inherent in the original writing of the 2nd. The ruling did not resolve any issues left unresolved from the original ratification of the Constitution. 10stone5 (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

' Could everyone note in their opening statement sections, above, where they feel that this is on the question of consensus? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC) '

>> No, unfortunately this DR is not on the question of consensus, but rather a long running dispute which has been through a number of Wiki resolution processes, and where at this point, DR seemed like the last remaining option in order to close out the dispute. <moved comment, I had misplaced this under user, Miguel Escopeta + addition> re: Consensus, this had been reached, I felt, with a preceding RfC. 10stone5 (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Miguel Escopeta

This dispute is essentially a non-dispute, save for one editor's viewpoint which was overruled in a previous DR. The problem is that the SCOTUS spoke in the landmark case Heller, and one editor still refuses to accept the outcome. Prior to this landmark SCOTUS ruling, there were no specific rulings from SCOTUS on the 2A, but there were an increasing number of lower court cases that were split. Hence, the need for the SCOTUS to rule in this landmark case, which it did. Trying to pretend that the law was other than what it was prior to Heller is a fool's errand. It is speculative, and WP is not a crystal ball. The article as it exists seems to address the history accurately and succinctly. Creating an alternative history does not seem worthwhile, nor would it meet WP standards. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC) I believe that a consensus has already been reached, in the prior DR. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by J8079

User GreekParadise does not know how wikipedia works. He comes here hoping to be declared the winner and force his edits into the lede. Using the talk pages as a forum is unacceptable, in spite of the history of the page. Edit waring and edits like this [[11]] are not tolerated. The consensus against the edits made by GreekParadise are documented. Ongoing consensus is building in spite of disruptions by the user. J8079s (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution 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. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" this case nor opening it for general discussion at this point in time, but I do want to ask everyone a question. When there is only one editor who wants to do something and many who do not, the first question we have to ask here at DRN is whether consensus has already been reached. If consensus has already been reached, then a listing here should be closed because there is nothing to talk about and engaging in dispute resolution would be inappropriate. It sometimes happens, however, that despite the disparity in position that the more-numerous side doesn't feel settled about the matter and is not yet willing to declare consensus without further discussion or, and this is slightly different, does feel that there is probably a consensus but wants an evaluation by a neutral party. Could everyone note in their opening statement sections, above, where they feel that this is on the question of consensus? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:46, 30 July 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.

Ghost in the Shell, List of Ghost in the Shell chapters

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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.

Filed by ChrisGualtieri.

26 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Ghost in the Shell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
List of Ghost in the Shell chapters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

A page titled "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" existed for years. Ultimately, Lucia Black improved the page, merged it without discussion and changed the long standing topic page to be about the manga. It culminated in this.[12] I opposed. The problem was resolved until April when Ryulong decided to join in and redo the merge without discussion and eliminate the page without AFD. 6 different editors chimed in, even recently some have expressed a favor for two different pages. *Note - Removed comments about those involved, focus is on content -

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

7 months on talk pages, RFCs, and once at DRN which ballooned to such a size no one would take it so I had to close it for another discussion which ended when Lucia Black started a deletion campaign that I had to bring to the WP:VPP to stop.

Other arguments they made had gone to VPP, notably removing the Manual of Style's "guideline" which says not to create different topics on different media regardless of their notability or size.

How do you think we can help?

Resolve this by adhering to policy and not "rhetoric". The Ghost in the Shell mangas, each individual one qualifies for their own article. Enough material exists do to three such pages, but I am asking for a single page to cover the three works produced by Masamune Shirow. Per N, per SPLIT, and per DETAIL. This is the burden for inclusion for which neither Lucia Black or Ryulong will argue. If it helps, I've begun working on a sandboxed version to show how such an article will appear.

Opening comments by Ryulong

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.

And once again, ChrisGualtieri is resorting to his tactic of mis-citing Wikipedia shortcuts as evidence that he is right and everyone else is wrong because they don't cite anything and they should not be allowed to argue their point without abbreviations. WP:AFD is no way a requirement when merging pages. WP:N says nothing about the creation of two separate pages on similar topics, and certainly not "move everything about the main aspect of a topic off of one page to make a page identical to the first but lacking all information about related topics". WP:SPLIT isn't a policy or guideline so it does not govern anything. WP:DETAIL would only work in his proposed "franchise page" format, and anyway most of the details are on the chapter list page so I don't see the problem. If anything, ChrisGualieri should read WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:CFORK to see why his proposal is an issue.

On Talk:List of Ghost in the Shell chapters#Rework, ChrisGualtieri has proposed several new aspects to cover and those would gladly be welcomed. But he is refusing to write about them because he wants his way in the article set up first.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Lucia Black

Must i be dragged here every time this editor wants his way? Splitting the main article from the original media is pointless and unnecessary. What the franchise page will really be about is a glorified compilation of all the works that have been done. And there is no need for one. The main reason why we wouldn't need one is because there are multi-media series within said "franchise". for example: Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex encompasses TV series (original), OVA adaptation, video game spin offs, novel spin offs, and manga adaptation while Ghost in the Shell: Arise encompasses OVA (original) and manga adaptation. They all share the same media range but in different series, it would be too difficult to encompass those multi-media series without focusing on the original media that started it all, because if it didn't, all media would be merged indiscriminately rather than focusing on the media that influenced from the original work the most.

Not only that but splitting them will only be too redundant and similar between Ghost in the Shell (manga) and the Ghost in the Shell franchise. Ghost in the Shell manga article will still have to cover its film adaptations, it's alternate retelling TV series (Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex) and it's prequel (Ghost in the Shell: Arise). The only minor difference is the franchise page will be a glorified compilation of info we already have in other articles "except" with less manga, while the manga will have more. But the differences are too small to split. They all share the same characters, and some even the same plot.

A good example of this is Blood: The Last Vampire being the original work that spunned out Blood+ and Blood-C but doesn't have it's own Blood (series) article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost in the Shell 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.

Ryulong, what are the proposed several new aspects to cover and those would gladly be welcomed that ChrisGualtieri made? ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 23:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this comment, he mentions philosophy and symbolism and sexuality and all of that would be fine additions to any of the articles, but as far as I'm aware he will not add this information unless there is an article solely dedicated to just the graphic novels so he can expound upon these details in a "franchise" or "topic level" article on the whole series, which I feel is unnecessary, as did Lucia Black, but she is now banned from all anime pages and even conversing with ChrisGualtieri.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You won't even so much as comment on the sources, the layout and you completely avoid WP:SUMMARY. Stick to policy, and do not say I am not adding material, because every addition results in immediate reverting and deletions. [13][14]. Ryulong even makes major error in this alteration.[15] The deliberate marginalization and limitation is the crux of the problem. Given how Ryulong has started the exact same thing at NGE during this DRN has resulted in even more problems. Inclusion is N and GNG, broad coverage of GITS is acceptable under WP:SUMMARY and the fact that the splits for the manga have resulted in views nosediving to 1/60th despite containing a sizable chunk of data shows how bad Ryulong's definition of "compromise" is. Topic level article, manga article. Not a synthesis of the two. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Chris's talk page I mentioned my issues with these edits. He added an unnecessarily high level of detail to a minimal aspect of the page by naming and linking to the director twice, adding the main cast twice, and adding an overly detailed plot summary, particularly when he added specific names of plot elements that aren't needed outside of the article on the actual film. And what "error" is there in this edit, Chris? He constantly accuses me of adding in wrong information without explicitly saying what is wrong and refuses to fix it himself and he constantly uses the words "deletion" or "marginalization".

I am approaching this from the general reader's point of view. When someone wants Ghost in the Shell, they want the manga first or maybe Stand Alone Complex. They do not want to see a page that just lists everything that is Ghost in the Shell through which they have to bog through to get to the page that has the actual information they want. The information on List of Ghost in the Shell characters would not belong on any primary topic's article. The general reader does not care about the Cyberdelics box set, Chris. Nor do they care about the Neon Genesis Evangelion themed pachinko game. And I have not made these edits to the Evangelion pages yet. I have proposed that they be done.

Chris is part of a small group of editors who have taken it upon themselves to become anime experts and produce several standalone pages on aspects of the release that they believe deserve standalone pages but they just end up being redundant to the pages that previously existed. You (Chris) want to have a minimum of 3 pages on a topic (franchise, anime, manga, possibly individual character pages) when one page and several standalone lists (anime+manga, chapter list, episode list, character list) would suffice and have sufficed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to content and stop your ad hom attacks. You added "generally" to the plot of the film. Which makes it inaccurate. 6 other users expressed their input on GITS topic-level. Even NGE has three editors pointing out policy and best practices. Neither here nor there do you address the concerns and valuable time is wasted as a result. You opt to create more articles and lose clarity and meaning on all of the pages as a result. A reader is more than capable of clicking on the relevant material they want or specifying their target. A range of media use the titles - the film may be the desired work, or maybe the video game, maybe the MMO, maybe the novels, etc. I am still waiting a policy backed response to my arguments, I will not accept any more circular "rhetoric". Its gone on for months. Make your case already and stick to it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying I'm wrong because I use a single word you disagree with? And you refuse to be swayed unless I can pick a Wikipedia shortcut out of my ass that proves my point? Franchise pages are unnecessary for Ghost in the Shell and Evangelion. You only want to add every single aspect of something to a page despite the fact it's not necessary to go into that much detail. WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:NOT both cover this in regards to Ghost in the Shell. And WP:PRIMARYTOPIC determines which article is best suited to be the non-disambiguated title for Evangelion. Your recent additions to that article were also superfluous at best. It is not necessary to describe Death(True), Death(True)², and Revival in the WP:SS guided entries on the article as it stands, not to mention it would all better fit on the anime page like the Japanese Wikipedia has things set up. Also I fail to see how anything I've said here or elsewhere is ad hominem. You constantly say I'm attacking you without pointing anything out.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer's note: I'm not joining in this discussion except to respond the following inquiry made at my user talk page:

Since you are a DRN expert and the content dispute problem has gone on for months, could you please advise in what to do? Ideally, I'd like some third party to be a mediator in the GITS content dispute because the problem has continued to get worse. I am repeatedly attacked and insulted, my arguments go unanswered by someone who offers "rhetoric" and not policy, and is in the minority both on arguments and numbers. This problem needs to end, I am exhausted with the rampant out of process deletions of notable articles and the smashing together of entire topics in poorly covered and disjointed organization. Given the mounting tensions a go-between and mediator is really needed at this point. Please advise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to recuse myself, I think, due to past interactions with the editors involved, but I will say that I think that Lucia Black's 3-month topic/interaction ban starting August 1 has made this temporarily more complicated rather than less. The problem is that any resolution which might be worked out during that time could very easily be challenged by Lucia when and if she returns. My recommendation, though I'll defer to Ebe123 as the lead volunteer in this matter for a final recommendation, would be for everyone to drop the stick until that ban has passed and until we can see if Lucia comes back (or has continued editing in the interim) and then to file an application for mediation at the Mediation Committee. That forum is particularly well suited for working out complex issues such as this. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept that. It is probably for the best, unless I get something very strongly worked out with Ryulong. Even then, Lucia could challenge as you mentioned. Three months of sandboxing is in my future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we're post-poning it for 3 months? Sounds good, sandbox your perfect article in Userspace and Lucia Black could join the discussion. Some advice, Chris, do not talk about Ryulong or anyone about doing attacks. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 19:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not have this thing dragged out into more and more bureaucracy, as Chris has stated he feels is the inevitable result of all of this mess in the ongoing discussion regarding another set of articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the GITS matter should revert to the pre-dispute status quo as per the normal pattern of events. This means a page on the notable manga - and just the manga, not the 30 other titles in the GITS scope. At least I could GAN it then. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is nothing that is preventing you from building up Ghost in the Shell as an article about the manga to make it a GA candidate other than your insistence that "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" exist to host this information. Expand upon the topics you say you are going to here. You don't need a page just about the manga for that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you prevent me from making such improvements, reverting them out time and time again.[16] I'll just make an article on just the first book. Since that meets N and GNG, and I can provide the full articles content quickly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my issues with that. It was an unnecessarily redundant expansion to a section that does not need to be expanded. You wrote the director's name and cast members' names twice when once would suffice for just the director. There does not need to be any more separate articles on anything on this topic and doing so will just be disruptive and going against what has previously been determined.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was never resolved, you were in the minority and you forced the changes anyways and accused me of "edit warring" when I reverted it and pointed out that no consensus existed. Given that a majority expressed a preference for separate pages and the fact it remained as such for years and the article unquestionably meets N and GNG, the proper page should exist for the time being. The reason why would be your reluctance in taking part in the dispute resolution process and I want a binding resolution which will end the debate. Your stance has been contested in the same exact manner at the mirror argument of NGE. You use my desire for high quality articles as a reason why my views should be discounted. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not remove content which meets all stand alone requirements. The tactic is the same, avoid the previous commentator and focus on the only who stands against it. As expressed at Ghost in the Shell and the current NGE dispute, no consensus exists at minimum, but turning it into "us vs you" is improper and ACWC expressed the same sentiment about it and offered an alternative compromise. Izno and Gwern made very good arguments and I believe my own unanswered arguments were also strong, but they are dismissed as "incoherent". This was done to the same extent at GITS, where Niemti, Dragonzero expressed a clear and continued desire for the franchise and made an argument for the previous status quo. With comments in agreement from editors like Rapunzel-bellflower citing Dragonzero's stance. Even before we get into mediation about the arguments value themselves, the merger was highly contested and never should have been done. Claimed it was "being bold" and you were reverted, but quickly reimplemented it.[17] You make it 2 vs 1, but that's not consensus either nor was it an accurate account of the sides. Give the whole situation, there is no reason to not remake the manga article because the likelihood of mediation being accepted is low. Per policy, the article can stand and should exist until otherwise by AFD, because no party can honestly claim that the manga does not meet N or GNG. I just ask that policy and community backed guidelines be followed. A&M's "local consensus" for removing notable topics is dead, but clearly several members intend to keep it in play, despite a large and clear consensus against it having been made at the RFC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are separate pages once again. You just won't accept that they're not the exactly named separate pages that you want them to be and that your views are not held by the majority of the anime and manga editing community. You constantly use the claim that the article meets N and GNG to explain a reason for separating it from a discussion of similar topics when the topic should be the main topic and other topics ancillary to itself. These "franchises" are never supported by reliable sources. The parts are but the franchise does not exist outside of the context of making a new article on Wikipedia. Lucia and I held that belief in regards to GITS. Folken, myself, and several other editors at A&M do feel the same for Evangelion. And I thought that the whole debacle with the creation of Dragon Ball Z showed that even though you managed to change the manual of style you did not yet have consensus to make the changes you so dearly wanted on the article. It was only after a consensus was formed that the article was created. And with GITS you had two separate editors independently come to the conclusion to merge the page. It was only the actions taken during your GA reviewing that restored the separate pages the first time around. And there were multiple times in the discussion of the merge where various editors opposing the change went "You know, this sounds like a good idea let's see how it plays out" until you on multiple times changed your mind and went to restore the status quo.

I would gladly welcome expansions to Ghost in the Shell on the various topics you state here but you have not made them yet. In your expansions to the article it's to the sections that don't require it in what seems to be a way to back up your plans of separating the manga off to its own page and turning the Ghost in the Shell page into a franchise page. Franchise pages do not work for works of fiction like Ghost in the Shell or Neon Genesis Evangelion. They are not franchises, and particularly not in the same vein as Halo or Harry Potter, where you've had things with continuity released one after the other. Your arguments towards the franchise set up are always the same explanation of there being X amount of items that carry the original subject's name when more than half of them are not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia as standalone pages, and out of those nearly all of them should be discussed within the context of other media. A Stand Alone Complex MMORPG should ideally not be discussed in regards to Ghost in the Shell as a whole but just as part of the Stand Alone Complex series. An advertising campaign collaboration between Pizza Hut and Evangelion 3.0 should not be discussed as a part of the whole of Evangelion but a part of 3.0. These don't deserve coverage as franchises. They are rarely if ever discussed as franchises. They are discussed as a piece of fiction that spawned other works of fiction.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is really simple. It meets N or GNG, it can have its own article. A franchise is: "A brand name under which a series of products is released."[18] I pointed to multiple reliable sources which list them as a franchise; the material is all related to Shirow's original idea and under Japanese law, Shirow has the right to control the works and a collection of other artists and writers have made sanctioned derivative works and published them as official GITS media. As noted in comments about FMA, that page is horrendous and does nothing for FMA's anime counterparts. I advance the argument that it meets inclusion and the material deserves a place on Wikipedia. The merge was contested and had no consensus; it should not ever have been done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it does and that's why it's at Ghost in the Shell, and partly at List of Ghost in the Shell chapters. Your only issue is that there isn't a page called "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" for you to write out your thesis on it (at least from what I can tell in what you've been saying to me), producing a content fork of the main article. The only reason it was separate in the first place was because there were extremely short articles on 2 and 1.5 that were merged with 1. And everything else you point out as a franchise page (Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc.) is about sequential series of things. Anime articles have a standard format and right now Ghost in the Shell and Evangelion break that format for no apparent reason. There's nothing that makes them special other than the pedestals they have been put on.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That has been remedied though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to your RFC that forced MOS:AM to change then I believe you're wrong. The layout of articles is still part of that MOS and while Ghost in the Shell now meets those guidelines, Neon Genesis Evangelion does not.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its as transporterman said, this should be dropped until the topic-ban is over. as in, no controversial edits related to this DRN as i was already involved prior to the topic-ban. that is all i'm saying on the subject.Lucia Black (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, The ghost in the shell franchise is of course absolutely linear, singular, and Not At All Confusing(tm). :-P

Some improvements that might be made:

On reading the article, it seems that there is no detail on the original manga, which is a different continuity from the movies, tv series or games.
This franchise is fairly famous, and has influenced other movies as well as science and engineering at times, which is what makes it so notable. From a quick read of the main article at Ghost in the shell I don't see any references to those influences atm.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Kim, with all due respect, the article Ghost in the Shell is intended to be entirely about the manga, with small bits and pieces referring to the other things. I don't know what detail you believe is lacking. And the influences on other movies is from the actual movies of GITS itself; the Wachowskis were inspired on certain parts of the Matrix by Ghost in the Shell (film), not the manga. And there is also a whole page on World of Ghost in the Shell and Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell to hammer out more of these details.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok! I would never have guessed that from the current layout. Perhaps the top of the page should read something like "This article is about the manga, for other formats and uses , see..." . Can you summarize why you decided to make the 'main article' about the manga alone, rather than GitS in general?

