Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	Resolved	Avi8tor (t)	21 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 days, 14 hours
Norse Deity pages	Closed	Dots321 (t)	14 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours
List of South Korean girl groups	Closed	98Tigerius (t)	14 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 21 hours
Benevolent dictatorship	In Progress	Banedon (t)	13 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	19 hours	Banedon (t)	14 hours
Talk:Taylor Swift	Closed	Gsgdd (t)	13 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 days, 14 hours
Kylie Minogue	Closed	PHShanghai (t)	10 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 21 hours
African diaspora	Closed	Kyogul (t)	7 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	6 days, 14 hours
Primavera Capital Group	New	WorldPeace888 (t)	8 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	3 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	3 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 11:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Macclesfield Bank, South China Sea Islands

• Macclesfield Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• South China Sea Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The Macclesfield Bank is notable for being a disputed territory. The dispute in the article seemingly started when I added references in a particular statement about the claimant countries in order to make the content in the article verifiable (because there weren't any citations there before that edit). In the succeeding edits, Namayan removed the referenced Philippines claim as he is not convinced that such claim exists. He argues that a primary source is needed and that according to his research on documents from the UN website, the supposed citations for the purported Philippine claim misrepresents Philippine government position on the issue.

The following are current sources used for the Philippine claim:

• US State Dept., published in 2005
• Inquirer article, published June 25, 2012
• ABS-CBNnews.com article, published June 21, 2012
• Want China Times article, published June 22, 2012

The dispute is centered on the issue on whether the above mentioned independent sources were inaccurate or not in publishing such information.

These sources, being recognized news agencies or in the US State Dept source's case, an official body of another sovereign state, are highly unlikely, in my belief, to post information of such magnitude if these weren't well researched or are downright false. I believe looking over at documents at the UN website and drawing conclusions from it without authoritative supporting sources constitute original research, more so by assuming that the information posted by the US State Dept, et al are not accurate nor true until proven otherwise.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Namayan (talk · contribs)
• Xeltran (talk · contribs)

I believe Namayan erred in making presumptions that just because he didn't find any mention of the territory in what he believes is the best source for the subject (the UN website, among others), means that such claim by the Philippines is non-existent. At least 3 of the references above have been published recently. His assertions that the Philippines as the country does not claim the territory, citations are contrary to Philippine territorial laws and submissions to the United Nations is original research as it is not supported by any other source that disputes the accuracy of the information published from the 4 sources. He has also yet to disprove that the sources posted false or inaccurate information, their credibility were questionable, or the information is contrary at all to what the official Philippine government position is. He is insisting that the information posted from all the references are inaccurate because he did not find any mention of the territory in any of the laws/treatises/etc. he researched on. The South China Sea Islands article is also being listed since Namayan has already been reverting edits there under the same assertion. If the claim of the Philippines is non-existent at all, the Phil. government would have already issued a notice to all these agencies that they posted wrong information or the US State Dept, et al would have already withdrawn such information through an erratum. Any of the two scenarios did not happen. For an issue of such magnitude, I find it unlikely that the Phil. government is not aware of the content of such references (1 is a paper from the US, 2 are nationally recognized newspapers, and 1 is a news publication from another country).

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Macclesfield Bank, South China Sea Islands}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I started a topic at his talk page in order to clarify my addition of my sources and to have his actions clarified. A long discussion has ensued. Seeing no consensus on the issue, I suggested that the matter be elevated to the Philippines topics noticeboard where yet another long discussion followed. I restored my references to the M. Bank article with a {{better source}} tag in order to reach an impasse with the understanding that my edit will be construed that such claim by the Philippines is backed up with reliable and verifiable sources but better sources are being desired. Namayan still removed the Philippines as a claimant country even when references were clearly supplied with his understanding that such information is not supported by official government documents.

• How do you think we can help?

Third opinion from other parties is earnestly needed in order to identify whether the given sources pass the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. If the sources qualify as such, the claim can be included in the article. Third opinion is also desired in determining the validity of the information of the articles. Four different sources were already cited in order to support that such a claim by the Philippines exists. I believe that: to regard their content as inaccurate, or their credibility questionable in the absence of or non-access to a primary source; and to interpret the primary sources (UN documents, laws, treatises, etc.) available without evidence of being an expert or being an authority of the subject constitute original research. Thus, third opinion is also being sought in order to determine whether such is true.

Xeltran (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Macclesfield Bank, South China Sea Islands discussion

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

Being an editor of Wikipedia for over 6 years, who has also done extensive gathering of references for Philippine content to be provided in Wikipedia, I am very well aware of the requirements needed for an article.

This disputed information stemmed from the citing of news articles and a U.S. State Department publication in absence of an any official information from the Philippine government, which is the most reliable source on territorial claims of the country. On the other hand, I have cited and listed laws that define Philippine territory, which are likewise deposited with the United Nations [1], yet it is not being recognized by the other editor, saying that as a non-expert on the issue, I should not be interpreting these laws. These laws are explicit in determining the extent of Philippine territory and identifies the extreme points (land features) of the nations borders/baselines being an archipelago. It has also identified areas outside of the defined baseline as regime of islands in compliance with UNCLOS, in this case Kalayaan Group of Islands (Philippine claimed portion of the Spratlys) and Scarborough Shoal. It is illustrated by this map.