I have a feeling that that layout is common for a number of works on WP, but it makes it really hard to find actual information you're looking for on movies or etc. (I've occasionally given up searching WP and turned to other sources due to this). What's your view on this, am I doing something wrong?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a dablink thing should probably be used, but it would require discussing every single item within the article I think (or just linking to Ghost in the Shell (disambiguation)).

While I cannot speak for Lucia Black who also made the same decision months before myself, this all began for me when I was trying to reorganize Template:Ghost in the Shell. At some point, I discovered that Ghost in the Shell and what was previously "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" were practically identical in content, so I merged because they were WP:CFORKs. I was also aware of the layout rules discussed at MOS:AM, and the pages at the time did not meet these guidelines. I was unaware that Lucia Black had tried the same thing months before and also met with opposition from ChrisGualtieri. After weeks of arguing, I thought my attempt at compromise by taking what was the "(manga)" article and partially restoring it and turning it into List of Ghost in the Shell chapters where there is a heavier focus on publication history and a better location to house the actual list of chapters of each of the graphic novels, but this was not good enough apparently.

And yes, the current layout is that of other anime and manga pages. The top half of the article is used to describe the work of fiction, and the bottom half points you to the various media, which means the chapter list or the episode list or movies. You can see similar treatments at Sailor Moon, Haruhi Suzumiya, and Fullmetal Alchemist (pages which ChrisGualtieri has in the past stated he has issues with their layout as well). I had proposed a similar treatment for Neon Genesis Evangelion, but that has also turned into the bickering between myself and ChrisGualtieri that has plagued this article. Although, I don't see how the layout as it stands is confusing. Ghost in the Shell#Media exists to show you where to find information on the movies. This article is simply not meant to include a high level of detail on anything other than the manga, and even then some of the really technical stuff like English language book release dates or special editions are mentioned on the list of chapters. I think perhaps Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell and World of Ghost in the Shell need merging somewhere to flesh out other articles, as they are probably not worthy of being standalone pages, but other than that I don't know what's lacking and what Chris wants.

You know, ever since I used http://stats.grok.se/ in the Evangelion discussion, Chris has used it to say that the information at the list of chapters article has been marginalized because now it only receives a fraction of the page views of the central article. Here's the visits in June 2013 for "Ghost in the Shell" and here's the list of chapters (using June 2013 because the site is missing July 2013's data). However, these are the visits from August 2012 for the main page and for the "manga" page. This disparity has always existed and it's not my fault our readers don't want to look at a list of chapters when the main page gives them all of the general information they want, because they did the same thing last year in regards to ust believing that the central page covered everything they wanted to know and they didn't want to go to what they assumed was an identical page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost in the Shell should be the overview of the media or a disambiguation page because the focus is on getting readers where they need to go. The Ghost in the Shell (film) could by all arguments be at Ghost in the Shell, but that does not is not ideal. The manga needs its own page so that the Ghost in the Shell page remains concise and true to a single topic and allows readers an overview of the whole. So I agree with Kim Bruning's assessment and this mirrors the comments of A Certain White Cat at the Wikiproject. Quickly getting the readers to the content they want is the reason for separate pages, and a disambiguation of even related topics would prove more efficient than other options. The current form of Ghost in the Shell (disambiguation) is a bit lacking, but can be fixed for the task. I'd also like to point out that the Ghost in the Shell (film) has over 4x the views of the manga for August 2012.[19] And I do not recall ever making an argument on Haruhi Suzumiya, but the Fullmetal Alchemist page is badly flawed and does not do justice to the anime series. But, for now, can we discuss the value of disambiguation of Ghost in the Shell - this seems a preferable option. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the page view data shows is that no one ever cared about going to a page dedicated solely to the manga long before that page was moved to List of Ghost in the Shell chapters. And everything you are describing is pretty much exactly how the pages are set up now. You just don't like that it's "List of Ghost in the Shell chapters" and not "Ghost in the Shell (manga)". We have an overview of the manga's plot on the main article, with all the extensive details at the list of chapters or character list, and then the other media forms are discussed in the media section with links pointing people to the other articles. I do not see what has to be changed at this point. And you better not propose that we turn Ghost in the Shell (disambiguation) into a page mirroring what Neon Genesis Evangelion looks like now, including making it the page everyone goes to first, because that would just be ludicrous.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please answer the question, "Do you have any objection to making Ghost in the Shell (disambiguation) the main page?" ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't even aware you asked that. Yes. I do object to making the disambiguation the main page. And that is because the primary topic is the manga and nothing else.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, could you please explain why the manga is the primary topic? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it came first and influenced many things that followed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you why you dislike the layout format suggested by MOS:AM so much? You constantly say content is lacking in various places, but whenever I've seen you expand on a topic it just seems superfluous to other pages, such as to the film sections on both GITS and NGE.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coming "first" does not mean it is the primary topic, and it is not related to the majority of works and it is not of greatest interest. I do not see it as the PTOPIC material for those reasons. The layout format of MOS-AM makes it confusing for readers to access relevant material and encourages limiting content which should have its own pages. Bleach (anime) does not exist, but it is profoundly different from the manga. This is also true for Fullmetal Alchemist, Claymore, Soul Eater, and a range of other topics including Ghost in the Shell and Neon Genesis Evangelion. Take the Dragon Ball argument, Dragon Ball Z is a defining work, it should have always had its own page. MOS-AM was used to limit it, and you advocated it remaining merged per MOS-AM. I argued WP:SS (Detail), Split and a range of other policies which advocated its recreation only to have MOS-AM and not-notable be advanced as your arguments to prevent its recreation.[20] The same sort of argument is being advanced here, where "layout" and "MOS-AM" are used to limit the number of stand-alone pages and, by extension, their content. I prefer highly-focused single topic pages where production, casting and reception and so forth can exist for a complete and useful encyclopedic reference on said subject. MOS-AM is a threat to our coverage and makes Wikipedia a second or third source for even the most basic information because MOS-AM encourages combining adaptations of notable works. There is an issue with redundancy in the topic, I acknowledge that, but it should not prevent detailed articles on those adaptations. Dragon Ball Z was a strong case. Ghost in the Shell is a strong case. Watamote is not able to do this, like a majority of the topics, but Death note could be and Fullmetal Alchemist definitely is ready and capable of splitting. The key problem is how to do it and would you be open to such changes? I'd like to start with Ghost in the Shell and see how it goes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So is all of this just because you hate MOS:AM? Because it says "don't make separate articles for very similar topics"? And to that end you're trying to use GITS, Eva, and DBZ as your examples for how it should be done? That's seems a bit quixotic.

Really, the format you're demanding for all these pages is not all that different from how things are set up now. You could call Fullmetal Alchemist a franchise page, but instead of having "Fullmetal Alchemist (manga)", "Fullmetal Alchemist (anime)", and "Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood", they're called "List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters", "List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes", and "List of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood episodes". I can only think of a handful of instances where an anime and manga are independently notable from each other, and that's DBZ, GITSSAC, and Pokémon's plethora of manga versions. But these should be exceptions rather than standards.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the dispute and do not come to dramatic conclusions. The section was removed from MOS-AM because it tried to usurp Wikipedia policy as a manual of style - something it cannot do. I take it that there is no issues making the list of chapters to cover the manga in full scope, the same as I could make the episode list cover the Fullmetal alchemist animes. It won't be a "list" anymore though. The pages were merged for lack of content, I will fill them out and make them useful. If this is the contentious issue, then I consider this resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, folks, aren't you just continuing discussion that you've been having elsewhere? How did that go so far? ;-)

The objective on wikipedia talk pages is not to discuss what you think or want so much as figure out how to reach consensus with the other party.

Let's work towards that systematically.

It's often useful to start out by finding (small?) points we *agree* on, if possible.

Could you each see if you can list one or two things that you would *not* mind the other person doing? No policy links here, just raw thoughts.

Beware of "only if" at this stage: If you have things that you'd be ok with only if something else happens first, -well- don't write those down yet, but do remember them, we can try to tackle those after.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ryulong that not all anime and manga topics need separate pages. I also agree that the development of such pages can gather amounts of information with limited or no purpose. I would not mind Ryulong taking an active role in the SAC anime page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, a wiki is about edits. Can you translate those general terms into an edit Ryulong might make, and you would not revert? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just about any addition of content - because Ryulong is careful about such additions. I'd like the casting and production of SAC to be filled out - I do not have those materials yet. My primary issue is the removal of content - not on its addition. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that franchise pages are useful for certain topics. I would like to see some of the topics that Chris has proposed be added to Ghost in the Shell pages, provided they can be reliably sourced.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same/similar question to you: Could you give an example of a topic you'd like to see ChrisGualtieri add at this point? --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever he mentions here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General plan: step 1

In general: first step, we're trying to figure out our frame

if ChrisGualtiere was in charge, what would Ryulong (and others) be allowed to do;
if Ryulong was in charge, what would ChrisGualtiere (and others) be allowed to do?

I don't want to establish some kind of complex local policy out of this - that's overkill :-P. We're just trying to sketch the outlines of what is allowed .

This is known as the 'frame' we are working in. It's a concept used in many large organizations to figure out what you can and cannot do at any point in time. What we're doing now is trying to figure the smallest/simplest frame that could actually allow edits.

Once we have the framework in the back of our head, we can make certain edits to the articles already without getting reverted.

But the frame will likely be somewhat claustrophobic at first; there are large areas we don't agree on yet .

The idea going forward is to negotiate a wider frame to allow more kinds of changes until everyone is happy, or at least as happy as possible. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Frame for now

So ChrisGualtiere can add anything he said to Ryulong (in the diff Ryulong provided), and Ryulong is not allowed to remove content for now.

I'm sure you're thinking "But I could ignore that entirely, right?". That's true, but the odds of getting reverted are high, so it's not worth the effort to do something else yet :-)

So go ahead and make any edits you were planning,provided those edits fit inside the current frame.

Now next step is to try and expand that frame; though there's no point going for things that you don't want anyway. So let's check:

Ryulong: do you actually intend to do any edits at this moment in time that remove anything?
ChrisGualtiere: Do you actually intend to make any edits outside what you said to Ryulong?

If someone doesn't actually intend to do one of the above anytime soon, then awesome, that person is sorted for now and can just edit. After that, if you want to do something that falls outside that frame, you'll have to put forward an argument why it's a good idea. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General plan: step 2

For now, try and exhaust edits you can already do.
If you don't get stuck. Perfect! You're done.
But you might get stuck. If/When that happens come back and provide an argument why the frame should be expanded to allow your next (set of) edit(s). Why/how will those edit(s) improve the article? What can you say that you think will get the other person to agree with you? Try and walk in the other person's shoes... if you were them, what could you tell them to make them agree? ;-)
Alternately, maybe someone reverts your edit anyway, even though you thought you were inside your frame. In that case there's been a misunderstanding. If that happens, you could come back and say something along the lines of "I figured you would agree to edit x, because I thought you meant _____ when you said ___; I guess you didn't though. What did I misunderstand?" . (you don't have to use those exact words of course, but it's a useful approach to figure out what went wrong).

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what? I'm not allowed to remove content?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... from the GitS pages under discussion. I guess that would be wisest for a couple of days at least. Unless ... Is there a burning need to remove something from the GitS pages under discussion right this minute? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC) And no one is stopping you trying to do so anyway, it just wouldn't be very conducive to reaching consensus.[reply]

Very well. I will begin working and will stick to the Shirow works first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, and do come back here before you try something outside the current frame! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisGualtieri just restored his preferred set up of the articles. I will not abide by this. I have reverted his edits to Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga). There is no reason to take all of the material that essentially supports the notability of Ghost in the Shell and shunt it off to a page dedicated solely to the manga, weakening the notability of the main article. I will not agree to any resolution that allows the restoration of a page titled "Ghost in the Shell (manga)". The only reason it has taken me two days to notice this is because he did not perform the split from Ghost in the Shell until today.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, all of the content he added to the page I will consider WP:OR because he directly sourced the "Design and philosophy" section directly to the manga, without pointing out any chapters, and it seems to be an interpretation rather than a direct description.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong removed the changes I was explicit about doing, after agreeing to it. I am upset that the entirety was removed as well and the dedicated manga page was explicit. This action is not conducive to reaching any agreement or resolving the problem. I want that page to go through AFD processes; because the dedicated manga page is important for organization, function, depth, breadth and readability of the specific topic. The reversion exhibits an unquestioned loss of these factors by their unnecessary omission or containment in a disorganized page ill-suited to displaying them. Lastly, the content was not OR, and the pages are not marked with chapters because are "Author's Notes" and are at the end of the book.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I ever agreed to "Let's remake Ghost in the Shell (manga)". I thought I made my opinion on that matter blatantly clear. What I did agree to was the incorporation of content that you want on such a page into the existant pages. Again, your split just takes everything that supports the notability at Ghost in the Shell off to its own page which I will not agree to the necessity to. Again, there is nothing that prevents you or anyone else from adding all the content you want to Ghost in the Shell, or Philosophy of Ghost in the Shell, or List of Ghost in the Shell chapters.

Now, regarding the content, if it is in the author's notes, I would prefer that it be explicitly stated that is the source. But if you are essentially just transposing the notes onto Wikipedia, I don't think that is particularly allowed either.

Again, there is nothing that has been put forward by Chris that says that he can ignore MOS:AM's layout suggestions other than his already clear stance on the issue. And I will not agree to the creation of a "dedicated manga page" or be required to go to AFD. I did that with Neon Genesis Evangelion and shut it down to avoid any further backlash because I was very blatantly told AFD is not for article clean up or merge discussions.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of the possible scenario's we expected might occur in the general plan step 2. At this point there's no reason to lose faith yet, because what happened is what we expected. It's also not the place to make hard statements about what we may or may not agree to later. Both of you seem to want to hurry hurry hurry! The ironic consequence is that things take much longer than if we aim at maintaining a steady systematic step-by-step pace.

We're currently on the "we have a misunderstanding" branch. :

ChrisGualtieri: What did you think Ryulong had said to you, and why?
Ryulong: Can you reply to ChrisGualtieri, and try to debug where the misunderstanding qua frame was?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Ryulong responds with "Whatever he mentions here." I took that as exactly that. Which was, the core of what I did, "...I rather have this page become a page dedicated to the manga rather than disturb what is essentially a topic level overview of the subject. So much of the content on the manga was already lost, but so much exists on the manga and the manga itself is notable. I could do individual articles on each of the three mangas if need be, simply because of the bulk of interviews, production notes, localization and other details that exist. Though for now a single page dedicated to the three works would be the major improvement." Ryulong either did not read or understand nor specify what I was to explicitly do, so "whatever mentioned here" was completely fair in my eyes. Add it to the List of Chapters, makes no sense because this is not a list of chapters at all. On Philosophy of GITS? This is specific to the manga, and my repeated "dedicated page" I did not even mention that the Philosophy page.

I am also concerned because Ryulong is more exhibiting bad-faith here, he not only refuses to acknowledge my work, but actually is willing to go as far as making a copyright violation or OR claim for something he cannot even look at himself. This is profoundly problematic; Ryulong does not even AGF on the most basic of materials. This attitude makes the problem so much worse; where even the concepts of Motoko's sexuality was "lying" in the eyes of Lucia which begat a major conflict because when AGF is gone, the ability to work together is gone. Ryulong, you need to examine your position, on Wikipedia as a whole, time and time again you have displayed ownership of articles and forced your actions on pages. The layout of MOS-AM is gone; it was never supposed to be used, but this is core Wikipedia policy - and Ryulong stands in the way my good faith additions and desire to make "high quality articles".

If the content was to exist, then perhaps we can get through to the issue of organization of such pages - because many issues that are intertwinned here, but Ryulong is beside himself and cares not of policy, upholding what was removed by a clear consensus. Ryulong seems to percieve me as some threat, some monstrous editor who represents inclusionist ideals that run counter to his deletionist response to the over-representation of anime and manga. I'd seen this over-representation argument used before in a number of ways; and it is shared by several A&M members to the point that "English notability" must be met, with statements that "other language Wikipedia's should contain it, but not Enwiki." A&M has many flaws with the collective thinking and its identity which has become engrained in the last 6 years with a negative view of the fandom, academics, and even the works itself. The pop-culture consumerism aspect seems to be defining aspect, where individuals do not recognize the art form and disparage it - represented in totality by the "don't make articles on different media" stance of Ryulong. As a result, it is impossible to make a single good article on these adaptations because the splits of these adaptions are systematically destroyed. And that is the height on my issue with Ryulong, he doesn't even acknowledge that it is a problem and will not work with others to even consider the merits of it. The Dragon Ball Z debacle was enough evidence of this, but Ryulong's mentality is the barrier for improvement on this project. No matter how much we discuss, it is Ryulong who needs to change or be removed before such improvements can be made. I'd prefer we work together, and arrive at some project-level organization to resolve the issue of target pages - ACWC's disambiguation is incredibly desirable even if a bit unusual simply because adaptation or otherwise, the separate topics are best covered on individual pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "whatever he mentions here" I meant the philosophy and sexuality sections. Not a whole new article. I am sorry if I was not clear on that aspect.