The other editor insists that secondary references should be the basis for an article to be verifiable, which I subscribe too, PROVIDED, in this case being a State matter, there should also be primary information to base it upon, and this "purported" territorial claim must be sourced from an official government publication. Unfortunately, the other editor has not presented any though. The other editor also insists that I provide information, that refutes the articles that he/she has presented. Why would a government bother to publish something it doesn't have a stake on?

It should not take an "expert" on the matter (a cartographer) to pin point the geographic features on a map, if one will just look at the map of South China Sea one can already see, that Macclesfield (close to Paracel Islands, off Hainan, China) is not being identified as a territory claimed by the Philippines, as in the map I have cited above.

During the deliberations in Congress of the Philippine Baseline Law (in time to meet the U.N. deadline as per UNCLOS), there were various discussions that were published in reference to this, let me cite this one. This by GMA News Network (one of the two largest broadcasting companies in the country) also illustrates the definition of the country's territory.

In a case brought before, and decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which contested the constitutionality of the Philippine Baselines Law (Republic Act No. 9522), the petitioners argue, that the law which declared Kalayaan Group of Islands (Philippine claimed portion of the Spratlys) and Scarborough Shoal as regime of islands instead of enclosing them in the Philippine baselines, has weakened the claim of the Philippines over these territories. The non-mention of Macclesfield Bank, could be construed that it is not a territory that the Philippines claims. This is not rocket science. Why would these petitioners against the Baseline Law, who are concerned about territorial diminution of the Philippines, not voice their concern about the non-inclusion of Macclesfield Bank, if it were indeed a territory the Philippines claims? Plain logic and common sense do not constitute original research.

A thesis in the University of Wollongong by a Filipino expert on the matter, studied this issue, and no where would he indicate that Macclesfield is claimed/should be claimed by the Philippines by properly enclosing and defining it in its territory.

It is hard to conceive that the non-mention of Macclesfield Bank as a territory claimed by the Philippines, should not be construed that the government of the Philippines does not lay claim to this land feature. I'd also like to pose questions to guide those who will comment on the matter:

• Is the U.S. State Department the authority to indicate which territories another country claim?
• Can this newspaper/or a broadcasting company, substitute any official information from the Philippine government, not being an official agency of the government itself?
• Should a country's territorial laws be explicit about the territories it doesn't claim?

Also, if one has to go by official maps, though trivial it is used by governments as a propaganda arm to illustrate its territory and the areas they claim, one can just go to the National Mapping Agency of the Philippine government and download the "Philippine Administrative Map with the Kalayaan Group of Islands" located at the bottom right side of the site. One will find that Macclesfield is not even identified as a feature in the map. -- Namayan (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It is immaterial in this dispute to put forward the number of years an editor has been in Wikipedia. The sources presented pass WP:RS, WP:SOURCES, and WP:V. Nothing in those policies warrant the need of a primary source if reliable, verifiable secondary sources are available to prove the same. In fact, according to WP:SECONDARY, Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.

The argument that just because an editor has not found the material cited in the secondary sources in his perceived primary source is flawed as well. All this time, he might looking for something that cannot be found there at all. Are we to ignore the content of four reliable secondary sources because we cannot seem to find such information in our perceived primary source? If we are to entertain the idea that such claim does not exist at all, WP:V stil says, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

According to WP:OR, [Original research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. All four sources presented generally support the idea of the existence of such claim. Nothing was presented that would support the contrary, other than the other editor's assertion that such claim did not exist at all since he cannot find it at his perceived primary source.

Laws are not meant to be interpreted by the ordinary Wikipedia editor. As non-experts on law (unless strongly supported by reliable sources), editors must be careful not to tread the path of original research (e.g. reading these by themselves and drawing conclusions upon them without the support of reliable secondary sources to support such assertion). Laws, afterall, can be interpreted in many ways by many parties unless the state that enacts it publishes its implementing guidelines. Laymen are not qualified to assert that these laws are explicit unless supported by authoritative references. The Baseline Law, which the other editor insists is clear enough to distinguish which territories are being claimed or not, is just one law and is therefore does not constitute the whole system of evidence that will be used for arbitration in an international body.

I requested for any material at all to support the other editor's assertion that such claim did not exist and that ALL four sources presented inaccurate information. He has yet to prove that the four sources did. It's wrong to assume that all of them erred in publishing such unless one can prove that their credibility is questionable or they have been posting circular information. In this case, the editor who asserts that these sources have published wrong/false/inaccurate information has the burden of proof.

Moreover, reliable sources should have their published information taken as true until proven eventually to be false. If these sources published wrongly about the claim in the first place, the Philippine government would have already issued a correction on the matter or these agencies would have not published such information if they haven't researched it thoroughly, unless they're willing to gamble their credibility. None of those scenarios happened. There has yet to have a mea culpa on the part of the US State Dept., etc that they published wrong information. There was no comment from the Philippine government about such claim. No comment is not to be construed as not true.

The question, therefore, is whether the other editor is qualified to draw conclusions upon himself after he read the material he brought forward. Taking into account WP:OR and WP:RS, are individual editors more reliable than four independent reliable sources (which we will assume would have done extensive research before publication)?

The other editor has posed questions for commentary. I'll answer and throw back a few of my own:

• Is the U.S. State Department the authority to indicate which territories another country claim? Acting as an independent secondary source that is not party to the claim, it is wrong to assume that a high-level department of another sovereign state would publish information in an inaccurate manner without extensive research. An editor who insists on the contrary should provide proof that the information contained in their reports is questionable.

• Can this newspaper/or a broadcasting company, substitute any official information from the Philippine government, not being an official agency of the government itself? A newspaper need not be an official agency of the government to publish government positions on a number of issues. In fact, if such agency is under the stewardship of the government, its reliability is questionable for suspected bias (see WP:IRS). As all four sources were independent and their reliability as a secondary source has not been determined as questionable, we take their published information as verifiable (even if other editors express concern if they're true or not; see WP:V).

• Should a country's territorial laws be explicit about the territories it doesn't claim? It depends upon the State. As non-experts to the issue, editors should refrain from drawing conclusions upon themselves after examining primary sources. As editors are generally not persons of authorities on the subject that they edit, what we include in Wikipedia should be preferably lifted from secondary sources who provide critical commentary on a number of issues and whose published information are verifiable and reliable (see WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:IRS.

My questions:

• How qualified is an individual WP editor in determining a State's interpretation of its laws upon inspection of them?
• Is the information published in the supplied sources verifiable or not? Are the sources reliable or not?
• Should information lifted from several secondary sources be immediately construed as inaccurate/false in the absence of or non-access to a primary source that supports such information?

Xeltran (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the other editor presented his/her case, so I have to present mine. If it's arbitration the other editor wanted then let other judge the merits of the cited sources.

As far as I know, I have presented maps drawn to represent the demarcations of Philippine territory, and it doesn't take a lawyer/cartographer to understand base points presented in the law (which identified the land features) and drawn in a map like this one, which is similar to other maps I have presented above. A reading of the Supreme Court decision on the case also clearly presents what were the points being presented by the petitioners against the New Baseline Law the Philippine Congress passed, and it doesn't take a lawyer to understand that. The laws pertaining to the demarcations of Philippine territory and the Supreme Court decision was pretty straight forward, but still thankfully there are maps to represent the Philippine territorial laws, which would not take a lawyer or an expert on the subject to interpret, as these can be plotted by anyone with a good mapping tool. I believe it doesn't take a literature major to understand a literary work. I think the other editor must also recognize that other good articles in Wikipedia have not actually been written by experts on the subject. -- Namayan (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. While I stand to be corrected, I am unfamiliar with any Wikipedia policy or guidelines which supports Namayan's claim that, "The other editor insists that secondary references should be the basis for an article to be verifiable, which I subscribe too, PROVIDED, in this case being a State matter, there should also be primary information to base it upon, and this 'purported' territorial claim must be sourced from an official government publication." He/she may believe that is the way that Wikipedia should work, but the way in which to achieve that is to propose that standard as a policy or guideline using the procedure set out in WP:POLICY. Until then, reliable secondary sources are sufficient to include an assertion in Wikipedia and at least some of the sources offered by Xeltran appear to be reliable (but not including the US State Department source, which as a self-published source cannot be used as a reliable source for claims about a third party). In light of that understanding, whether or not Namayan's sources require original research is a moot point. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights, TransporterMan. While I do believe that articles of such nature are highly desired to have primary sources that validate their secondary citations, I haven't found any current Wikipedia policy that supports or warrants such "requirement". I believe the current version is sufficient enough to satisfy the following conditions which I see is an amenable common ground for all parties in this dispute: Place the Philippine claim in the article with the corresponding secondary sources and place a {{better source}} tag. I hope that it will be understood by any reader who stumbles upon that page that such a claim by the Philippines was mentioned in a reliable source, although a better source is being sought after if only to satisfy the need for a primary one. Xeltran (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the secondary sources contradict the Philippine territorial laws from which it should derive its information, which shall then prevail? -- Namayan (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no proof that the secondary sources contradict your preferred primary source. Your view that the articles contradict the maps you've read have not been affirmed by an independent, authoritative reference. While you may believe that Wikipedia needs to work in a way that you advocate it to be, current WP policy affirms the inclusion of a Philippine claim based on the sources I've presented. Xeltran (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Such maps would qualify as secondary sources too much like the references that you had cited. Why would there have to be double standards? Such maps were made by a reputable news agency too, as well the study about Philippine territory of an expert on the subject. -- Namayan (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Maps have to be examined by qualified persons of authority and have their findings self-published then picked up by an independent source for analysis. So no, not anyone could just read a map and take it as face value. If a map points to a body of water as East Sea, and one ordinary reader believes it to be called so, is he then absolutely correct in asserting such, when there is a dispute going on about whatever that body of water's name is? A map then, by itself, I believe, does not constitute as a secondary source. The study of the PH territory of an expert of a subject is a self-published source, just like what TransporterMan pointed out about the US State Dept. report. Even if we take away the US report on the list of references, I still have 3 others to support the inclusion of a Philippine claim in the article.