That said, the "Sexuality" section added to Motoko Kusanagi was poor. It was an interpolation of a few scenes of the graphic novels and that smelled of WP:OR. If there are academic essays discussing her sexuality, I'd prefer they be added before what appears to be original analysis of the manga on Chris's part. And Wikipedia should not give one shit about what the anime fandoms thinks about it. I've experienced the ire first hand over things from fandoms over such unnecessarily trivial aspects such as romanization and choosing between R and L when official sources go with one and the fandom believes they're right and the original media is wrong and goes with another. But I digress. Several topics that Chris has shown interest in producing new standalone articles on are not independently notable of other aspects of itself, such as producing an article just on the anime adaptation of Bleach (manga) or separate articles on the three different versions of Fullmetal Alchemist (the original manga, the anime that had its own original ending, and the second anime that stayed more loyal to the manga's story). All this splitting just creates these franchise pages that don't show the subject in itself is notable, but it's disparate parts are. And these separate pages exist, but they're called "List of ..." and he does not want to produce featured lists but featured articles. And the constant attacks on MOS:AM are getting annoying. The layout works in 99.9% of the cases. DBZ is in that 0.1%. I don't think GITS and Eva are though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not OR though, it comes from Shirow's own notes which are provided at the end of the book. The ire of fandom should not evoke a response that content be removed because of your negative experience with elements. That is the nature of the otaku, after all. The layout doesn't work, many people agree on this. Already, numerous people expressed issue with it, over a dozen point out its flaws. Not just at the NGE matter either. Kim Bruning, what is your assessment of the now-removed MOS-AM line, "In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless: They differ sharply in plot, characters, or in other major characteristics; or The article becomes too large."? This runs counter to the guidelines of N and GNG. And seems to be a major concern because Ryulong uses this removed text to justify merging these pages to a single article. As stated before, these meet N individually. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop referring to the fact you got MOS:AM modified to suit your desires. Ghost in the Shell as a "franchise" is not idependently notable from its original existence as a manga. And in other cases there are no sources to show that the manga and anime adaptations of a single work are independently notable from each other. There is no reason that simply having separate lists of chapters and episodes will not suffice for these matters. And there are no reliable sources to show the "franchise" is a thing that must be covered. That is why the layout described by MOS:AM is useful. And you never say it is the notes you are referring to.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given Ryulong's continued hostility and bad faith I am deeply concerned that the atmosphere is not conducive to making a resolution. Several things are wrong with the post, including overlooking the article's text, "Shirow's thoughts and work on Ghost in the Shell contains numerous footnotes and detailed explanations about scenes to give readers an understanding of the sociological differences or technological advances and philosophical discussion of the material." The franchise as a whole has been reference numerous times in RSes and the behavior exhibited is equivalent to a lawyer pounding on the table and yelling because the facts are not on their side. If Ryulong will not be honest or fair in even the most general assessments of the situation, this DRN will fail. These actions show Ryulong does not intend for this to be serious and is willing to use anything he can to enforce his views on Anime and Manga's development and coverage, regardless of the expense to the readers and the content. While this may be a bit dramatic of a post, the past several months show this pattern as clearly having little regard for Wikipedia's policies and consensus-forming actions to advance an invalid position (MOS-AM), which was rejected by peers and the community. Over a dozen editors have expressed the issues with A&M's layout, which Ryulong unilaterally enforces. The comment, "... you got MOS:AM modified to suit your desires" shows a mentality which goes against the core tenets of Wikipedia. While I'd like Kim's opinion on the dispute - it will probably not help as every other editor to espouse an opinion is dismissed nor even considered in the continued discussion. This is how the problem persists because the focus is on the vocal "you" and never the third opinions which deserve equal weight. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could provide more in the reference other than "Ghost in the Shell, 1999" like page numbers. And I don't think that anyone has mentioned anything about page layout. The only thing that changed the bit of text that prevented the re-creation of Dragon Ball Z. And you've not shown me anything that refers to it as a franchise. All of the sources on the article are for the different parts. It's better to allow the main article to describe the manga in broad detail, and minor summaries of the films, video games, SAC, and ARISE, than to completely detach all description and reception of the manga (which never got that many views as a separate article in the first place) onto its own page, leaving a glorified disambiguation page just like Neon Genesis Evangelion became.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ponder these posts for a little while. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bruning, Only in death (talk · contribs) came along and restored the states of Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga) to where ChrisGualtieri had put them in due to the misunderstanding a few days ago as seen here and here. According to him and Chris, this means that the dispute has been resolved because it's now 2 against 1, when in reality it is 2 against 2 because Lucia Black still very likely holds the same opinions she had before she was topic banned but now cannot participate in the discussion. This is unacceptable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no such argument. It does not matter if Lucia participates or not, her and your mis-application of basic policies and guidelines regarding what can and cannot have an article hold no weight and have been explained in detail in the past. This DRN is a waste of time and effort and its only through Chris patience that its gone on so long. You have no intention now, nor have you shown any indication in the past of compromising on your view regarding the status of the article. Had I seen that there was a DRN open before I took the actions earlier, I probably still would have taken them, as mediation is not a way to prevent improvement to articles. And that is all that is happening at the moment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that we need so many disparate articles to discuss this subject. Because of these edits, the notability of the article on the "franchise" Ghost in the Shell is now supported by the notability of its disparate parts. The issue should not just be WP:N. We need to consider WP:AVOIDSPLIT because now we have a page that does not meet the notability requirements. This is what the problem is. The manga is notable. The movies are notable. The TV series is notable. Whatever ARISE is is notable. But this does not extend notability to a central "franchise" article. I saw absolutely no reason for this split. The only reason the articles ever existed separately in the first place was because there were separate articles dedicated to the Man Machine Interface and Human Error Processor releases. There is no reason to split everything up just because one thing can be deemed notable when the combination franchise and manga article was fine and completely in line with WP:MOSAM#Page layout. This is why the pages should not be separate. Episode lists and chapter lists suffice for every other manga and anime that exists. No one has bothered to say why Ghost in the Shell is special in any regard. It's just being held on a pedestal and Chris is basically using these pages as some sort of thesis on the subject.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So taking those in order:

'I do not think we need so many articles' is not a basis on which to prevent articles existing.

Where articles would be made up of individual notable subjects (film, book, TV etc) and there can be significant amount of info on each, the easy and natural way to split is by format. Granted I am not sold on the videogame being notable and needing a separate article, however good luck getting that past AFD if the VG project gets wind of it. Whats left at the primary should either be a disambiguation, or a short and easily navigatable article giving a brief over-view of the component parts with clear links to the relevant articles. This is a no brainer.

MOSAM is a guideline and not a very good one at that. It operates under the assumption (as do most other local wikiprojects) that there will be no competing project or guideline with different ideas about how things should be organised. Which is why things like GNG exist. Frankly I would do away with episode and chapter lists completely as its fancruft.

I was taught about GITS at secondary school over 15 years ago. I know one film studies lecturer who teaches with it now at university. Accusing Chris of using the pages as a 'thesis' is commenting on the editor not the edits.

Which all goes to show why I would not have participated willingly in this DRN in the first place, your arguments essentially boil down to 'I like it this way' despite not being based on policy or the strong guidelines regarding notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We go by policy, you are not arguing with policy, but making passionate rhetoric and alluding to policies that disagree. PTOPIC failed because the film is 4x more popular. REDUNDANTFORK failed because it was not the same topic on two different pages. AVOIDSPLIT fails because it meets notability and you are not going to use PTOPIC to wedge it in. ACWC's disamb idea is perfect for this. If you have an issue with the franchise page, AFD it. And GITS is special, it meets N, your personal stance and negative attitudes to anime and manga topics have caused disruption in this area as a result. Pages do not have to be worthy to exist in your eyes. I'm an academic scholar of anime and manga, I'm proud of it. Please take a good view at the pillars, the policies and realize that an individual is not judge and jury of what's to be included on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost in the Shell is now a glorified disambiguation page. Nothing on it supports its own notability as a franchise. This is the issue with "franchise" articles on items that are not a sequential series like Halo or Harry Potter. Ghost in the Shell (manga) was created over the redirect and we still have 5 years of editing history at List of Ghost in the Shell chapters which is now only separate because of the volume lists for Stand Alone Complex and Arise being tacked onto it. I have never understood why you would not accept the manga being at "Ghost in the Shell" and "List of Ghost in the Shell chapters" and it being required to have its own dedicated page as "Ghost in the Shell (manga)". I also find it problematic that Kim Bruning has not edited in 4 days and is going to come back to this. I am still not happy with the current set up fof pages, but we may as well go back to the status quo of before Lucia and I did anything and take all the history at the list of chapters and merge it into the manga page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It only took this much for you to recognize the point I espoused for nearly five months? Status quo, allow improvements, work together. The only issue you should have is the layout of the pages. Franchise or not, the whole thing meets N and its parts meet N, I'm sure that Rock (geology) meets N the same way quartz does. Even if it doesn't seem particularly notable on its own, it serves a function and a purpose. If it didn't sell its licensing, it would still be a media series, and the functionary article is properly served off a disamb in complex cases. At least I can than get into the specifics of the organization and business of the subject without worrying about it having to deal with manga add-ons. And with single-topic pages, the parts can expand and meet the GA and FA criteria for comprehensive coverage of said subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a good point, the setup previously was actively preventing expansion and improvement on the individual aspects. And thats just not how wikipedia is meant to work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris you're comparing fucking apples and oranges again. Rocks as a concept is obviously different from any individual kind of rock (quartz is a mineral too). Instead of having a page on the franchise, we are left with the glorified disambiguation page that is the same set up at Neon Genesis Evangelion. At least there I have a strong enough argument that the anime is the primary topic. I will concede that there is no such strong argument for Ghost in the Shell, and the page view evidence from before all of this shit went down proves that the manga is not the primary topic, but then there is no primary topic and we're left with a glorified disambiguation page that becomes the only feasible location to discuss the Hollywood movie that doesn't exist yet. And now everything on "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" is exactly the same as content that was on "Ghost in the Shell" and "List of Ghost in the Shell chapters". I've never received a clear enough answer as to why the list page could not be built up as Chris has stated how he wants to build up this manga page. And Only in death, there was nothing preventing expansion and improvement on the individual aspects other than Chris's complete outright refusal to build upon those aspects unless "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" existed in some form.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've stated, many times how the "glorified disamb" can be resolved, on the talks and even below us, a solution exists. A list page is a list, not a full article. You wouldn't accept it even if it were not to be retitled. Even minor improvements proved to cause too much drama. It is time to improve, not remove. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the minor improvements you made were redundant to other pages. In my head ther is still some level of there being too many pages on this one subject, and I think my main issue is with the "franchise page", but even if we were to get rid of it, I'd think Ghost in the Shell (manga) should be moved to "Ghost in the Shell" instead of readers being greeted with a disambiguation page. The franchise isn't notable on its own, but you won't agree to merging it with a page on the manga as was my original intent.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as pointed out, the manga should not be at GITS itself. Your explanation of why is unconvincing and serves to further highlight the need for a disambiguation, rather than go against it. No unnecessary mergers of notable topics that can stand alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not deal with topics that cannot in my mind stand alone, being the franchise page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is done, the current form would be indeed problematic. Hence the suggestion. Though the overview would serve as an introduction to the media, especially when the individual pages reach GA and FA level. So my concern exists, but I feel that it will also serve a clear purpose. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least get sources commenting on the franchise rather than its composite parts?—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not satisfied with this outcome. Yes, everything is back to the way it was before Lucia or I touched the page, but this still leaves us with the franchise page which in my opinion has no purpose. The arguments that MOS:AM#Page layout should be followed are ignored because "the manga is notable on its own". No one has ever given me a straight answer as to why the article on the manga cannot be Ghost in the Shell and why it must be separate at Ghost in the Shell (manga). ChrisGualtieri constantly stated he had all these grand ideas in mind for expanding the article but he refused to do it until the pages were the way he saw fit. And anything that he did add to the pages in the interrim were redundant expansions and my reversions were taken as "not letting him edit the page". Now we're back to square -1. There's an article titled "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" that mentions absolutely nothing other than the manga despite originating everything else known as "Ghost in the Shell" and there's a "franchise page" that is not be independently notable from the other topics but it apparently cannot be merged into the manga article as both Lucia Black and myself had independently done earlier in the year. Only in death's Gordian Knot approach only solves Chris's problems in that everything's back to where he has wanted it since April. And my arguments are invalidated because I can't pick a Wikipedia policy or guideline that covers them outside of MOS:AM#Page layout, but the guideline is allegedly crap because it stifles the creation of new pages on notable topics. Where does this leave my well intentioned suggestions for the pages?—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of words, lots of drama for something already explained in excruciating detail. You got your "straight answer" in many places, including here. I wanted pre-dispute status quo for 5 months. You did not oblige until IOD's actions. You keep bringing my "background" up and try to use my interest as a weapon with some line like "this is his thesis". I do not need to compromise when basic policies are being ignored and makes it clear this is a battleground to be won or lost. This has been a colossal waste of time just to restore what should have been the status quo in the dispute. Your "well-intentioned suggestions" need some reevaluation because you use it to purposely stifle the creation of new pages of notable topics. That is the problem. Ryulong, you need to re-evaluate your stance on Wikipedia. Your negative experiences with anime and manga fans seems to have lead you into marginalizing the "over represented" content and strive to control the additions of "fans". It meets N or GNG, it stays. A&M cannot decide to selectively ignore them and your unilateral enforcement by "merging" is a part of the problem. You acknowledge the manga meets N and GNG, so it gets its own page. Enough said. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My negative experiences are with tokusatsu fans, of which there is crossover with anime and manga. Do you know how much ire I receive just because I demand that reliable sources be given precedence over fandom spellings? But that is not the point. Nothing was ever stifled. The article on the Ghost in the Shell manga could have always been "Ghost in the Shell" but you refused to add anything about the manga to that page because you demanded that it be given its separate page where there is now absolutely nothing on it that connected it to the other media. You even omitted adding a link to Ghost in the Shell to the lede in the version you wrote up last week after you misunderstood my intent. Now neither of you are working on the page because you've gotten your way and there's nothing to work on. We're left with a crappy franchise page that does not support its own notability but so long as the manga is notable on its own that's all that's needed in your eyes. And no you have never told me why this has to be the case. So answer these questions for me.
- Why does the article on the manga have to be "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" and not "Ghost in the Shell"?
- Why can't discussion of the manga include references to the other media that it produced?
Because this sets a precedent for every other god damn change that you wanted to make like producing a page just on the Lucky Star anime or a page just on the Bleach anime when all this does is produce unnecessary content forks that go against WP:AVOIDSPLIT. WP:N should not be the sole metric by which we produce stand alone articles on aspects of already notable subjects.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are being hostile again. So simply, point #1: separate pages for different topics, overview for the uninformed readers, there is no PTOPIC, AVOIDSPLIT doesn't count and its not a REDUNDANTFORK. Point #2, you can, but it is not a mirror of arguments to run afoul of point #1. GNG and N for separate articles, that is the minimum, data necessary to hold a split is low, but it must have a purpose. Direct the uninformed as necessary with disambs or overviews and do not force lengthy content before they arrive at their desired location. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it hostile? And AVOIDSPLIT certainly would count for anything else you have stated you want to make individual articles for, if not in this state. And really, how is there no primary topic? You have the manga, the film, and the video game being the only entities known as "Ghost in the Shell". The fact that the manga begat the film should show that it is the primary topic.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And holy shit you added way too much detail to Ghost in the Shell on useless minutae that are better covered on the other articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take that back. You just copied content from the other articles and inserted them on the franchise page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2

Okay. I can't even have a meal without you reverting and removing content that would be fine under RELART. Two sentences on a work, no matter the location, should be on the topic level/franchise/overview article. Also explained on the talk page. The PTOPIC argument doesn't even meet the most basic of criteria as is defined. You are not objective, so this discussion and DRN is pointless as OID stated. I will not participate in unmediated drama any longer. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You directly copied the media section from Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex and pasted it on Ghost in the Shell. That shouldn't be allowed. And it's not my fault Kim Bruning disappeared last week.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was working from that content and isn't your comment hypocritical in light of this? [21] Next time, I will remove it. Please stop creating drama. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the entry about man machine interface from Ghost in the Shell and moved it to Ghost in the Shell (manga) as well as expanding everything that was there previously. The titling information is now summarized at Ghost in the Shell, or it could be deleted entirely. And it takes two to tango, buddy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for Disambiguation page