A source (believed to reliable, yet to be proven the opposite) publishes the claim. No WP policy blocks such inclusion. No current WP policy requires that in this case being a State matter, there should also be primary information to base it upon, and this 'purported' territorial claim must be sourced from an official government publication. Why then should it not be included unless it was clearly proven to be wrong through a contrary claim by another secondary source? WP is not the place to assert which is right or wrong. A related WP essay (not a policy, mind you) entitled Truth, not verifiability affirms WP:V by saying "verifiability, not truth" - whether material can be verified by reliable sources, not whether individual editors believe is true. It goes on by saying that WP reflects the information published by reliable sources, not an editor's thoughts. That's why policies like WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS in place to ensure that every information is neutral and verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Xeltran (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless because the answer to Namayan's question, "Unfortunately, the secondary sources contradict the Philippine territorial laws from which it should derive its information, which shall then prevail?" is that under Wikipedia policy, the secondary sources clearly prevail unless you can produce a primary government source which expressly says that they make no claim to these places. (And even then, even if there was a government document which expressly says that they make no claim to the area, since other reliable secondary sources say that they do, that would not prevent an assertion being made in the article that they make the claim. Instead, it would merely require that both the assertion that they make such a claim and the assertion that they do not make the claim being reported in the article. Wikipedia does not weigh or attempt to reconcile conflicting sources, it merely reports both claims.} The fact that there are some government documents which do not include or mention it requires interpretation of the purpose and scope of those documents and such interpretation is forbidden by the WP:PRIMARY policy. The fact that some documents or laws say what territories the government claims for certain purposes does not necessarily mean that the included places are all the places claimed by that government for other purposes and, further, does not mean that new claims have not arisen since that document or law was written. (I'm not saying that is what has happened here, but only saying that the mere possibility of such eventualities prevents the use of proof-by-silence. However, the mere existence of this discussion User_talk:Namayan#Sources_for_Phil._territorial_waters_map on your talk page over the meaning of the baseline law illustrates that the scope and purpose of the baseline law are a matter which are less than apparent on its face. For a primary source to be usable under WP:PRIMARY, the assertion for which it is being used must be absolutely apparent on the face of the source. Indeed, in this edit, you tell another editor, "It will help you if you would read documents about UNCLOS, and why countries have to docket their territorial limits and submit it before the UN deadline of May 13, 2009." If it is necessary for a person to do such reading in order to understand the scope and import of a document, then that document cannot be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia under the WP:PRIMARY policy for anything which arises out of that scope or import.) I see absolutely no support in Wikipedia policy for Namayan's position in this matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I placed a new reference to support the Philippine claim (see here). It's still from the same publisher but it's more recent and the explanation for such a claim is better explained than the previous one. As no Wikipedia policy currently prevents the inclusion of the Philippine claim in the M. Bank article basing from the sources presented and I see no need to tag it with {{bettersource}} (as the presented reference seems sufficient to support the information), I think this issue can now be resolved. Xeltran (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 14, 2024 at 14:54 (UTC) Reason: This appears to be either stale or resolved. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I will try to contact the Inquirer article authors. I've been reading up on the Philippine territorial claims and this is the first time that I have ever heard that the Philippines is claiming Macclesfield Bank. I believe this is sloppy journalism on the part of Inquirer. --seav (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer comment: if editors of the page want to pursue the issue, they should query the sources at the reliable sources noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

After posting the closing note, above, I noticed that even though Namayan is an experienced editor here with 9,000+ edits since 2006 that he has not edited since July 6. While he may have decided to walk away from this discussion or, indeed, from Wikipedia altogether, I'm disinclined to jump to that conclusion without giving it a few more days. I'm going to leave this thread open through the weekend until at least 13:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC), and will then close it as stale or resolved if it has not picked back up. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll be commenting on this thread in due time, but I think people here should be aware that Namayan is currently attending Wikimania 2012 in Washington, D.C. Now as to whether or not he'll be using that time to edit Wikipedia, I cannot conclusively answer, but I can say that he's not retired, nor is he on hiatus. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Kilometres per hour

– Discussion in progress.

• Kilometres per hour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User:Martinvl and myself are having trouble agreeing on a suitable wording for a phrase in a sentence explaining the relationship between "km/h" and "kilometres per hour", in the section called "Use of kph", about alternative abbreviations in use, in the Kilometres per hour article. I favour something like: "a European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation (or "symbol" as the SI define it) for kilometres per hour in official documents in all its member states". Martinvl insists on: "EU directives require the use of "km/h" in official documents in all member states". The disagreement is over the use of the word "abbreviation", which I would like to see used to clarify the description of Martinvl argues that it would be original research (WP:OR) to include that word as two international bodies, the European Union (EU) and the International System of Units (SI), use the word "symbol" exclusively when describing that relationship in their documents. I argue that "abbreviation" is a usual term for that relationship in a general readership English-language-only article - where "km/h" is clearly an abbreviation of "kilometres per hour" ("/" is often used in place of "per"). My wording also mentions the fact that the SI call it a "symbol". I understand that the international bodies use the word "symbol" because they also use "km/h" to stand for "kilometres per hour" in languages where one or more of the constituent letters ("k", "m" and "h") may not appear in the initial letters of the phrase in those languages. I do not agree that English Wikipedia is obliged to disregard normal English usage practices and word meanings and has to necessarily comply with the conventions of these outside bodies. The dispute has descended into a continuous cycle of modification and reversion. Martinvl tried to get me banned by reporting me for "edit warring", see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. An administrator intervened and has now locked the article.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Martinvl (talk · contribs)
• Ornaith (talk · contribs)

I believe Martinvl is being rather intransigent over this. I produced a list of 7 different references which supported the fact that "km/h" is an abbreviation, which Martinvl dismissed and continued to claim it to be WP:OR.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Kilometres per hour}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

We have discussed it at length on the article talk page at: Talk:Kilometres per hour#EU directive 2 and Talk:Kilometres per hour#EU Directive - 3 July 2012.

• How do you think we can help?

I would like some direction as how we can overcome this impasse as I believe that the article content will be made much clearer, and will be more understandable to an average English language reader.

Ornaith (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Kilometres per hour discussion

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

I am a dispote resolution volunteer here at DRN. I would suggest first reading

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Units of measurement

Then reading the past discussions at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=kph+km%2Fh&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3AManual+of+Style+%28dates+and+numbers%29%2FArchive&fulltext=Search+archives+of+this+page&fulltext=Search

and if that does not resolve the issue, asking the above question on

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all a few facts:

• The current wording in the article is "EU directives require the use of "km/h" in official documents in all member states"
• In the last version of the article before it was locked, User:Ornaith wishes to change the wording to "A European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation (or "symbol" as the SI define it) for kilometres per hour in official documents in all its member states"
• The EU directive contains the word "symbol" 35 times, but does not contain the word "abbreviation" at all.
• There is a fundamental difference between a "symbol" and an "abbreviation" - and abbreviation is a shorthand for a word or an phrase which is formed from letters found in the phrase - eg "VAT" for "Value Added Tax" or (in Italian) "IVA" for "Imposta sul valore Aggiunto". On the other hand a symbol does not necessarily use letters from the phrase that it represents, for example the symbol "km/h" is the symbol for both "kilometres per hour" and [in Italian] "chilometri all'ora".
• A large number of websites connected with the metric system draw to attention that symbols and abbreviations are not interchangeable. Foremost among these is the SI Handbook - Section 5.1 (the formal definition of SI) which states "Unit symbols are mathematical entities and not abbreviations".

Ornaith's proposed changes are riddled with problems and as a result I must oppose this change. My objections include:

• The substitution of the word "symbol" by the word "abbreviation". It must be abundantly clear that there is a big difference between the two and it is highly probably that, given its international status, the EU really meant that the word "symbol" be used rather than the word "abbreviation". Moreover, Ornaith's proposed changes to the wording misrepresents the nature of the EU document - how would the Italians (for example) abbreviate "chilometri all'ora"? In my view this misrepresentation of fact to be worse than just WP:OR - at least WP:OR should get the facts right.

• The inclusion of the phrase "(or "symbol" as the SI define it)" is a total bodge to hide a misrepresentation of fact. Why not just present the facts as they are? The rest of the section in the article (Kilometres per hour#Use of kph), if Ornaith actually read it, explains the significance of the word "symbol". (OK, it could be written in more detail, but otgher editors have objected in the past).

In short, Ornaith's proposed changes are so riddled with poor practice that there is no way it should be considered. Finally Ornaith is new to Wikipedia so he would do well to sit back and listen, rather than charge in with all guns blazing.

Martinvl (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guy. Thanks for taking the time to look at this. However, and with all due respect, the reading suggestions you have offered appear to be addressing a different issue to the one presented here. This isn't a dispute about the presentation of units in articles or about what abbreviation/symbol should be used when referring to kilometres per hour. This is a dispute about whether we are allowed to use the English language word "abbreviation" when describing the use of "km/h" in place of the full phrase "kilometres per hour", or whether that would be rightly seen as original research. Ornaith (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the correction. Sorry about that. Let me start over.

I see a problem with what both of you are saying.

Martinvl writes "Abbreviation is a shorthand for a word or an phrase which is formed from letters found in the phrase - eg 'VAT" for "Value Added Tax' ". No it isn't. VAT is an acronym, not an abbreviation.

Ornaith writes: "This is a dispute about whether we are allowed to use the English language word 'abbreviation' when describing the use of "km/h" in place of the full phrase "kilometres per hour". The term "km/h" is not an abbreviation. It is an initialism, like "EU".

Note: I am assuming that folks in the EU say VAT as one word instead of spelling it out and that they spell out EU instead of pronouncing it as one-syllable word.

BTW, Contraction is the fourth member of the quartet of commonly confused words.

OK, once we decide to use the correct word, we get back to the question of

"...as the initialism (or "symbol" as the SI defines it) for..."

Does the SI actually make that definition? If so, cite it and we are done. If it doesn't, (which I strongly suspect from the fact that both of you got the wrong word) we should not say that it does.

That being said, there are two possible replacements for "...EU directives require the use of "km/h"..." that do not have the "SI never made that definition" problem. They are:

"A European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the initialism for kilometres per hour..."

"A European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the symbol for kilometres per hour..."

Or we could just not decide and write

"A European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" for kilometres per hour..."