I retain (from another similar discussion) that a disambiguation page would be a good compromise to such problems as the one discussed here. Clearly it is a common problem with anime/manga related content that has spin-offs. People looking for information on "Ghost in the Shell" may wish for specific info on movies, the anime, manga, games, the franchise, etc but any page BUT such a disambiguation page may end up frustrating them. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Dab pages do not solve the problem of primary topics.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They do. It eliminates drama and allows the reader to quickly choose what they want information on. This is why disambiguation pages exist in the first place. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 04:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A dab page isn't necessary when all similarly titled topics are inherently related to each other.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is a franchise page. Though given how you won't even allow the names of major works to be on the topic article, your views do not seem to be making any sense to me. What is wrong with presenting a clear layout of what is contained in the topic? I'm quite partial to the disamb, simply because it is very effective at what it does. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What major works are you talking about? The video game adaptations of SAC are not major works. The novels of SAC are not major works. SAC is the major work. Everything else that is SAC is subordinate to it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you do not like them, but answer the question please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise pages have their place when you have a chronological series of things. It works for Gundam. It works for Harry Potter. It works for Halo. When you have one originating work of fiction and things based off of it a franchise page is unnecessary and anything that would make up a franchise page would be better suited as a media section. You are the only one who thinks this format does not work.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is that "you" again when a majority expresses otherwise, not to mention DISAMB. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What majority? What does WP:DISAMB have to do with any of this? In my opinion, it is unnecessary to have a disambiguation page for subjects that are inherently related to each other. And in my opinion franchise pages are not necessary for subjects that do not feature a sequential series of items. If there's one work of fiction and it receives a sequel or its part of a trilogy or however many things come after, then a franchise page has its use. If it's one work of fiction and a film is made based off of it or a TV series is made then the franchise page should just be incorporated into the page on the original work of fiction rather than made a standalone article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright this is pointless. Your agenda is obvious and you simply do not understand basic policy. You removed the correct stance to push your POV even after acknowledging it should get its own page.[22] There are no concessions to be made here because existence is what we are dealing with. We need a binding resolution because you refuse to acknowledge your peers and policy. Continuing on really only wastes time. Close this and move to formal and binding mediation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that sentence because I forgot to put a "not" in there somewhere and realized afterward that I fucked up completely. And tell me how the fuck do I not understand basic policy? You are the one who constantly picks acronyms and shortcuts out of nowhere and peppers your arguments with them despite the fact that on the whole they advocate the complete opposite of what you want to do. And why do we need a binding resolution? The articles are in the form you wanted them to be in the first place. The only thing now is that the way you expanded it is completely unnecessary. And it's not my fault that Kim Bruning disappeared for a week and in that time everything went to shit. But you are right about one thing. There is nothing that either of us can do to convince the other that their idea is better for the article so anything else is pointless. You want to have these "broad topic" pages that should be expanded to cover anything and everything in the subject and I think they're better suited as terse media sections within other articles so it's pointless to argue any further. The only way we've even gotten this far is because Only in death intervened and supported your side and Lucia shot herself in the foot.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you forget the half a dozen other editors like Niemti, Dragon, Rapunzel, ACWC, Only in Death and so on and so forth... but the disagreement on the policy needs to be clarified with binding resolution and potentially a community level decision on the layouts. I'll concede the NGE matter for the purposes of advancing this, as it is not as distinct as the GITS matter. If you do not want to work towards a final and binding resolution and not continue this conflict into the foreseeable future you will start making some concessions of your own as a show of good faith. I've give a lot of wiggle room, but a conflict like this seems unprecented on Wikipedia and they are not mutually exclusive, but given the subject matter A&M could be entirely changed because notable anime and manga can reach FA, but have completely different and specific coverages. And how do we best resolve the issue of organization? Do we hatnote one to the other, do we overview, do we disamb? These are all questions that need to be developed and pushed into MOS-AM or policy pages as they are resolved. Agreed? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't concede when I don't have any ground to stand on. Ghost in the Shell and Ghost in the Shell (manga) exist instead of Ghost in the Shell and List of Ghost in the Shell chapters. That's what you wanted out of this in the first place. The only thing it seems you want is for MOS:AM to be deprecated so you can make standalone articles for every anime and manga you can find sources for and then make a new franchise page for them, and I obviously don't agree with that.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as I have pointed out before, I don't want franchise pages for every one. Some of the current formats are perfectly fine, but it would be more acceptable to combine the smallest lists into full articles on the anime or full articles on the manga which details their production, themes, critical response and casting if applicable, the same formats which should be followed for the MOS on TV, Film, books and such. Some pages cannot even hold two full articles, so why would I want to franchise those? I'm not out to deprecate or destroy A&M's organization, but many editors have commented on its ineffective layout and so much content has been removed by deletionists who carry on a non-existant battle over content depth and page count. You seem to self-identify as a "keeper of order" by deleting and "managing" such pages, but you do not seem to realize that the detailed content on each adaptation rightly fits on its own page? The layout issue seems to be a major point of contention from which you use to justify actions on Wikipedia; that's not wrong, but MOS-AM had a localconsensus which you still believe in, despite N and GNG being the burden for separate pages. You rather have 1 page per topic rather than 2 or 3 indepth pages that share a story. The Harry Potter book and film adaptations are not forced together, nor should the anime and manga articles be. For small ones, the adaptation should be hatnoted or lead to a disamb. I want this petty conflict resolved and we are two opposite sides and any conclusion we come to an agreement on is probably going to be a long-standing one that can last for a decade before needing to be revisited. Which is all the more reason to sit down, work this out and move on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise pages have their use. I don't see the use for Ghost in the Shell which is only a franchise because of the explosive popularity of Stand Alone Complex. I also don't see a possibility for the creation of individual pages on the Sailor Moon manga and anime or a page just on Bleach's anime. They are so heavily intertwined with each other that it's just not necessary in my opinion. You obviously hold a different opinion. I still have nothing to make as a concession unless you want me to give up my personal opinion on article structuring.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer's note: It's been 10 days since Kim last edited Wikipedia and this listing passed it's usual DRN expiry date long before that (on August 9). Had it not been listed during our now-failed experiment with subpaging, it would have been autoclosed several times since then. I'm going to leave it open for another 24 hours, until 17:00 UTC on August 27. If Kim has not weighed back in by then, a volunteer will close it as a dispute which ought to either move back to the article talk page or on to formal mediation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So this solved nothing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should go to mediation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then we're shit out of luck should the mediator disappear as well?—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt it, but then it would go to the final stage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is the "final stage" then?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer's note: I've watched this from the sidelines (and recalling the multiple previous times both ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong, and others have conflicted over this locus of dispute). Seriously, at least one (possibly all) need to 100% walk away from this article. Stop calling the exact same question and making the area such a nuisince that people refuse to have anything to do with the area lest the communities patience be so worn out that they authorize General Sanctions for the set of pages. Once general sacntions are issued, nobody wins, and everyone looses. Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 27 August 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.

Ferenc Szaniszló

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Darouet.

28 July 2013

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

Ferenc Szaniszló (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Ferenc Szaniszló is a well-known Hungarian TV figure who made international headlines, in March of this year, after receiving and then returning Hungary's prestigious Táncsics prize for journalism. Criticism of the Orban government's award was intense because Szaniszló is known for his anti-semitic and anti-Roma comments on national television. The page and talk page has been disputed since the event and the creation of Szaniszló's page, because I feel that, in keeping with international press coverage, the political context of Szaniszló's award should be described. This means, following international press commentary, mentioning two other far-right figures who received concurrent awards. It also means, following international press commentary, describing the Orban-Fidesz government's reason for giving the award to Szaniszló.

Other editors object to "an effort again to mix Fidesz with Jobbik," "negative propaganda towards hungarian events," a "political witch hunt," and have argued that this material should not be included on the basis of these wikipedia policies: WP:POV, WP:SOAP, WP:DUE and WP:BIO.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Overall, users involved have attempted to resolve the conflict on the talk page by analyzing or presenting sources, by citing and reviewing policies, through two RfCs, and by proposed compromises.

How do you think we can help?

I think that dispute resolution from experienced and uninvolved editors may help resolve what the appropriate scope and content of this article can be, based upon available or already cited international press coverage, and upon the policies cited by other editors. In my view, this would involve 1) establishing what an article based on international press coverage would look like, and 2) an agreement regarding the nature of WP:SOAP, WP:DUE and WP:BIO.

Opening comments by Norden1990

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.

This is only a biographical article, and not a publication about the situation of Romani people in Hungary. And I have to say it is also not a collection of news. For example Joelle Stolz, a political journalist is not a reliable source for discussion of the situation in Hungary, and these articles are filled with factual errors. Moreover, I don't know Szaniszló and Petrás how they relate each other? The latter figure received a completely different award. Furthermore the Táncsics award is not a state prize.

The current article is disproportionate and in many cases is different from the subject (namely Szaniszló). Petrás, Bakay, alleged discrimination... are totally different things. In recent months several articles were created in the purpose of discrediting campaign and propaganda against Hungary. There is no better evidence than that Darouet deleted info from the lead which explained why Szaniszló was awarded the prize. However, the political comment by the misinformed "journalists" and MSZP (oppoisition party, so clearly political opinion) member Nyakó in the article is treated as fact. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Koertefa

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.

Thank you, Darouet, for launching a dispute resolution case. I hope we will get some fresh, neutral comments. In my opinion, Ferenc Szaniszló was certainly a *lesser-known* figure (working at a smaller private channel) until his award, and he became "famous" mostly because of the criticisms. Since, his award and the criticisms of his award were mainly the ones which made him temporary (in)famous, I am totally fine with including some national and international criticisms of his award, including theories according to which his award was a political calculation seeking "the applause of the extreme right" and I could even accept general statements like "Orban government has courted far right voters since 2010". What I am not fine with is the mentioning of Janos Petras and the band Karpatia, whose only connection to Ferenc Szaniszló is that they received (different) governmental awards in the same time. Even if some critics see some pattern in this (i.e., "courting far right voters"), this does not belong to an article about *Ferenc Szaniszló*. These might be mentioned in an article about Hungarian politics or the Fidesz government, but I do not see the point of citing them in a short biography about Ferenc Szaniszló. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Ltbuni

Adding the Prof. and the Singer to the Article would totally give the impression to a foreigner, that the FIDESZ is extremist, antisemitic or it wants the voters of the Jobbik - even though in reality Fidesz has already got at least 68% of the seats in the Parliament - based only on the fact that 2 others were given prizes. Making such impression is always the tactics of the MSZP, it is pure politics.

I. As I've already written, others - including a famous Jewish scholar - were awarded. If our goal is to report on the event, and not smearing the govt, then if we add the above mentioned two, why don't we insert the Jewish professor as well? And why don't we write why the Prof. and the Singer were awarded? Prof. B. is not my favorite scientists, his current views on Jesus/Parthians etc are rubbish, but we have to admit, that he WAS a good archeologist, his publications on Kőszeg seem to be very professional, and the others as well.What is more he has published works in English:

Scythian_Rattles_in_the_Carpathian_Basin
Sacra Corona Hungariae. Edited by K. Bakay. Szombathely–Kőszeg 1994.
The New Cambridge Medieval History Volume 3: c.900–c.1024 21 - Hungary by Kornél Bakay pp. 536-552 Edited by: Timothy Reuter. 2000

Apart from his insane views on something, he was not a nobody, who only merited the award for his political position... Why do we arbitrarily pick up two or three, politically sensible sentences from him, to demonstrate the reason for his award? What if he was really a good scientist, and this is just a honorary award, before he dies? The article does not give anything of the other aspect of his life. It would be libel, if we did not specify his earlier works. Even those, who laugh at him, say that he was not as bad as he is now... http://www.tenyleg.com/index.php?action=recordView&type=places&category_id=3115&id=278638 http://kikicsoda.regeszet.org.hu/hu/node/219

II. I have never ever heard of Mr. Petrás... Is he a racist or not? I do not know - the only thing Mr. Darouet mentioned about him, was that his song is used as an anthem by the Jobbik. Is this his only characteristic?

So, that is why I thought it was soapboxing: because of the selective handling of the participants' data. We should not make impressions or feelings. We should give facts, as much as possible, and let the readers decide what really happened.

III. So, my proposal:The present state of the article is fine - it's not worth re-editing it, but if Mr. D. insists:

1. Separate article on the Singer and the Prof. or 2. Separate article on the reflections of the international press on the award-giving (highly doubtful, this would worth an article...) or 3. We can add that others were given prizes - not the same one, BTW - and that it gives the impression, that Fidesz wants to do something with Jobbik - but We should add, that it is the opinion of the opposition. At the very same time, We should add, that this or that accusation of the opposition is questioned by the govt. and we should cite the efforts of the govt fighting antisemitism or racism, or something. Otherwise we start an endless edit war. In this case, for example, I would extend the article with these:

http://www.boon.hu/hungary-govt-committed-to-fighting-anti-semitism-says-israeli-ambassador/2314533

http://www.eu2011.hu/developing-european-roma-policy

Some extra articles:

http://ferenckumin.tumblr.com/post/49861228777/world-jewish-congress-president-apologizes-for-comments

The aim of the DCO policy is to deter abuse of the refugee system by people who come from countries generally considered safe. List of safe countries:http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/reform-safe.asp

Please note that these are official gov't (Israel, Canada, Hungary, EU) documents and statements.

--Ltbuni (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Thucydides411

The main question here is whether the article will assign weight according to what major international newspapers decided was important in their coverage of Ferenc Szaniszló, or whether other considerations will dictate what is included in the article. The international press very strongly linked the prize given to Ferenc Szaniszló with the prizes concurrently awarded to Kornél Bakay and János Petrás. They portrayed the awards given to these three people at the same time as part of a broader effort by the Fidesz government to court the far right. This has been thoroughly discussed on the talk page for Ferenc Szaniszló, with Darouet compiling a list of newspaper articles and noting what aspects of Ferenc Szaniszló's career and award were mentioned. A majority of the newspaper articles discussed the award in the context of the Orbán government and far-right politics.

The sources are clear on this point. The other side of the argument, being advanced by Norden, Ltbuni and Koertefa, is that this article is solely about Szaniszló, and that discussing the context of his award is inappropriate. Regardless of what the international press deems important about Szaniszló, they argue, Wikipedia should omit mention of other people involved in the most notable event of Szaniszló's biography. If this argument is correct, it sets a very unreasonable constraint on what issues can be dealt with in biographical entries on Wikipedia. A biography can mention people other than the subject, if they are important to some aspect of that person's life. Who is important to Szaniszló's biography in this case? I think we should follow what reputable sources have decided to emphasize. That means that we should mention the concurrent prizes, just as the majority of international newspapers did when reporting on Szaniszló.

Leaving out this context only makes the article less informative and representative of the reliable sources we have. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Fakirbakir

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.

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 Mark and welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am going to open the discussion while I take a closer look at the request. Please feel free to begin.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 09:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mark for helpful us, and thank you Norden1990, Koertefa, Ltbuni and Thucydides411 for your comments.

My understanding of the views shared by Norden, Koertefa and Ltbuni is this: Janos Petras, Karpatia, and Bakay have nothing to do with Ferenc Szaniszló and shouldn't be mentioned in his biographical article.

According to my understanding, Norden1990 furthermore believes that the Romani shouldn't be described as "persecuted" here, that the article isn't balanced, that certain cited sources aren't reliable, and that the purpose of this and other Wikipedia articles is to discredit Hungary. Ltbuni believes that if Bakay and Petras were mentioned at all, many other and positive things could be said of them, and other awardees might also be mentioned (or other articles written).

My position, largely shared by Thucydides411, is that the relationship between Szaniszló, Bakay and Petras, constantly cited by international news journalists, is the effort by the Orban/Fidesz government to court the right wing in Hungary, also explicitly explained or implied by these journalists. We have furthermore argued, based upon the volume of coverage available, that the returned Táncsics prize should occupy the bulk of Szaniszló's page, and that its description should mirror, in condensed form, international coverage.

Thucydides argues that omission of Bakay, Petras or the political context of the award, even when described by reliable sources, would make the biographical articles of most people on Wikipedia incomplete, as they would be forced to remove all context, political or otherwise.

I would lastly argue that none of this constitutes propaganda against, or a discrediting of Hungary, and that many Hungarians opposed these awards.

-Darouet (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One last comment: I removed the lead statement attributing Szaniszló's award to his previous work in Yugoslavia and the USSR because this is not stated by international news sources. Those actually argue that he was given the award for political reasons. So we should discuss this issue too. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, this is a BLP issue. I ask editors to be prepared to understand our current policies and guidelines pertaining to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Most important is presenting accurate and reliably sourced content. If the information is contentious, multiple reliable sources are expected. Information needs to be presented in a neutral manner. Content need not be flattering, may be controversial and even political if the sources are being summarized to reflect what the RS says and is notable enough to mention by a consensus of editors. As dispute resolution volunteers, part of our job, and perhaps even the most important part of our job is to weigh the strength of participants arguments as a dispute closer. Generally we try to get editors to collaborate on a compromise and as such I like to begin discussions by asking if there may be a compromise to this dispute that everyone can live with? Remember that compromise may mean that not everyone will be happy with the outcome. As long as an agreement is made that everyone can live with, the dispute can be resolved. Thoughts?--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 22:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll reply shortly with my understanding of WP:BIO and how it pertains to this page as best I can. I'll also think about possible compromises that adhere to wikipedia policy and make this page the one it should be. -Darouet (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the WP:BIO policies again, my impression is that content must be 1) reliably sourced (and reflect due weight given by sources) (WP:BLPSOURCES), 2) remain neutral in tone (WP:BLPSTYLE), and 3) refrain from giving undue attention to those who don't warrant it (WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE).

Regarding tone, I want it to be neutral and don't believe a dispassionate account as given by newspapers would violate neutrality.

Regarding Ferenc Szaniszló's notoriety, he is described by reliable sources (see below) as a public figure, being a media presenter on Echo TV, which newspapers write is associated with the ruling government in Hungary. His job is to broadcast himself and his views on national television every day: I would think this is the definition of a public figure.

Because content from reliable sources is so critical, I'll leave a series of references below from most of continental Europe's largest newspapers, and from the New York Times, the BBC and Independent. The disputed and removed content - referencing Bakay and Petras - derives from these sources (except the Tagesspiegel). Original text and translations are provided when necessary:

1. The Independent, Hungarian government awards Tancsics prize for journalism to notorious anti-Semite Ferenc Szaniszlo, [23]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Hungary’s right-wing government faced fierce criticism today for awarding its top state journalism prize to a television presenter notorious for spreading Jewish conspiracy theories and describing the country’s Roma minority as “human monkeys”. Media reports from Budapest said the government of conservative premier Viktor Orban had awarded Hungary’s annual Tancsics prize – the country’s highest journalistic award – to Ferenc Szaniszlo, a presenter for the pro-government Echo TV channel. Mr Szaniszlo’s anti-Semitic outbursts and his detrimental remarks about the country’s ostracised Roma minority were made on air in 2011 and prompted Hungary’s state-controlled media watchdog body to fine the channel... Other recipients included the musician, Janos Petras, lead singer of the group Karpatia, which is regarded as the house band of Hungary’s extreme right-wing and virulently anti-Semitic Jobbik party, and the archaeologist Kornel Bakay, who has claimed Jesus Christ was Hungarian and that the Jews were slave traders during the Middle Ages."

2. BBC, Anger in Hungary at prize for 'anti-Semitic' reporter, [24]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Anger has erupted in Hungary over the award of a prestigious state journalism prize to a TV presenter who is frequently accused of anti-Roma and anti-Semitic comments. Ferenc Szaniszlo was one of three journalists awarded the Mihaly Tancsics prize last week... The choice of two other recipients of national honours on the same day has also been sharply criticised - archaeologist Kornel Bakay for allegedly anti-Semitic comments, and musician Janos Petras of the rock band Karpatia, which is associated with the far-right Jobbik party."