Of the above, in my opinion "Symbol" is preferred, because that's the word used in the directive. "Initialism" would not be considered to be WP:OR as long as we don't pretend that someone made a definition that they didn't make - it is the proper use of that word. "Abbreviation" would be using the wrong word. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Guy. Given that Ornaith is [probably] Irish, I have taken the liberty of tracking down the Irish Gaelic translation for "kilometres per hour" - it is "ciliméadar san uair". Maybe Ornaith would be able to confirm that. Regardless, the symbol for "ciliméadar san uair" is "km/h" which is what the EU directive was getting across. Martinvl (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy yes, "km/h" may be an "initialism", but an "initialism" is just a more specific type of "abbreviation" (see the initialism article). So "abbreviation" is literally correct and is a more commonly used word in the English language, as evidenced by the seven references that I gave on the article's talk page to support the assertion that "km/h" is indeed an abbreviation of "kilometres per hour". If the more specific word "initialism" isn't WP:OR, then neither is the more general word "abbreviation". I've never read the EU directive or the SI document, but take Martinvl's word that they call it a "symbol"; presumably because they cover languages in which it isn't an "initialism" of the words used. None of that though renders my favoured phrase as WP:OR. I don't think "symbol" or "initialism" are as easily understood or appreciated in English as "abbreviation", and I think it's good to highlight that the multi-national organisations use the word "symbol" to be politically correct between languages, so my preferred wording choices are:

First choice: "A European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation (or "symbol" as the SI refer to it) for kilometres per hour..."

Second choice: "A European Union directive require the use of "km/h" for "kilometres per hour"..."

The former adds value to the pure assertion and makes it clear for anyone reading the SI text (assuming Martinvl's observations about its exclusive use of the term "symbol" are correct). I don't support the phrase using just the word "symbol" on its own with no clarification.

And yes Martinvl, I appreciate exactly the fine line of political correctness that the internatinal bodies have to walk along, and have understood all along (as evidenced in the discussion) why they use the word "symbol" to cover themselves, but do not accept that as an argument to compromise the English language we use in a purely English text such as this.

Ornaith (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do youself (and the rest of us) a favour and read:

• European units of measurement directives where you will find short summaries of the directive as well as links to the text of the directive itself
• International System of Units where you will find an overview of SI as well as links to the SI brochure. In particular, please read section 5.1
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Metric system where you can learn about the underlying philosophy of the metric system

Until you have read and understood these, you are wasting everybody's time pontificating about things that you clearly do not understand. Martinvl (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing there invalidates my case, and nothing from any EU or SI document takes precedence over common everyday English, why on earth do you think that it does or should? And please describe exactly how you think Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research support your case, there is nothing I see there saying normal English must be discarded if the EU or SI invent a new term for a common abbreviation. Have you read the references I left for you on the article talk page yet? For your convenience here they are again:

• [2]: Irish Department of Transport: Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8: Abbreviations on page 8: "km/h - Kilometres per hour"
• [3]: Dictionary.com: "km/h - abbreviation for kilometres per hour"
• [4]: Scramble: General Abbreviations: "km/h kilometres per hour"
• [5]: Collins English Dictionary: "km/h abbreviation for kilometres per hour"
• [6]: Wiktionary: "Abbreviation km/h 1.kilometres per hour"
• [7]: MathsIsFun: "km/h An abbreviation of "kilometers per hour". A metric measure of speed."
• [8]: IEEE : "Unit or term": "kilometers per hour": "Abbrviation": "km/h"

Ornaith (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am withdrawing from this discussion, it is going nowhere, but I am placing on record that I am opposed to the use of the word "symbol" with the word "abbreviation" when describing the requirements of EU directive 80/181/EEC in the article kilometres per hour. Martinvl (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, the logic of my argument has prevailed. As your baseless and unsupported opposition can carry no weight, I presume that you will leave my words intact when/if the article is unlocked and I get the chance to edit it again. Ornaith (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am at a loss to see how it can be helpful to the reader of an article about "kilometres per hour" to encounter a digression into the usage of the terms "symbol" and "abbreviation". I suspect such perplexity may contribute to Martinvl's opposition to the proposed insertion. Please could Ornaith explain how this unusual insertion improves the article for the reader? NebY (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ornaith, your last comment was uncivil and combative. Apologize and promise that it will not happen again. To everyone involved, do not edit war or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. WP:BRD contains good advice about how to handle this sort of conflict. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologise to everyone who thought that I came across as uncivil or combative. By the way Guy, which comment were you specifically referring to - the one about editing the document again? If Martinvl has withdrawn from the discussion how can we do the "D" bit of WP:BRD? Surely if Martinvl isn't prepared to "discuss" anymore, then my wording can go back in as it is no longer being challenged. Ornaith (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The way it works is this; let's say you have a content dispute with "Silent Sam" (I want to keep this theoretical). The article starts in a stable state - it has been pretty much unchanged for a while. You make edit X, which you believe improves the article, making sure to add a very polite, neutral, and descriptive edit summary. Sam reverts, with or without an edit summary. You see that the B and the R of BRD has happened, so you go to the article talk page and ask why your edit was reverted, along with a brief description of why you think it would be an improvement. That's the D, which opens the door to the next round of BRD. If there was a reason for the revert given in the edit summary, address that. The key here is to be cool, factual, and super-polite no matter what Sam does. If Sam refuses to discuss it, (Give him at least three days -- sometimes editors get busy) put your change back in with a comment like "undoing undiscussed revert; see discussion on talk page." if he reverts again and still refuses to discuss, read the following discussion...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Workshop#Undiscussed_reverts_may_themselves_be_reverted

...to see what some other editor's opinion are on this and then bring it up at WP:ANEW. The key here is that anyone checking the history will see you being unfailingly polite, always ready to discuss, and willing to wait a few days without your change being made to the article, while they will see Sam edit warring and refusing to discuss. Once Sam get warned, then you put your change back in. If he reverts again, attempt to discuss again and go back to WP:ANEW. No need to wait a few days this time. Eventually Sam gets indefinitely blocked and your edit stays in. The key is that by being patient, following the proper procedures, and making sure your own behavior is spotless, you win.