3. The New York Times, Politics Spills Onto Stage in Budapest, [25]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"But last month the government gave the Tancsics Award, its top award in journalism, to Ferenc Szaniszlo, a presenter for the pro-government Echo TV channel who is known for anti-Semitic outbursts and detrimental remarks about the country’s ostracized Roma minority. Janos Petras, the lead singer of Karpatia, who composed the anthem for Jobbik’s paramilitary wing, calling for an “immaculate nation” and the expansion of Hungary’s borders, was also given an award. Although protests in Hungary and abroad led to Mr. Szaniszlo returning the award, the feeling that Fidesz is courting Jobbik supporters remains."

4. Haaretz, Israel condemns award to Hungarian reporter it calls anti-Semitic, republished from Reuters, [26]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Nils Muiznieks, human rights commissioner at the Council of Europe, said he was concerned by Hungary's decision to give awards to Szaniszlo and two other people, all of whom, he said 'have made no secret of their anti-Semitic and racist views.' 'Giving the annual Tancsics prize to a journalist notorious for his positions against Jewish and Roma people, as well as medals to a singer of an extreme right, nationalist music band and to an archaeologist known for his theories clearly tainted by anti-Semitism is an insult to our past and flies in the face of European and democratic values,' Muiznieks said in a statement. Hungary gave awards to some 200 academics, journalists and artists to mark a national holiday last week. They included Janos Petras, singer in a far-right rock group, Karpatia, and archaeologist Kornel Bakay, who organised a controversial exhibition in 2003 about Hungary's Nazi past. Neither could immediately be reached for comment."

5. Tagesschau (Germany), Antisemitischer TV-Moderator gibt Staatspreis zurück (Antisemitin TV moderater returns his state prize), [27]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Die beiden anderen Geehrten - der Sänger der Rechtsrock-Band "Kárpátia" und der rechtsextreme Archäologe, Kornél Bakay, - dürfen den höchsten ungarischen Staatspreis für Publizisten offenbar behalten."

Translation

It was revealed that the other two honorees - singer of the Nazi rock band "Kárpátia" and the right-wing archaeologist, Kornel Bakay - may keep the Hungarian state awards.

6. Die Zeit, Ungarns Regierung vergibt Orden an Antisemiten (Hungary's government gives medals to anti-semites, [28]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Ungarns rechtskonservative Regierung hat hohe staatliche Auszeichnungen an Antisemiten und Rechtsextreme vergeben. Der Fernsehmoderator Ferenc Szaniszlo erhielt zum Nationalfeiertag am 15. März den Táncsics-Preis, die höchste staatliche Ehrung für Journalisten. Szaniszlo hatte in dem der Regierungspartei Fidesz nahestehenden Fernsehsender Echo TV antisemitische Verschwörungstheorien verbreitet und die Minderheit der Roma als "Menschenaffen" diffamiert... Ungarns Regierung ehrte zudem den Archäologen Kornél Bakay mit einem Verdienstorden. Bakay erregte immer wieder Aufsehen mit antisemitischen Behauptungen. So unterstellt er, dass Juden im Mittelalter den Sklavenhandel organisiert hätten. Zudem behauptet er, dass Jesus Christus kein Jude gewesen sei, sondern ein Prinz aus dem – angeblich mit den Ungarn verwandten – alt-iranischen Volk der Parther... Das Goldene Verdienstkreuz erhielt der Leadsänger der Rockband Kárpátia, Petrás János. Die Gruppe gilt als Hausband der rechtsextremen Partei Jobbik. Sie schuf auch den Marsch für die inzwischen verbotene, von der Jobbik ins Leben gerufene, paramilitärische Ungarische Garde. Die Band besingt in ihren Texten die "unbefleckte Nation". Auch ruft sie dazu auf, die Grenzen Ungarns mit Gewalt auszuweiten."

Translation

Hungary's right-wing government has awarded high state awards to the extreme right and to anti-Semites. On a national holiday, 15 March, the TV presenter Ferenc Szaniszlo received the Táncsics Prize, the highest state award for journalists. On Echo TV, the television station associated with the ruling Fidesz party, Szaniszlo has spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and defamed the Roma minority as "apes"... Hungary's government also honored the archaeologists Kornel Bakay with a Merit award. Bakay caused a stir, again, with anti-Semitic statements, and has assumed that Jews organized the slave trade in the Middle Ages. He also claimed that Jesus Christ was not a Jew, but a prince of the the Parthians (supposedly related to Hungarians)... The Golden Cross of Merit was given to the lead singer of the rock band Kárpátia, Petrás János. The group is regarded as the house band of the far-right party Jobbik. They also created the march for the now banned paramilitary Hungarian Guard, launched by Jobbik. The band sings in their lyrics of the "immaculate nation." It also calls for expanding the borders of the country by force.

7. Süddeutsche Zeitung, Regierung verleiht Orden an antisemitischen Journalisten, [29]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Nach ungarischen Medienberichten hat der Fernsehmoderator Ferenc Szaniszlo zum Nationalfeiertag am 15. März den Tancsics-Preis erhalten, die höchste staatliche Ehrung für Journalisten. Szaniszlo hatte in dem der Fidesz-Partei nahestehenden Sender Echo TV antisemitische Verschwörungstheorien verbreitet und die Minderheit der Roma als "Menschenaffen" diffamiert. Die staatliche Medienaufsichtsbehörde hatte den Sender deshalb 2011 mit einer Geldstrafe belegt. Mit dem Verdienstorden ausgezeichnet wurde der Archäologe Kornel Bakay, der von Jesus Christus behauptet, er sei kein Jude, sondern ein Prinz aus dem - angeblich mit den Ungarn verwandten - alt-iranischen Volk der Parther gewesen. Außerdem unterstellt er den Juden, im Mittelalter Sklavenhandel organisiert zu haben. Eine andere Auszeichnung - das Goldene Verdienstkreuz - erhielt Janos Petras, der Leadsänger der Rockband "Karpatia". Die Musiker besingen in ihren Texten die "unbefleckte Nation" und ruft zu gewaltsamen Veränderungen der Grenzen Ungarns auf. Karpatia gilt als erklärte Lieblingsband der rechtsextremen Parlamentspartei Jobbik. Sie schuf auch den Marsch für die inzwischen verbotene, von der Jobbik ins Leben gerufenen paramilitärischen Ungarischen Garde... Oppositionelle Kommentatoren werteten die Ehrung rechtsextremer Persönlichkeiten als Geste der Regierung an die Jobbik und an die extreme Rechte."

8. Der Tagesspiegel, Ferenc Szaniszlo: Ungarn ehrt antisemitischen Journalisten (Ferenc Szaniszlo: Hungary honors anti-semitic journalist), [30]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"In Ungarn ist der rassistische TV-Moderator Ferenc Szaniszlo am Nationalfeiertag durch die Regierung mit einem Preis geehrt worden. Wie ungarische Medien am Wochenende berichteten, erhielt Szaniszlo am vergangenen Freitag den Tancsics-Preis, die höchste staatliche Ehrung für Journalisten. Szaniszlo hatte im Sender Echo TV, welcher der Regierungspartei Fidesz nahesteht, antisemitische Verschwörungstheorien verbreitet. Sozialminister Zoltan Balog nannte die Vergabe 'bedauerlich', schloss eine Aberkennung aus juristischen Gründen aber aus. "

Translation

In Hungary, the racist TV presenter Ferenc Szaniszlo had been honored by the National Government with a fine. Now Hungarian media reported this weekend that last Friday Szaniszlo received the Tancsics Award, the highest state award for journalists. Szaniszlo had used Echo TV, which is close to the ruling party Fidesz, to spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Social Minister Zoltan Balog called the award "unfortunate...

9. Le Figaro, Hongrie : Viktor Orban met l'extrême droite à l'honneur (Hungary: Orban honors the extreme right), [31]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"La petite Hongrie résiste moins que d'autres à ses démons nationalistes. Son premier ministre, Viktor Orban, un conservateur, vient de décerner, à l'occasion de la Fête nationale du 15 mars, plusieurs distinctions à des personnalités on ne peut plus controversées. Ferenc Szaniszlo par exemple, journaliste à la télévision Echo TV. Proche du Fidesz, la formation d'Orban, Szaniszlo, qui a reçu le prix Tancsics, est connu pour ses diatribes antisémites et antiroms. En 2011, il avait été réprimandé par l'Autorité de surveillance des médias pour avoir comparé les Roms à des «singes». En signe de protestation, une dizaine de journalistes qui ont obtenu ce prix l'ont aussitôt rendu. Le chef du gouvernement hongrois a également décoré un archéologue, Kornel Bakay, connu lui aussi pour ses thèses racistes. Bakay s'est fait remarquer en accusant les Juifs d'avoir organisé le commerce d'esclaves au Moyen Âge. Enfin, Janos Petras, célèbre chanteur de rock, a reçu la Croix d'or du Mérite. Petras ne cache pas sa sympathie pour le parti d'extrême droite Jobbik. Il a participé jadis à la marche de la Garde hongroise, une organisation paramilitaire aujourd'hui interdite, et rêve tout haut de reconstruire la Grande Hongrie, celle d'avant la Première Guerre mondiale."

Translation

Little Hungary is less able to resist its nationalist démons. Its prime minister, Viktor Orban, a conservative, just gave, on the occasion of the national holiday on 15 March, many distinctions to many more-than-a-little controversial personalities. Ferenc Szaniszlo, for example: journalist at the television station Echo TV. Close to Fidesz, Orban's Party, Szaniszlo, who received the Tancsics prize, is known for his anti-semitic and antiroman diatribes. In 2011, hé was reprimanded by media watchdog authorities for having compared the Roma to monkey... The head of the Hungarian government also decorated an archaeologist, Bakay, known as well for his racist theories... Lastly, Janos Petras, a celebrated rock singer, received the Golden Cross of Merit. Petras doesn't hide his sympathy for extreme-right party Jobbik. He participated in the march of the Hungarian Guard, a paramilitary organization now forbidden, and dreams as high as reconstructing the old Hungary of pre-WWI days.

10. Le Monde, Prime au fascisme en Hongrie (Primed for fascism in Hungary), [32]:

Translation

Other personalities decorated on March 15th posed problems. For example Janos Petras: lead singer of rock band Karpatia, who composed the anthem of the Hungarian Guard. This non-military army, nevertheless aggressive, was launched in 2007 by the neo-fascist Jobbik party; its activists march uniformed in Roma neighborhoods to intimidate them. Another distinguished on March 15 was Kornel Bakay. This archaeologist professed strange ideas on the origin of Jesus Christ, who was not Jewish but a Parthian prince (the Parthians being in his ancestors of the Hungarians). His theory had earlier pleased many pseudo-scientists in German Nazi. In 2003, Bakay organized an exhibition in honor of the Arrow Cross fascist movement and Ferenc Szalasi, an ally of Hitler. It was closed at the request of authorities because she was openly promoting the movement, which in 1944 facilitated the deportation of 200,000 Hungarian Jews and Gypsies.

11. la Repubblica, Orban decora tre razzisti antisemiti dall'Ungheria nuova sfida all'Europa (New challenge for Europe: Orban decorates three antisemites and racists in Hungary), [33]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Il primo è quello del premio Tancics, tradizionale e importante premio per i migliori giornalisti, conferito a Ferenc Szanizslò, commentatore alla televisione Echo TV, ritenuto vicinissimo alla Fidesz, cioè al partito di Orbàn, e noto per le tesi apertamente razziste che espone in pubblico... Il secondo caso è quello di Kornel Bakay, che ha ricevuto per decisione del governo l'Ordine al merito. Bakay è un archeologo noto per il suo aperto, radicale antisemitismo. Tra l'altro aveva fatto scandalo a livello mondiale asserendo in pubblico che sarebbero stati gli ebrei a organizzare la tratta degli schiavi dal medioevo all'abolizionismo. Mentre è noto che lo schiavismo fu organizzato dalle potenze di allora e dall'attivissima (e per loro proficua) collaborazione di tribù e potentati arabi in Africa. Il terzo caso riguara Janos Petras, cantante della rock band 'Karpatia'. E'in sostanza un gruppo nazirock, vicinissimo ai neonazisti antisemiti di Jobbik che amano ascoltare la loro musica nelle adunate. Petras ha ricevuto la croce d'oro al merito. Tra i motivi più noti cantati da lui e dal suo gruppo ce ne sono alcuni che inneggiano alla revisione delle frontiere europee con la ricostituzione della 'Grande Ungheria', cioè riprendendosi territori oggi slovacchi, ucraini, serbi e romeni. Il gruppo Karpatia ha anche partecipato anche a marce della Magyar Gàrda (Guardia magiara), il gruppo paramilitare di Jobbik con le uniformi nere e simboli fascistoidi, ufficialmente fuorilegge ma che continua a farsi vedere tranquillamente."

Translation

The first award is the Tancics, traditional and important for Hungary's best journalists, given to Ferenc Szanizslò, commentator on television Echo TV, considered close to Orban's party Fidesz and known for openly racist theses expounded in public ... The second case is that of Kornel Bakay, who has received the Order of Merit. Bakay is an archaeologist known for his open, radical anti-Semitism. Among other things he caused a scandal by claiming in public that the Jews to organized the slave trade from the Middle Ages until abolition... The third case concerns Janos Petras, lead singer of the rock band 'Karpatia'. In essence Karpatia is a nazi-rock group and close to the neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, Jobbik party, who enjoy listening to its music in their gatherings. Petras received the golden Cross of Merit... Karpatia the group has also participated marches of the Magyar Garda (Hungarian Guard), Jobbik's paramilitary group with black uniforms and fascist symbols, officially outlawed but still visible in Hungary.

12. L'Independenza, Orban, il “nemico” ungherese creato dall’Unione Europea (Orban, the Hungarian enemy, created by the EU), [34]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"E così ha dato il premio Tancsics per il giornalismo a Ferenc Szaniszló, noto per aver paragonato i Rom alle scimmie e per aver detto che “gli ebrei hanno occupato l’Ungheria o comunque la stanno per occupare”, fra le tante altre cose dello stesso tenore. Poi è stato assegnato l’Ordine al Merito a Kornel Bakay, archeologo, noto per le sue tesi antisemite sulla storia, fra cui quella secondo cui gli ebrei avrebbero organizzato loro la tratta degli schiavi, dal Medio Evo sino al secolo scorso. Infine, la Croce d’Oro al Merito è andata a Janos Petras, frontman della band ultranazionalista Karpatia."

Translation

And so Hungary gave the Tancsics journalism prize to Ferenc Szaniszló, known for having compared the Roma with monkeys and to have said that 'the Jews have occupied or will soon occupy Hungary', among many other things of the same tenor. Also awarded the Order Merit was Kornel Bakay, an archaeologist, known for his thesis on the history of anti-Semitism, including the thesis that the Jews may have organized the slave trade from the Middle Ages until the last century. Finally, the Gold Cross of Merit went to Janos Petras, frontman of the ultra-nationalist band Karpatia.

13. de Volkskrant, Hongaarse regering kent antisemieten prijzen toe (Hungarian government gives out anti-semitic prizes), [35]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"De tv-presentator Ferenc Szaniszlo ontving de Tancsics-prijs, de hoogste onderscheiding van de staat voor journalisten. Szaniszlo verspreidde voor de tv-zender Echo TV antisemitische complottheorieën en noemde de Roma in zijn land 'mensapen'. Ook Janos Petras, de zanger van de rockband Karpatia kreeg een onderscheiding. De zanger roept in zijn teksten op tot gewelddadige wijzigingen van de Hongaarse grenzen."

Translation

TV presenter Ferenc Szaniszlo Tancsics received the Prize, the highest state award for journalists. On the television channel Echo TV, Szaniszlo spread antisemitic conspiracy theories and called the Roma in his country 'apes'. Janos Petras, the lead singer of the rock band Karpatia, also received an award. The singer's lyrics call for violent changes to Hungary's borders.

14. Novinky.cz, V Maďarsku vyznamenali antisemitského novináře i nacionalistickou kapelu (Hungary: the distinguished journalist and anti-Semitic band), [36]:

Relevant text from newspaper

"Značné pobouření vyvolala jména Maďarů vyznamenaných Táncsicsovou cenou. Je mezi nimi nacionalistická kapela i novinář Ferenc Szaniszló, který je známý svými extrémními a antisemitskými názory. Několik známých novinářů stejné vyznamenání, jaké dostal Szainiszló, na znamení protestu vrátilo... Řád za zásluhy dostal archeolog Kornél Bakay, který je rovněž známý antisemita. Přišel s tezí, že za středověkým obchodem s otroky stáli Židé. Stejný řád převzal i zpěvák a baskytarista nacionalistické rockové skupiny Kárpátia János Petrás. Skupina ve svých textech otevřeně vyzývá k revizi stávajících maďarských hranic a připojení tzv. odtržených území a používá velkouherské symboliky. Účastnila se i pochodů dnes již zakázané Maďarské národní gardy."

Translation

Outrage sparked at Hungarians named with prizes including the Tancsics. Among them are a nationalist band and the journalist Ferenc Szaniszló, known for extreme and anti-Semitic views. Several well-known journalists previously awarded the same prize as Szanislo returned their awards in protest.

These articles, almost all of them about Szaniszlo and his award, all mention Bakay and Petras. Many of them also remark on the relation between Szaniszlo, Echo TV and Fidesz. So, reliable sources and due weight, based on available coverage, would suggest that this material should be included because it provides information both about Szaniszlo (his relationship to Fidesz) and his award (given alongside awards to Bakay and Petras). -Darouet (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on the issue of compromise, I'm happy with Koertefa's compromise of including statements about Fidesz's motivation for the award framed within the context of criticism by media or Fidesz opponents. I think that's a fair reflection of what sources say, overall. -Darouet (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have a pretty good list, above, of reliable sources above all placing Bakay, Petras and Szaniszlo's names adjacent to one another (and one article titled "The distinguished journalist and antisemitic band"), is there still opposition to just repeating, in concise fashion, what all of the above sources write in more detail? -Darouet (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any last comments about how Bakay and Petras might raise BLP issues other than reliably sourced content, clearly addressed above? -Darouet (talk) 01:21, 16 August 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.

Gun Control

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Gaijin42.

25 July 2013 (closed 26 July, reopened 1 August)

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

Gun Control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

What is the appropriate inclusion for information regarding Nazi use of gun control in the gun control article (Or if the gun control is merged into gun politics/firearm regulations, inclusion in the target article)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Two RFCs closed no consensus, procedurally closed DR (1st RFC still open), reams of talk page discussion

How do you think we can help?

Keep the multiple arguments on track , and make sure each one is resolved individually, without shifting to another argument midstream. Arbitrate how the multiple policies involved interact and how they should apply to this content.

Opening comments by Gaijin42

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 topic is certainly highly controversial, but it is also very notable, and discussed in many reliable sources. It is a major part of the gun control debate in the US, and receives international attention . Opponents of the information may not declare by fiat that something is fringe, and violates npov, when npov specifically states that all notable viewpoints must be included, and that reliable sources are not required to be objective. this is not science, it is politics. The facts are indisputable (though the historical importance of those facts is questionable). The importance of those fats in the political debate is very controversial, but its notability is unquestionable. just saying that a significant political debate is not allowed in an article about politics is ludicrous.

Andy's procedural complaint is complete bullshit. The AN is a question about merging, not appropriateness of content (And the content also exists in the article he has repeatedly said should be merged to, so the question applies there as well). He also specifically complains in the AN thread that I have not opened any dispute resolution processes, and then attempts to beurcratically short circruit the requested action! There is the bad faith. [[37]]

Andy claims the GC article is a pov fork. He wants to redirect it to GP. THE GP ARTICLE HAS THE SAME CONTENT. So this dispute should be resolved one way or another, unless he says he does not object to that content in the GP article. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Goethean

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 AndyTheGrump

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

I consider the opening of this discussion a bad-faith action. As has already been confirmed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive251#Conflict around Gun control, there is a clear consensus that the gun control article is a POV fork, and thus a contravention of policy. Rather than addressing the issue, Gaijin (and one or two others) are rehashing the same arguments for the retention of material relating to a fringe theory only of any significance to the US gun debate, and completely refusing to acknowledge the WP:WEIGHT concerns involved in dominating what is supposed to be an article covering a global topic with a crackpot proposition (that 'gun control' leads to 'totalitarianism') that has no credibility whatsoever amongst serious historians. Given the endless stonewalling, attempts to rig the debate with a clearly non-neutral RfC and other failure to engage in a genuine discussion on how the article can be made to conform with policy, I see no reason to assume that this supposed 'dispute resolution' is anything other than a further act of stonewalling, carried out with the clear intent to maintain the policy-violating article for as long as possible. It should also be noted that there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Gun control, which shows some potential at resolving the issue via a complete re-jig of the two articles we have giving global coverage of firearms regulation - which includes contributors not even mentioned as 'users involved'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Gaijin has chosen to characterise the opinions expressed by multiple uninvolved contributors at WP:AN - that the article is a POV-fork - as "complete bullshit". Given this contempt shown to fellow contributors, I can see no point in discussing this further. The article violates policy. Policy violations are not up for negotiation. If Gaijin is unwilling to work within policy, I'm sure we can manage well enough without him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TransporterMan: I should perhaps wait for others to respond before confirming whether I see any point in participating, but given Gaijin's attempts to dismiss the opinions of uninvolved contributors as "bullshit", and given the attempts by another participant to stall any progress by initiating yet another thread (Talk:Gun control#Lets untangle the questions) where we are supposed to yet again go over exactly the same arguments - and apparently agree amongst ourselves to rewrite Wikipedia policy in the process - I cannot honestly say that I see the slightest prospect of this discussion resolving anything. The dispute isn't just about "Nazi's", it is about something more fundamental - whether Wikipedia coverage of firearms regulations issues at a global level should be dominated by the fringe viewpoint of sections of the US gun lobby. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Scalhotrod

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

I believe that "the information regarding Nazi use of gun control" is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Where it belongs is the purpose of a separate discussion.

With regard to the topic of 'gun control in the United States', I believe that it is self-evident to be a distinct and notable topic either separate from or inclusive (as a major subsection) with the 'gun politics' articles (either in the U.S. or globally). My reasoning for this is the existence of firearm related legislation that has nothing to do with 'control'. One example I have been citing is this act which taxes firearm manufacture for the purpose of using the funds for wildlife habitat rehabilitation. As compared to, for example, this federal legislation.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by SPECIFICO

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 North8000

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.

IMHO the main two problems there are: 1. Discussion is gridlocked due to failure to unbundle the questions. 2. Incendiary, insulting and nasty behavior by AndyTheGrump and Goethean. Both continuously tossing bombs and misstatements about other editors instead of discussing. Without those two issues I think this would have already been resolved. What few have noticed is that there are a whole lot of reasonable people there who are just trying to figure out the best thing to do and who appear positive towards some middle ground. DR would hopefully be organized enough to help on #1 and add some civilization to #2 and so I think it's a good idea. If the two mentioned persons would just look through their spit flinging they might notice that people (like myself) do not have the directly opposite positions as they have invented. Which is more good news for the possibilities of DR. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Justanonymous

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 Miguel Escopeta

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 fundamental issue is the lack of respect of country-specific viewpoints. For example, one opening statement incorrectly states the dispute revolves around, "whether Wikipedia coverage of firearms regulations issues at a global level should be dominated by the fringe viewpoint of sections of the US gun lobby". This is a total incorrect characterization of the dispute, as there is not a US gun lobby that is editing Wikipedia. Neither is the issue about "fringe" viewpoints. Rather, there is a fundamental difference of opinion in the amount of respect to be given to inalienable rights as recognized in the US Constitution vs. the viewpoint that rights do not come from God, but rather are privileges that only come from Governments or dictators. A fundamental dichotomy thus exists in viewpoints, and is at the heart of the problem of the dispute. Wikipedia articles should not be written to suppress different viewpoints, such as whether inalienable rights are granted by God to citizens, or whether subjects are only to be permitted certain privileges by kings and dictators. Address the suppression of properly cited and verifiable viewpoints, whatever they are, and respect the viewpoints of all major (non-fringe) cited facts, and the dispute largely goes away. The issue of content regarding Nazis vs. gun control is but one aspect of this overarching problem. Focusing on "Nazis" only clouds the real issue. Respect needs to be given to all significant viewpoints, provided supporting text is always properly cited with verifiable cites. We should not be suppressing viewpoints in this article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Steeletrap

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 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 ROG5728

The use of gun control by Nazi Germany as a tool in their oppression of the Jews is a fact supported by numerous reliable sources and even quotes by Hitler himself. Whether or not some editors feel it's "unfair" to have gun control associated with Nazi Germany is irrelevant; the use of gun control by Nazi Germany is history and should be included. ROG5728 (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Amadscientist

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.

At the moment there is an open AN filing on this article and dispute. I will wait to make opening comments after it is decided whether or not to open this filing.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by The Four Deuces

The 1938 Nazi gun laws are as Gaijin42 says "discussed in many reliable sources." However as this example shows, they are mentioned as part of the "culture wars" in the United States as part of an irrational argument presented by gun enthusiasts. These enthusiasts in essence argue that the laws were an essential step for carrying out the Holocaust, which resulted in the murder of 6 million Jews and that "liberal" gun control laws in the U.S. will inevitably lead to a fascist/communist dictatorship in the U.S. Experts obviously refute this interpretation. I do not think that notable fringe groups outside the U.S. take any interest in this, since opposition to gun control is a peculiarly American phenomenon.

Comprehensive books on the history of firearms laws throughout the world of course provide cursory mention of the laws as they chart the history of German firearms legislation from the Weimar Republic to modern Germany. None of them support the theory that the law helped Hitler consolidate power and mention that he actually loosened restrictions.

In conclusion, I think that in this article, the laws only have relevance to the US gun control debate and the gun enthusiasts' views can only be presented as fringe, if at all.

TFD (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither "taking" nor opening this listing for discussion at this time, but would ask for a clarification. Content dispute resolution through DRN or mediation is a voluntary process. Choosing not to participate is, therefore, not a disqualification from or impediment to continuing to participate in editing and discussing the matter for which dispute resolution is sought. The absence of a major participant in a dispute will ordinarily cause a request for DR in those two forums to be declined since a successful outcome is not likely without the participation of all major parties. Therefore, in the interest of efficiency, I would ask: @AndyTheGrump: Does your procedural objection, above, mean that you are unwilling to participate in this process if that objection is determined in favor of continuation here? Such a determination is, in my opinion, very likely (though other DRN volunteers are free, of course, to disagree). Please answer in your opening statements section, above, not here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened this case at the request of one of the participants and in accordance with the stated intent of DRN volunteer Guy Macon, but someone needs to undertake notifying all the listed participants that this has been reopened and, since some time has passed, also needs to give consideration to whether other participants have entered the frey or dropped out who need to be added to or dropped from the list of participants. While I am taking this administrative action, I am going to recuse myself from it other than for administrative and maintenance kinds of things due to my prior dealings with some of the participants. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we are working this out fairly calmly. Changes to other related articles seem to be paving the way, but I am unsure as to how this whole thing will unfold. Hopefully there will be no other polarizing events like another "Sandy Hook" that happen in the meantime. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:11, 13 August 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.

Yeakley's Research on the Boston Church of Christ

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

Filed by JamieBrown2011 on 15:54, 30 July 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

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Continuing Discussion on Yeakley Research (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Dr Flavil Yeakley conducted research in 1985 on the Boston Church of Christ. He had his book published by 'Gospel Adovocate'. There was some dispute over Gospel Advocate as a reliable source and the DRN ruled here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_73#International Churches of Christ that: (1) that Yeakley's publisher, The Gospel Advocate Company, is not a high quality source, because there is no evidence of fact checking, (2) that Yeakley's research may be cited in the article because it's referred to by other high quality secondary sources, (3) that it's preferable to cite the secondary sources to refer to the aforementioned material if they cover enough ground. Discussion has deadlocked with whether the reliable secondary sources "cover enough ground".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive debate on the Talk page over a number of weeks.

How do you think we can help?

Can you guide us to resolve whether the secondary reliable sources cover enough ground or whether material from 'Gospel Advocate' needs to included in the article?

Do the reliable secondary sources cover enough ground on Yeakley's research on the Boston Church of Christ

Have you considered that taking this to the reliable sources noticeboard might be a more appropriate course of action? My first instinct is to close this with that recommendation but I'd like another volunteers opinion. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue might be a little more complex as 'Gospel Advocate' was ruled as an unreliable source but Yeakley's research as admissible because it was referred to in reliable secondary sources. Two editors are happy to use the secondary sources and one is insisting in keeping the 'Gospel Advocate' material in the article, his assessment is the reliable secondary sources "don't cover enough ground" hence the deadlock. Guidance would be appreciated.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@JamieBrown2011, Nietzsche123, and JamesLappeman: Ok in 200 words or less, those stating the seconady sources don't cover enough ground: please explain your rational behind it. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've read over the material again. It seems to me that Gospel Advocate is an unreliable primary source (something seemingly agreed upon) however the material has been cited by reliable secondary sources. In Wikipedia we much prefer secondary sources because they do the analysis for us. The policy on primary sources states: be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]. It looks like the Yeakley source contains some fairly big claims ("highly manipulative" sects) which are not covered in secondary sources. This is the primary source drawing conclusions from its own statements. Generally we prefer a secondary source to cover these and do the analysis of the data presented by the primary source. Would I be correct in saying that there is no secondary analysis that makes the same claims (e.g. the bit about the sects, unhealthy ways)? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cabe Yes, to my knowledge, that is correct. On the Talk page I have asked @Nietzsche to provide any secondary sources we are unaware of, to date he has not. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling is that those claims shouldn't be included as their is no reliable source for those parts explicitly. Considering the weight of what is being said I would say not to cite the GA source and remove those statements. In the interest of fairness I'll wait and see what the remaining editors opinions on the matter are. I am open to having my opinion changed. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I agree that the strength and nature of the Gospel Advocate claims are not in line with RS and BLP policy. The secondary sources definitely cover the gist of Yeakley's research (although as you know from the talk page I still find the quality of these secondary sources questionable if they choose to see Gospel Advocate as reliable enough for their use). My opinion is that Yeakley is not relaible enough for the article since the primary data is so unreliable but, should it be kept by consensus, the secondary sources are preferable and adequate if used properly. I have been querying @Nietzsche's constant push to have such inflammatory (almost tabloid like) data included but other than continual reverts am still not sure why this is so. I would also like to propose that the title be changed to "Flavil Yeakley's 1985 Research on the Boston Church of Christ" as Yeakley's book is given a separate section (as opposed to being contained in the "history"). Since it was nearly 30 years ago and only in a single congregation of what is today around 430 congregations in 170 countries it is misleading to indirectly project these findings on the current entire ICOC. By qualifying it as much as possible in the title it would be better reflected. JamesLappeman (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the length of what follows; I tried to keep it as short as possible. If my understanding is correct, TransporterMan on behalf of the DRN board previously ruled that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, Yeakley's research is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources. This is why the previous ruling of the board was that we may cite Yeakley directly. I understand that secondary sources are to be preferred to primary (and even more specifically that the high quality Norton secondary sources are to be preferred to other secondary sources); but the previous ruling permitted citing Yeakley directly, especially when the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground. Specifically, while the secondary sources state that BCC members' personality types changed to match its leaders' types, the secondary sources leave out Yeakley's specific normative claims that "the discipling methods employed by that church" are "changing the personalities of its members in unhealthy ways" and the bit about "highly manipulative sects" already mentioned (see Norton p. 39). JamesLappeman and JamieBrown2011 have been trying to word the summation as: "The data in this study of the Boston Church of Christ does not prove that any certain individual has actually changed his or her personality in an unhealthy way. The data, however, does prove that there is a group dynamic operating in that congregation that influences members to change their personalities to conform to the group norm". My problems with this is that it's misleading since it's only a clarification Yeakley makes of his conclusion stated earlier. Moreover, JamieBrown2011 takes the bit from The Boston Movement, which quotes it right from the Yeakley text; so if you have a problem directly citing the Yeakley text, this bit shouldn't be included, either. The secondary sources also leave out Yeakley's claims regarding how the BCC operates three years after his study was completed: "[p]erhaps the most important development in the year since this book was written is that counselors in virtually every city where this radical movement exists are now being flooded with clients who are the psychological, emotional, and spiritual victims of this authoritarian movement. Psychologists who specialize in treating cult victims have reported that in several cities they are now treating more people from these discipling congregations than from all other groups put together. These professional counselors are unanimous in their judgment that the Boston-led hierarchy of discipling churches is a dangerous cult". I take offense to the above suggestion that these observations are almost tabloid-like. These are serious charges that come from a reputable source. The question is: is the Yeakley text reputable enough? As far as articulating the section on Yeakley to be mindful that his 1985 research is limited to the BCC (not necessarily the ICOC as a whole), the WP article is already written in this way. What specifically, JamesLappeman, were you wanting to change? -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sums up the difficulty we have been having over at the Talk page. Nietzsche is determined to keep using the 'Gospel Advocate' material to the point of being "offended" when it is pointed out that making big claims from low quality sources is not really within the scope of Wikipedia or consistent with it's policies (but more akin to a tabloid). When an attempt is made to rather use the secondary sources (as per the previous DRN ruling by TransporterMan) and their summation of Yeakley's research, the repeated response is reject and revert back to the primary GA material. The high quality secondary sources describe the research Yeakley did, give an analysis of what his research revealed and quote from his writings the sections they endorse. (that is why I included those quotes in my suggested edit). None of them quote from Yeakley's appendix in the GA book, which Nietzsche insists should be included in the article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JamieBrown2011's above summation is incorrect on many points, of which one point is particularly pertinent: the bit he suggested to include (previously mentioned in my edit above) comes directly from Yeakley's text. The editors of The Boston Movement (where Jaime gets his quote) included an entire chapter from Yeakley's text in their book. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point isn't it, where the reliable secondary sources reference or quote Yeakley, that material is preferred to using a primary source on Wikipedia, especially a low quality one. Since Cabe's request is for the editors who feel the secondary sources don't cover enough ground to fully explain their rationale, I wont interrupt again until that is complete.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"TransporterMan on behalf of the DRN board previously ruled that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, Yeakley's research is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources." No. As volunteers we speak only for ourselves and not the entire board. It isn't a ruling. It is simply the opinion of one volunteer and has no authority. Having said that, it might be advisable to put a good deal of weight on Transportationman's opinion as they do know what they are talking about. But, this is an informal process at DR/N.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 20:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark and Cabe6403 thanks again for your input. As you can see we have struggled to find consensus. I still find it strange that a source can be seen as unreliable according to WP guidelines but then legitimised because it is quoted in a few secondary sources. I guess I'm not convinced that because a few niche journals chose to include material from a family business publisher it means that it is of encyclopaedia quality. It is such a minute and debatable slice of research that seems to take up a large amount of space (more space than some other more significant and relevant sections). I think that Gospel Advocate is not a reliable source and should be removed BUT if we decide to keep it then a few short measured sentences from secondary sources would be the most balanced option. JamesLappeman (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source isn't "legitimised" by being quoted in reliable secondary sources, rather because the secondary sources are reliable we can use their commentary on the primary source. Basically, the bits of GA that have received critical commentary can be cited in the article. My own feeling is that you are able to make claims in the article if they can be cited by the secondary sources. If a claim you wish to make is only covered by the primary source then it wouldn't be appropriate to cover it. The only time its appropriate to cite the primary source is when directly quoting it to clarify a claim made by a secondary source. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that for me. JamesLappeman (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cabe & Mark Thanks. This has provided a lot of help on how to move forward. With the clarity to use the secondary source material and not the primary GA stuff, we can go back to the talk page and work out the details of what that wording should be.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do JamieBrown2011 and Nietzsche123 agree?--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess that I'm a little confused. On June 14th (DRN archive 73) TransporterMan wrote that "with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory". From this and more statements he wrote I gather that it is TransporterMan's opinion that (1) Yeakley is a reliable source, that (2) Yeakley may be directly referred to in the WP article, and that (3) secondary sources are preferable to directly citing Yeakley if they cover enough ground. I concur with this opinion. While The Gospel Advocate Company doesn't seem to be reliable source, the Yeakley material does seem to be a reliable source since it's referred to by multiple high quality sources. The secondary sources fail to cover the normative ground Yeakley does. This shouldn't be surprising: for various reasons academic presses in general tend to shy away from making normative claims, especially about religious groups. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding link to archived discussion related to this dispute: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 73#International Churches of Christ for convenience.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nietzsche123, I feel we should show the full statement from the DR/N volunteer to better understand their intent. This in no way should be seen as agreement with any participant. This is just for convenience to understand the opinion of the volunteer from the past filing:

@Everyone: As for Jamie's last point, above, "mentions" may be enough if the study is mentioned or listed as a source on which the author of the reliable source relies. I've not been able to find a full copy of the Rambo article mentioned by Nietzsche, but the Gasde one seems firm enough. At Wikipedia "multiple" generally only means "more than one", so with that Gasde reference, I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory. With that, and with Jamie going to be out, I'd like to close this DNR listing and kick this back to the article talk page for consideration of how and how much to incorporate the material into the article. If you get stuck on that, then you can relist here with a newly-focused request. I'll leave this open for a couple of days in case anyone wishes to object, in which case we can discuss further. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 18:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I dislike trying to interpret another volunteers words, but it appears to me that what is being said here is that the Yeakley material can be used as a primary source when used with secondary sources that are confirmed to be reliable to Wikipedia standards. Multiple sources are required for BLP group articles as we are talking about living people. Thoughts?--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without overcomplicating, my take on the above is simply: Secondary sources would be best. In light of that I feel that we are in a good place because the secondary sources describe the research without the weightier claims in the later added editors notes. I'm not exactly sure what @Nietzche means by 'normative ground' (it just sounds like he is trying to squeeze an accusation in which is not what encyclopaedias are for). I still stand by the observation that it is a strange place we find ourselves with Gospel Advocate not meeting encyclopedia quality but a few cultic studies journals (with questionable reliability as I've noted on the talk page) making reference to Yeakley. Given RS, BLP and even FRINGE there are enough problems with the fact that Yeakley (1) virtully published his own work, (2) is a communications and church specialist and not a psychologist (his research didn't make it into any major psychology journals) and (3) The journals he is cited in are very niche and even citing them is making a big and disputed claim about the ICOC (notice that established journals like 'The Journal for the Study of Religion' do/would not source from GA). I still opt for us all to look at the previous ruling and consider the prudence of taking Yeakley out altogether. If consensus goes against this then lets err on the side of concise, neutral and secondary sources. JamesLappeman (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I previously stated my take on TransporterMan's opinion, namely, that while 1) secondary sources (and the higher quality Norton sources in particular) are preferable to citing Yeakley directly, it's permissible to do so, especially where the secondary sources fail to cover enough ground. The secondary sources fail to mention the normative claims Yeakley makes. It's not just several Cultic Studies Journal articles that refer to Yeakley; rather, at least two other high quality secondary sources do: 1) a Norton text edited by Michael Langone and 2) a Pastoral Psychology article by written Lewis Rambo. Yeakley's CV may be found here: http://www.pureheartvision.org/resources/docs/Vita2011.pdf. He was a professor for over 17 years, earning awards for teaching at Harding University and the Isabel Briggs Myers Memorial Award for Research in the year he published his work on the BCC. I'm not sure on what grounds JamesLappeman declares that Yeakley isn't a psychologist since he has a BA in psychology and a PhD in speech communication (and has published in a number of psychology journals). Where the secondary sources cover the ground Yeakley does, I agree that we should use them instead of citing Yeakley directly; but where they fail to cover enough ground, I'm in favor of citing Yeakley directly. -Nietzsche123 (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Cabe & Mark we are back to the same place we started. @Nietzsche has a predetermined disposition to wanting to use the primary Gospel Advocate material, even though everyone agrees that the GA book of Yeakley's research is regarded as unreliable for Wikipedia (no professional journalists, no editorial board, no evidence of fact checking) yet because @Nietzsche choses to interpret TransporterMan's comments to legitimise the primary GA source, therefore for all practical purposes, anything found in the primary GA book that is not covered in the reliable secondary sources is fair game because the "secondary sources do not cover enough ground". Hence @Nietzsche can conclude above:

Where the secondary sources cover the ground Yeakley does, I agree that we should use them instead of citing Yeakley directly; but where they fail to cover enough ground, I'm in favor of citing Yeakley directly JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me ping the participants and see if I can sort this threw enough to further the discussion. JamieBrown2011, JamesLappeman and Nietzsche123, I would like to make a few observations.

The material in question is: "Yeakley, Flavil (1988). The Discipling Dilemma: A Study of the Discipling Movement Among Churches of Christ. Gospel Advocate Company. ISBN 0892253118". The issue; is this reliable enough for Wikipedia standards to use in any way to source content if there are secondary (third party) sources, that should suffice. One editor believes that the secondary mentions are not enough and wishes to source directly from the Yeakley, Gospel Advocate (YGA) source where the secondary sources fall short. A sort of broad interpretation of the dispute, so feel free to correct any mistakes I might make.

Some of this has been slightly misperceived I think on both sides and that is not a bad thing. But let me try this.

The strength of sources is determined by several factors and in the last DR we seem to have had enough consensus from editors that the YGA was at least good enough to be a primary source, specifically because it had mention in multiple references in third party sources. That in itself means that we are able to at least show the primary source as illustration along with the secondary source references. Now, if there is something that is being cited directly from the secondary source, such as Yeakley's opinion, a quote could perhaps be used from the primary source, if it expands on the secondary mentions, but not if we are interpreting the primary source ourselves independent of the secondary (third party) sources. Thoughts.--Mark 23:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Digvijaya Singh

Filed by Soham321 on 02:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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:Digvijaya Singh (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Soham321 (talk · contribs)
Sitush (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Sitush has changed the existing edit for the section 'Batla House Encounter' in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digvijaya_Singh (please scroll down to the section 'User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit' in the talk page of the main article for the discussion on this edit). Both the new edit and the original edit can be read in the 'User:Sitush and Batla House Encounter Edit' section in the talk page (please scroll down). My objection to User:Sitush's modified edit is present in the talk page and i repeat it here: "The use of the word "reportedly' was because on the one hand we have reports of Singh stating that the encounter was fake and on the other hand we also have reports of Singh having denied reports of his calling the encounter "fake" on the ground that he cannot verify the authenticity of the incident. WP:NPOV being disregarded completed by User:Sitush. Singh's full clarification on this issue (that he had not called the encounter 'fake' but had only asked for a judicial probe) was also removed by User:Sitush for his own reasons.Soham321 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Additionally, the words of the journalist from the TOI article need to be removed because it violates the 'Impartial Tone' clause in WP:NPOV". I will also point out that Sitush has not tried to disguise his animosity/dislike for Singh. Additionally,the following demonstrates the fallacy in Sitush's approach: If a public personality is accused of rape or murder, User:Sitush would prefer the accusation to appear on the wikipedia page of that person along with a tendentious quotation of some journalist slamming the person. Further, any clarification of the accused would not be permitted to appear on the wikipedia page of the accused person if we go along with the logic being used by User:Sitush in the edit under consideration.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried engaging with User:Sitush on the article talk page but instead of discussing the edit itself, he prefers talking about all kinds of extraneous things like how often i have gone for dispute resolution or how often Singh--according to Sitush-- claims he has been misquoted.

How do you think we can help?

Please do whatever you think is appropriate under the circumstances keeping in mind wikipedia rules and guidelines. My own understanding is that Sitush's edit is in violation of wikipedia rules and guidelines as i have explained here and also in the relevant section in the talk page of the article.

Opening comments by Sitush

I have commented here. This report, as I suggested on the article talk page when it was mooted, is yet another premature example. I note the recusals of MM and TM below and would like to stress that I would not consider any past involvements with me to be a bar to their participation in this process. It is probably fairly well known that I don't have a great deal of faith in DRN as a process when it comes to India-related stuff but I do trust those who regularly participate here to do so in an impartial manner. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Digvijaya Singh discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hello and welcome to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm Mark and I am a regular volunteer. I will be recusing myself from the request because I have had previous interactions with Sitush. However, as an involved editor, I would have to wonder if that is extensive enough discussion.--Mark Miller _{Just ask!} _WER _TEA _DR/N 09:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also recused because of prior interactions with both editors, but also feel that there's been insufficient discussion and I'd also like to correct an error stated on the article talk page. One editor said, "As per wikipedia rules, if there is a fundamental disagreement on an edit it has to be taken for DRN." That is incorrect: Both asking for and participating in content dispute resolution is always discretionary, never mandatory. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I've read over the discussion on the talk page. Long story short, I agree with the comments made by Sitush. The issue here is largely due to a misunderstanding of policy on the part of Soham321. Policies have been explained to them, both by admins on their talk page and ANI. I think the boomerang effect applies here, and would suggest that if this sort of conduct continues, that Sitush should consider ANI. I see no valid content dispute here, thus I am closing the thread. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 15:45, 6 August 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:List of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Fifty7 on 22:25, 3 August 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:List of football clubs in England by major honours won (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Basically, an agreement cannot be reached regarding which honors to include and which honors to exclude on the table this article is about.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page resolution, and page protection to foster it

How do you think we can help?

At this point, any kind of dispute resolution from uninvolved editors can be a good thing.

Talk:List of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Toledo Express_Airport

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Dfw79 on 01:59, 6 August 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

Talk:Toledo Express Airport (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dfw79 (talk · contribs)
Tim Zukas (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute escalated into an edit was as parties didn't agree on the formating/wording on content on the article. Warnings were issued and it was recommended to discuss on the talk page to come to a compromise. The other party has since becoming unyielding and will not offer any suggestions as far as a compromise. The goal is to come to an agreement on acceptable wording for the article that doesn't remove important details that the other party considers useless and makes the judgement for the reader.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted continued dialog through the talk page. Would prefer to discuss this properly and come to an agreeable resolution to everyone involved. Unfortunately Tim Zukas refuses to to compromise on their position. They have a long track record of similar activities of visiting pages to remove content they feel is unnecessary.

How do you think we can help?

Need help just to get things back on a calm and level playing field so a solution can be reached. There are many updates to the article that are planned but I don't want to proceed until this is completed.

Talk:Toledo Express_Airport discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

There's no disagreement on the info in the article. One version has much useless verbiage and the other has less; if a jury of twelve read each version and voted, the verdict would be clear (I hope). But no way to do that? Tim Zukas (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Tim Zukas has removed uncited claims which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. E.g. "The airport is also a considered secondary airport for Detroit, Michigan and the surrounding northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan region." - I see no citations for this anywhere in the article. In fact, the statistics given later in the article seem to say the opposite: "3,241 of which TOL only captures 5.7%. Detroit Metro captures the most of 64.3%".

The burden would be on whomever wanted that statement included to provide a citation for that claim. Additionally, your "jury of twelve" is pretty much how a request for comment works on wikipedia.

On the flip side ""The airport's main role includes serving commercial passenger, cargo and general aviation aircraft the airport as well as being a base for the Ohio Air National Guard's" is a perfectly valid statement as opposed to just mentioning that it is a base. At this point in the article the reader doesn't know if it is primarily a military base or not. By removing the first part and leaving only "The airport is a base for the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing with F-16 Fighting Falcons;" you're introducing confusion by implying its primary use.

Basically, you both have valid points. Neither of your versions is perfect, work together and come up with a comprimise Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of hard to do when one side is unwilling to do so... PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 07:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could definitely reword the secondary airport wording utilizing details in the recent True Market Study that shows the overlap of markets for Detroit and Toledo. It would probably be better word that it is a secondary airport for the Lake Erie West region instead of naming Detroit specifically first. Like Panther said though, working to a compromise is the goal here but it is hard to do when the other side is unwilling. Dfw79 (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you say "the other side is unwilling". I'm assuming you are referring to Tim Zukas. Tim, see my comment above, are you prepared to work on a compromise? Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the two versions of the first paragraph:

"Toledo Express Airport (IATA: TOL, ICAO: KTOL, FAA LID: TOL) is a joint civil-military airport located in the townships of Swanton and Monclova situated 10 miles (16 km) to the west of the city of Toledo in Western Lucas County, Ohio, United States. The airport was opened in 1955 as a replacement to then Toledo Municipal Airport located to the southeast of Toledo. TOL is located near the crossing of State Route 2 and Interstate 80/90 (Ohio Turnpike Exit 52)."

After we delete some useless stuff we have

"Toledo Express Airport (IATA: TOL, ICAO: KTOL, FAA LID: TOL) is a civil-military airport in Swanton and Monclova townships 10 miles (16 km) west of Toledo in western Lucas County, Ohio, United States. The airport opened in 1955 as a replacement for then Toledo Municipal Airport southeast of Toledo. TOL is near the crossing of State Route 2 and Interstate 80/90 (Ohio Turnpike Exit 52)."

Which of the useless stuff needs to be compromised back in?

Likewise with most of the rest of the deletions-- it's impossible to guess why any writer would prefer the long version. Certainly no reader would.

(The reader doesn't need to be told what county and township it's in, once he knows its lat-lon and where it is in relation to Toledo. That too is useless info, but we know Dfw79 will fight to his last breath to keep it. So there's a compromise.) Tim Zukas (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on the talk page for the article, this specific revision is already mentioned as acceptable except for changing the terminology of "joint civil-military" to "civil-military" since the first is the current language used on all airport pages that haven't been altered by Tim Zukas. The rest of the modification though are already fine, but they were meant by further disparaging remarks from Tim Zukas instead of simply being implemented. The other modifications can be cleaned up some. Removing content that states Toledo Express serves the Detroit market (which I will go back and cite sources for), the specific roles of the airport, and specific passenger statistics is where the remaining dispute remains and where Tim Zukas has either refused to compromise or has completely disregarded any suggestions and in turn followed the path of demeaning commentary. Dfw79 (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Dfw79, you are happy with the first paragraph Tim Zukas has proposed except from the removal of joint in joint civil-military airport? Is this correct? Personally, I see nothing wrong with putting joint in the lead as makes it clearer for those who, perhaps, don't know much about the topic. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cabe, yes it is fine with me as long as joint remains in. This is probably one of the more minor change disagreements. Dfw79 (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I propose the following for the opening paragraph. If everyone is happy with this we can move onto the next bit of disputed text. Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

Toledo Express Airport (IATA: TOL, ICAO: KTOL, FAA LID: TOL) is a joint civil-military airport in Swanton and Monclova townships 10 miles (16 km) west of Toledo in western Lucas County, Ohio, United States. The airport opened in 1955 as a replacement for then Toledo Municipal Airport southeast of Toledo. TOL is near the crossing of State Route 2 and Interstate 80/90 (Ohio Turnpike Exit 52).

How about this instead:

Toledo Express Airport (IATA: TOL, ICAO: KTOL, FAA LID: TOL) is a joint civil-military airport in Swanton and Monclova townships 10 miles (16 km) west of Toledo in the west side of Lucas County, Ohio, United States. The airport opened in 1955 as a replacement for then Toledo Municipal Airport southeast of Toledo. TOL is near the crossing of State Route 2 and Interstate 80/90 (Ohio Turnpike Exit 52).

|}Syxxpackid420 (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either seem pretty acceptable. I tend to favor the wording of the of Cabe's. Dfw79 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next paragraph-- Dfw79's version:

"The airport's main role includes serving commercial passenger, cargo and general aviation aircraft the airport as well as being a base for the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing with F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft. The airport is also a considered secondary airport for Detroit, Michigan and the surrounding northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan region. It is frequently used as the primary diversion point for arriving traffic to Detroit Metro Airport as well as other regional hubs. The airport is operated by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority on a lease agreement from the City of Toledo."

Leaving in some unnecessary info, we can still cut it to

"Passenger and cargo airlines and general aviation use TOL, and Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing with F-16 Fighting Falcons is based there. The airport is a secondary airport for Detroit and the surrounding region; aircraft arriving Detroit Metro Airport and other hubs use it as an alternate. The Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority operates the airport on a lease agreement with the City."

Previous post was made by Tim Zukas but wasn't signed in case anyone wonders. Keeping in mind that the version isn't all mine, I would go further to better improve it.

Suggestion: "TOL is used by passenger and cargo airlines, general aviation, and is home to the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing. The airport is a secondary airport for Detroit and surround region, including as a primary diversion point for aircraft arriving Detroit Metro Airport. The airport is operated by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority on a lease agreement from the City of Toledo. The airport also serves as headquarters and ground cargo hub for BX Solutions."

"Passenger and cargo airlines and general aviation use TOL and the Ohio Air National Guard's 180th Fighter Wing is based there; the airport is a secondary airport for the Detroit area and flights to Detroit Metro Airport use it as an alternate. It is operated by the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority on a lease agreement with the City of Toledo. The airport is also headquarters and a ground cargo hub for BX Solutions." Tim Zukas (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flow of the paragraph seems very awkward with the semicolons being put in. To me that is an unnecessary change and is just there to have a change. I'll defer to others for opinions, but I'm not seeing any need for additional changes. Dfw79 (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say we could probably look at the last two paragraphs remaining since there isn't much left and we seem to be finally making progress.