Getting back to the case at hand, I am not saying that NebY is Silent Sam. Many editors get frustrated and say they won't discuss things anymore. Just ignore that and continue on assuming that they will have good-faith discussions no matter what they said. If they really won't discuss but still revert, see above. The ideal situation is for NebY to also be patient, follow the proper procedures, and make sure his own behavior is spotless. If you still can't resolve the issue, that's what DRN is for. Do it that way and you both win. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Reading through all this, it appears "symbol" is the correct term, and only absolutely correct term, in some cases. When the article is discussing how various languages don't spell "hour" in the same way, some don't even use an "h", then "km/h" is a symbol rather than even an abbreviation, because you can't abbreviate "uur" to "h" or "quilómetro" to "km". In countries where the the language is consistent with the letters in "km/h", it could also be considered an abbreviation. In short, the use of the word "symbol" is correct in the EU documents because that is what it is. In everyday English, it would be more likely to be called an abbreviation, because even though it 'symbolizes' the full phrase "kilometers per hour", abbreviation is the generally understood word for such things. Someone saying "symbol" would be understood too, but someone might ask why they picked such a term. You could try a phrase like "The abbreviation km/h is a symbol used to denote the the unit of speed of kilometers per hour." After all, it clearly began life as an abbreviation, but was adapted to use as an universal symbol for the unit of speed. -- Avanu (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Avanu, I can accept that variation of the wording too. Let me try to integrate it into the disputed phrase: "A European Union directive requires the abbreviation "km/h" to be used as the symbol for "kilometres per hour..." How does that sound? Ornaith (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

NebY (this discussion is getting a little tricky to follow now), the only objection Martinvl aired was the notion that the use of the word "abbreviation" is WP:OR because the EU use the word "symbol" in deference to the SI document. We have seen that that interpretaion holds no water. I am puzzled as to why you call the addition of clarification to a phrase as an "unusual insertion". Without my "unusual insertion", the phrase was: "EU directives require the use of "km/h" in official documents...", which isn't very clear as it doesn't say when or why. I changed it to something like: "a European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation for kilometres per hour in official documents..." Martinvl objected to this as WP:OR because the EU use the word "symbol". So I changed it, to accomodate that assertion, to: "a European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation (or "symbol" as the SI define it) for kilometres per hour in official documents...". Martinvl didn't like that either, and still called it WP:OR. Hence we are now here. Ornaith (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, "a European Union directive requires the use of 'km/h' as the abbreviation for kilometres per hour in official documents..." is not OR but "a European Union directive requires the use of 'km/h' as the abbreviation (or 'symbol' as the SI define it) for kilometres per hour in official documents..." is OR -- it makes an unsourced claim about how SI defines a word. The choice between abbreviation, initialism and symbol is for consensus to decide; none of them violate OR or any other Wikipedia policy.

Also, in my opinion the statement "'EU directives require the use of "km/h" in official documents...', which isn't very clear as it doesn't say when or why." is not a good argument. None of the suggested replacement wordings say when or why, nor are they clearer. Perhaps you could expand on why it is that you reject this wording; it seems perfectly clear to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll go with your suggestion of: "a European Union directive requires the use of 'km/h' as the abbreviation for kilometres per hour in official documents...". And with respect to your excellent description of how to collaborate (the big block up above), can we safely put that new wording in if/when the article is unlocked, do you think? I'm happy to drop the stuff about "symbol", I only added it to try to appease Martinvl. Your suggested text seems to tick all the other boxes. By the way, the "when" is: as an abbreviation for "kilometres per hour" and the "why" is: apparently because the SI use that in their document, rather than "kph". Ornaith (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be completely fair to start again at the B in BRD when the block come off. If anyone complains, let me know and I will discuss it with them. It might be that nobody objects, in which case we are done it might happen that someone reverts, in which case I would hope that at the same time they opened up a discussion (either side can initiate the discussion). Otherwise, initiate the discussion yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I wish I had come here sooner on this one, you make it seem so straightforward! Thanks for your help here Guy! Do you think that if we (you perhaps) asked User:EdJohnston nicely, and we referred him to this excellent discussion, that he might unlock the article again right right away? Ornaith (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I just requested unprotection. Needless to say, I am counting on all of you to not make me look like a fool (that's my job!). --Guy Macon (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest the following revision:

«The impact of EU directive 80/181/EEC, which requires consistent use and representation of units of measure for "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes"^{[Note 1]} is that the shortened form of "kilometres per hour" should be the internationally agreed symbol "km/h" and not "kph" as is used in certain publications.

Note 1 - As from 1 January 2010 this was extended to all aspects of the Internal market.»

Suitable references will be provided, including a link to the text to the EU directive and a link to Chapter 5.1 of the SI brochure (which deals with symbols). BTW, the phrase "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes” is taken straight from Article 2 of the EU directive. I described how to access these documents earlier in this thread.