Current:In 2012, Toledo Express served 143,383 passengers which was a 0.9% drop from 2011 (144,076). American Airlines, operated by American Connection, was the largest operator in 2012 with 79,619 passengers (up 12% from 2011–70,939 and 58,540 in 2010) and reported a load factor of 66%. Allegiant Air carrier 54,412 passengers in 2012 for a 91.5% load factor. The remaining passengers were carried by charter outfits Direct Air (operated by Xtra Airways) with service to Punta Gorda and Vision Airlines with service to Myrtle Beach.^[1] Through the first half of 2013, TOL as recorded a 3.6% gain in passengers over 2012 including an 80% increase in passengers by Allegiant Air.^[2]

Tim Zukas Change:In 2012 Toledo Express served 143,383 passengers, a 0.9% drop from 2011. American Connection (American Airlines' affiliate) was the largest airline in 2012 with 79,619 passengers (70,939 in 2011 and 58,540 in 2010) and a load factor of 66%. Allegiant Air carried 54,412 passengers in 2012 for a 91.5% load factor. The remaining passengers were carried by charter outfits Direct Air (operated by Xtra Airways) with service to Punta Gorda and Vision Airlines with service to Myrtle Beach. Through the first half of 2013, TOL as recorded a 3.6% gain in passengers over 2012 including an 80% increase in passengers by Allegiant Air. ^[3]

Suggestion:In 2012 the airport served 143,383 passengers versus 144,076 compared to 2011, a 0.9% drop. American Airlines, operated by American Connection carrier Chautauqua Airlines, was the largest airline with 79,619 passengers to Chicago O'Hare. Allegiant Air carried 54,412 passengers to Sanford and St. Petersburg. Direct Air and Vision Airlines were accountable for the remaining passengers to Punta Gorda and Myrtle Beach respectfully. ^[4] Through the first half of 2013, TOL as recorded a 3.6% gain in passengers over 2012 including an 80% increase in passengers by Allegiant Air which added service to Punta Gorda. ^[5]

"143,383 passengers used the airport in 2012 versus 144,076 in 2011. Chautauqua Airlines, an American affiliate, was the largest airline with 79,619 passengers on its Chicago O'Hare flights. Allegiant Air carried 54,412 passengers to/from Sanford and St. Petersburg; the rest were on Direct Air's Punta Gorda flights and Vision Airlines' Myrtle Beach flights. ^[6] In the first half of 2013 TOL had 3.6% more passengers than in Jan-June 2012; Allegiant Air added flights to Punta Gorda and carried 80% more passengers." ^[7] Tim Zukas (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the main issue I have in this one is starting sentence/paragraph with a number not typed out. No real need to modify the first sentence I proposed. At this point it seems the edits are just for the same of having an edit and the flow of the paragraph is very choppy and doesn't read correctly. I'll let others post feedback and see what is suggested there so we can finally close this out. Dfw79 (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current:Toledo Express also serves as a cargo hub for BX Solutions, a freight handling company started by former BAX Global executives that use to maintain an air cargo hub at the airport.

Tim Zukas Change:Toledo Express is an air cargo hub for BX Solutions, a freight handling company started by former BAX Global executives.

Suggestion:Removed and added to second airport utilization paragraph. Main thing here is that Tim Zukas changed it to "air cargo hub" which is incorrect as BX Solutions does not have any air operations currently - it is all ground at this point.

Dfw79 (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks#Recent_dispute_about_allegation

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

Filed by Ali aff on 14:58, 10 August 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

Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks#Recent dispute about allegation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

1. Contribution based on latest development on the article is no being allowed and being deleted by cerain users, although contribution fulfill all wikipedia policies eg verifiability, reliability, truth, noticability.2. Issue is about a written affidavit given in a law court by an Indian Home Minister about an information passed to him by a high level CBI Officer for involvment of Inidan Govt. in the subject of article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Editing of artilce and extensive discussion on article talk page with reasons

How do you think we can help?

Make a decisive statement from neutral point of view.

Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks#Recent_dispute_about_allegation discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Chennai Express

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Iamabhu on 06:20, 11 August 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

Chennai Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

the movie cheenai express has grossed around 33.12 cr according to reliable sources and tv channels but the wiki page shows 29 cr as it follows BOI fig .my point is if there is conflict in fig one should mention that too

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i have requested it in the edit sorce page

How do you think we can help?

one can simply mention the other figures too

Talk:Chennai Express#Article_protected discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

My name hasn't been mentioned in the "users involved" list so I feel it necessary to note here that more than four new accounts were registered from the day (10 August) this dispute has started (some random IPs also) and there's some serious sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on to get consensus in their favor. This user, Iamabhu, could well be a sock and there's an open SPI with ample evidence regarding that. Thanks. Fideliosr (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added your name to the list. Leaving it off was an oversight, sorry. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No acquisitions here please. I am just putting forward my point in this discussion that, there are many cases like SOS, Bol Bachan, Rowdy Rathore etc which were released after JTHJ (i.e the so called consensus to use only BOI figures) and yet they are present in article :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollywood_100_Crore_Club even though BOI figures are different.

In this case, since it seems that box office india is the only site that is showing a different figure and every other source or official statement is showing 33.12 crore, hence this must be changed because if the movie had achieved something it shouldn't be denied recognition just because of one particular source denying it. Why be unfair only to this? Sources: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/chennai-express-vs-ek-tha-tiger-who-will-be-the-ultimate-winner/413373-8-66.html http://movies.ndtv.com/bollywood/chennai-express-mints-rs-33-12-crore-on-opening-day-403904?pfrom=home-latest http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/box-office-chennai-express-breaks-salmans-ek-tha-tiger-opening-day-record/1/298947.html [User:Pmnikhil|Pmnikhil] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmnikhil (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely wrong. Leading trade analyst Komal Nahta also reported 29 crore figure: http://www.emirates247.com/entertainment/shah-rukh-s-chennai-express-edges-past-salman-s-ek-tha-tiger-2013-08-11-1.517189 Fideliosr (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another noted trade analyst Amod Mehra and Amul Mohan of Super Cinema have also suggested the 29.5 crore figure:

Trade pundits differ on 'Chennai Express' beating 'Ek Tha Tiger'

Fideliosr (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same articles mentions as Taran Adarsh reported 33.12 crores which is also the same as reported by many other sources that our friends had pointed out in the article while requesting edit. Hence my viewpoint is that BOI should not be 'the sole' source for reporting thebox office colection for CE while some other movies(even after JTHJ) as i mentioned, are there in different articles with widely accepted figures rather than BOI figures.

If Komal Nahta too has mentioned 29cr, but how can you assume that Taran Adarsh, Koimoi, Joginder Tuneja etc. are not true? Mention both on the official page. Pmnikhil

So mention both sets! Why ignoring Taran Adarsh and Tuneja? Unless you are anti srk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.185.37 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not even the week that the movie has been released, so we shall need to wait for the correct statistics. OwnDealers (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the correct figures will be the official ones or by BOI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.185.37 (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has always been a difference in figures provided for every Hindi film. The question is: why does this issue always arise when specific films release? Wikipedia has used Box Office India only for years now, and the addition of the different figures to articles of ALL Hindi films would be practically impossible. Note that an exception simply cannot be granted in this case for purposes of uniformity - we must do it for every other film too. Factual Proof (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not the BOI figures that is used always. I have pointed out SOS, Rowdy Rathore, Bol Bachan etc. They have the widely accepted figures, then why not here? Especially if it is announced by UTV, who pay the tax for it? Pmnikhil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.194.39 (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

33.12 is official figure by UTV.. . All professional trade analyst confirmed this. http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/1872682/report-chennai-express-mints-rs33-12-crore-on-opening-day BOI dnt have any clear method of collecting data.. Komal Naata always gives collection on the basis of producer's figure..This time he intentionally posted different collection.

It might be a good idea to keep the discussion in one place. This new section contains some important points made by participants. Fideliosr (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

– New discussion.

Filed by Capitals00 on 06:46, 11 August 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

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

Users involved

Dispute overview

In this page, 2 users are trying to prove that Saudi Arabia and United States played no military role in the whole conflict, in fact these users had the Rfc in the page Bangladesh Liberation War, but what i see is, that those who didn't wanted such removal of "Saudi Arabia" and "United States" from the infobox had poorly defended the case.

It's documented by the multiple reliable sources that both of the nations have played role in the conflict. I sourced such information on the talk page as "Reverting/adding of US and Saudi Arabia as Belligerents in the infobox". "USSR" and "china" as unofficial supporter should be added as unofficial supporters as well.

The concerned RfC was meant only for 'United States' and not for Saudi Arabia or Soviet Union. I second Capitals' edits, only because the RfC did not endorse the removal of anything other than 'United States'. Fai zan 07:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on talk pages of the page, as well as User's own talk page.

How do you think we can help?

It would be helpful if the sourced content is added back, which can be viewed in the 2nd last revert of the page.

Opening comments by Yintan

Very surprised to see this here, as far as I'm concerned there's no need for DRN. The matter is discussed on the article's Talk page. Also, the overview by Capitals00 above is incorrect. He didn't list SA and the US as 'unofficial supporters' but repeatedly as 'belligerents'[38]. Big difference. I've tried to explain his error to Capitals00, and so has Smsarmad, but it's like talking to a wall and I've given up. He completely fails to see the point, calls sourced WP content "your made up theory", etcetera. I can't be bothered with that level of ignorance anymore. For some reason Capitals00 sees my decision not to waste more time on him as proof that he's right (see edit summary here[39]). Go figure. Smsarmad is still trying to reason with Capitals00, he is obviously more patient than I am. Not that it helps much, Capitals00's beliefs appear to be set in concrete. See the Talk page mentioned above. To make my position clear: I have no horse in the India/Pakistan race. I happened to come across Capitals00's edits on Recent Changes Patrol. Yintan 15:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Just added some more information and sources on the talk page. OwnDealers (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And like Capitals00's sources, they don't prove a thing. See Talk. Yintan 01:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't like them, but not even a matter for real. Looks like, soon we will see you claiming like pakistan played no role in USSR's war of afghanistan. Capitals00 (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get real. Yintan 11:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better you, now i got to see that the removal of US was only meant for Bangladesh liberation war, you and your friend edited just every related page, which is wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's been explained to you before. Like basically everything in the thread has been explained to you before. God, this is boring. Yintan 12:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reversion to the last undisputed and agreed upon revision. Fai zan 07:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your comment on the talk page, i agree 100% that this US had no involvement in Bangladesh Liberation War, but if we talk about the whole Indo-Pakistan war, they had the military presence and involvement. Capitals00 (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show they declared war and you're right: they would be belligerents. But they didn't. By listing Russia and the US as opponents in the belligerents section, you're basically saying they declared war on eachother. That's, without any doubt, wrong. Again, see Talk. Yintan 12:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US went there because their base in pakistan was attacked by India. USSR had given only training and supplies, same way China had to pakistan, so they were added as "unofficial supporters", which made sense. Capitals00 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish separatism in Iran

– New discussion.

Filed by Greyshark09 on 17:25, 12 August 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

Kurdish separatism in Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Greyshark09 (talk · contribs)
HistorNE (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Kurdish separatism in Iran is article title from 18 August 2012 until 5 August 2013, when it was moved by user HistorNE to new title and boldly reshaped to a new meaning. My revert and requests to issue WP:RM were in vein, until involvement of an administrator, returning original name to the article [40]. While finally issuing a WP:RM move request, HistorNE still performs disruptive edits on the article - insisting to radically alter the content of that page and topic related articles ([41], [42], [43]) in accordance with the desired result of his requested move, even though the move is in process. In general, he is also particularly unfair with WP:RS, removing credible historians who don't fit his world view (like removing McDowall [44]) and misusing others, as well as trying to stalk his edits ([45], [46]). I don't think this is helpful for the Kurdish and Iranian topics, and considering his general disruptive behavior for the last 2 months and suspiciously bold and professional edits, i'm thinking of asking an investigation on this user in general. In the meanwhile, i would like a suggestion how to pause his aggressive edits and forcing him into standard procedure of WP:RM.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asking user HistorNE to backoff renaming the article and changing its content unless WP:RM is closed in support with his opinion at the talk page; HistorNE was also explained so by an uninvolved administrator [47], but refused to fully cooperate, even when forced to WP:RM by title protection.

How do you think we can help?

HistorNE should be made clear that articles don't "move" without consensus and radical change of topic should be first discussed anytime when there is an opposition. Consensus should be achieved via WP:RM discussion and until the process is finalized it is fine to add sources, but not to make radical edits to change the content of article in accordance with desired result.

Kurdish separatism in Iran discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Response: Fist of all, when I moved article for the first time^[48] I left comment on talkpage where I explained factual errors^[49]. Prior to that I also left template "disputed"^[50], but Greyshark not just restored name but also removed academic sources and template without leaving any explanation to talkpage. In next three days we both participated in move/edit war and he still didn't discuss anything. When he is discussing, he's doing it with very aggressive and arrogant attitude (baseless accusations and threats^[51], insulting mockery^[52], etc.). Move war has been stopped by administrator JHunterJ and from his talkpage is more then obvious that problem with move war has been fully understood from my side (I thanked him for kind action in the name of both)^[53]. This also implies all of this complain about WP:RM is no more then burlesque, because Greyshark has misunderstood stopping move war as approval to removing sources which he don't like and restore his version which misused sources. I've explained his misuse of sources one by one on talkpage^[54], but he's avoiding to repond. Instead of it, he has started with baseless snitching on JHunterJ's talkpage^[55] falsely acusing me for misusing sources. He did the same here on DRN. Article Kurdish separatism in Iran isn't sole case of misusing sources, he also misused it in this article (see talkpage). Despite clear explanation, he restored his version seven times^[56] without any response on talkpage. There are numerous of other examples: when I find some POV-pushing in articles I correct it and I leave explanation on talkpage by refering to academic works (examples: ^[57]^[58]^[59]). In all given cases, Greyshark simple undone my edits without any discussion. He also isn't able to recognize reliable sources so above he complains about removal of claims by David McDowall who isn't "credible historian" but narrative writer, and I refuted his claims by using quotes by Ervand Abrahamian who is one of most eminent Iranologist of Modern Iranian history. For someone with extensive expertise about subject like me, it's more then obvious Greyshark is pushing anti-Iranian and pro-irredentist POV. After he realized he can't challenge attached academic sources which I posted (I'm in possesion of all major academic works about subject), he got angry and started with this baseless aggresive accusations. --HistorNE (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "REPORTS ON ACTS OF PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY AGAINST SHIPS - Acts reported during February 2012, pp.17" (PDF). IMO GISIS database. 2012-04-30. Retrieved 2013-07-15.

[2] ttp://forum.flytol.com/showthread.php?tid=260

[3] ttp://www.flytol.com/?p=70

[4] ttp://www.flytol.com/?p=70

[5] ttp://forum.flytol.com/showthread.php?tid=260

[6] ttp://www.flytol.com/?p=70

[7] ttp://forum.flytol.com/showthread.php?tid=260

[8] ttp://www.flytol.com/?p=70

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 472: / Line 472: @@
 === Kurdish separatism in Iran discussion ===
 <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
+<u>Response</u>: Fist of all, when I moved article for the first time<sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_separatism_in_Iran&diff=next&oldid=567223517]</sup> I left comment on talkpage where I explained factual errors<sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKurdish_separatism_in_Iran&diff=567234022&oldid=567228010]</sup>. Prior to that I also left template "disputed"<sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdish_separatism_in_Iran&diff=567223517&oldid=565792503]</sup>, but Greyshark not just restored name but also removed academic sources and template without leaving any explanation to talkpage. In next three days we both participated in move/edit war and he still didn't discuss anything. When he is discussing, he's doing it with very aggressive and arrogant attitude (baseless accusations and threats<sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kurdish_separatism_in_Iran&diff=prev&oldid=567829641]</sup>, insulting mockery<sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKurdish_separatism_in_Iran&diff=567833995&oldid=567832875]</sup>, etc.). Move war has been stopped by administrator JHunterJ and from [[User talk:JHunterJ#Kurdish–Iranian conflict|his talkpage]] is more then obvious that problem with move war has been fully understood from my side (I thanked him for kind action in the name of both)<sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJHunterJ&diff=567842941&oldid=567838192]</sup>. This also implies all of this complain about WP:RM is no more then burlesque, because Greyshark has misunderstood stopping move war as approval to removing sources which he don't like and restore his version which misused sources. I've explained his misuse of sources one by one on talkpage<sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKurdish_separatism_in_Iran&diff=568089942&oldid=568041363]</sup>, but he's avoiding to repond. Instead of it, he has started with baseless snitching on JHunterJ's talkpage<sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJHunterJ&diff=568223120&oldid=567842941]</sup> falsely acusing me for misusing sources. He did the same here on DRN. Article ''[[Kurdish separatism in Iran]]'' isn't sole case of misusing sources, he also misused it in [[Talk:1967 Kurdish revolt in Iran|this article (see talkpage)]]. Despite clear explanation, he restored his version seven times<sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1967_Kurdish_revolt_in_Iran&action=history]</sup> without any response on talkpage. There are numerous of other examples: when I find some POV-pushing in articles I correct it and I leave explanation on talkpage by refering to academic works (examples: <sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIranian_Kurdistan&diff=567311221&oldid=565095582]</sup><sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKurdish_nationalism&diff=568248731&oldid=561750372]</sup><sup>[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKurdish_people&diff=567420868&oldid=565461950]</sup>). In all given cases, Greyshark simple undone my edits without any discussion. He also isn't able to recognize reliable sources so above he complains about removal of claims by David McDowall who isn't "credible historian" but narrative writer, and I refuted his claims by using quotes by [[Ervand Abrahamian]] who is one of most eminent Iranologist of Modern Iranian history. For someone with extensive expertise about subject like me, it's more then obvious Greyshark is pushing anti-Iranian and pro-irredentist POV. After he realized he can't challenge attached academic sources which I posted (I'm in possesion of all major academic works about subject), he got angry and started with this baseless aggresive accusations. --[[User:HistorNE|HistorNE]] ([[User talk:HistorNE|talk]]) 00:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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