Does this explain the background to my earlier objections? (BTW, I used the symbol "«" and "»" to delimit the proposal in order to remove ambiguity surrounding the use of double and single apostrophes. Martinvl (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Both "abbreviation" and "symbol" have definite technical meanings in this context, and replacing "abbreviation" with its non-technical meaning of "shortened form" avoids that confusion. I do understand where Ornaith is coming from; if the IEEE can't manage to get this unambiguously right then I can't really expect a casual reader to understand the nuances involved.

The dispute doesn't seem to be anything more than Martinv1 preferring the technical reading of "abbreviation" and "symbol" and Ornaith preferring a more widespread reading. For this particular article I don't see any compelling reason not to stick with the technical meaning.

GaramondLethe 11:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If one actually looks at the IEEE paper, one will see that Ornaith has misrepresented things - did he actually look at this reference or did be rely on the "Google summary"? Units symbols (to use the IEEE terminology) have been lumped into the same table as abbreviations and the table is headed "Unit Symbols and Abbreviations" - what the IEEE is saying is that for purposes of reading the IEEE document the reader does not need to know the difference between the two (in much the same way as many women are styled "Ms Jones" on the basis that in the context concerned their marital status is irrelevant).

By the same token, the Irish Road Transport document has also listed abbreviations and symbols in a single list for purposes of convenience - 12 abbreviations and 3 symbols in the same list. Moreover, does their house standard make provision for "symbols" to be identified separately from abbreviations?

English language dictionaries reproduce what is actually used and often words (and concepts) remain in dictionaries long after they fall out of common use. All that this entry does is to confirm that "kph" has been used sufficiently frequently in the past, not whether or not it is the correct word to use.

In short, even though Ornaith has supplied a quantity of references, their quality in this context must be called into question.

Martinvl (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, it is clear that you have strong feelings on this issue. Are you willing to make a commitment to follow the advice given in WP:BRD for resolving such disputes? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am, I expect the same of Ornaith. I had to rap him over the knuckles for undoing a change of mine before I had a chance to publish my rationale on the Talk page even though I wrote "See Talk Page" on the Edit Summary. Martinvl (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going to wave my magic wand now and declare a fresh start. We are going to forget what happened in the past and move forward. I want both of you to engage in a contest to see who can be the most polite, calm, coolheaded, and cooperative. The winner gets a teamwork barnstar (a valuable award that will, along with a valid credit card, get you a large coffee at Starbucks), and I am expecting to award more than one of them :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

May I risk a suggestion that might equally annoy all, but of a sort that has worked elsewhere? Discussion has centred on whether to use "abbreviation" or "symbol" or both, but we could simply use neither. It should be possible to collaborate in finding a form of words (such as "EU Directive stipulates the use of km/h rather than kph [for kilometres per hour]") which would be easily understood and brief. [The part in square brackets may be superfluous]. NebY (talk) 4:16 pm, Today (UTC+0)

I disagree with that proposal. May I draw to attention the Wikimedia Mission Statement:

The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

The symbol for calcium is "Ca" and the symbol for water is H₂O. The chemical fraternity have dictated as much and these symbols are accepted world-wide and that "Ca" is not an abbreviation (or did your your Chemistry teacher tell you otherwise?). In the same way the meterological fraternity have dictated that "km/h" is symbol for "kilometres per hour" and this is also accepted world wide. What is the difference?

The SI Brochure (Section 5.1) and the EU directive do not even mention the word "abbreviation". I have found four reasonably reputable sources that actually commnent on the use of the word "abbreviation" vis-a-vis the word "symbol". They are:

• US Metric Association
• UK Metric Association
• How Many? A Dictionary of Units of Measurement
• English language and Usage "The questions is restricted to the abbreviations, not the metric symbols"

In view of this, I feel that no compromise should be made, but rather that as part of the Wikimedia Mission statement with particular reference to the word educational, readers should be exposed as to the correct usage of the word "symbol", not have editors duck their responsibility.

Martinvl (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The tree that does not bend will break. -- Avanu (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a question best answered through consensus. Both sides should try to convince other editors on the article talk page (this is where my advice about being super-polite come is; being super-polite greatly increases your chances of the consensus going your way.) If the consensus goes against you, follow the consensus whether you like it or not. If there is a deadlock, seek a 3rd opinion. If that does not work, create a RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

--- The protecting admin does not believe that unprotection is justified. See User talk:EdJohnston#Kilometres per hour I think he probably made the right call. It looks like you folks are going to have to come to an agreement as well as promising not to misbehave. It's your decision to make, but agreeing to go back to the article talk page and demonstrating a spirit of cooperation there might be worth considering. You can always open up a new DRN case later if you need to. Your call. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl (good, you haven't withdrawn after all!), re your newly suggested revision. We need to make it clear that it is only official EU documents that are implicated. So I would re-prase something like: 'For certain official publications in EU countries, the EU directive 80/181/EEC recognise only the SI symbol "km/h" as a shortened form of "kilometres per hour", and does not allow any other abbreviations.' Assuming you can find a secondary source to support that, and not your personal interpretation of a primary source such as the EU directive itself or the SI brochure. Ornaith (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, re your personal appraisal of the small sample of the references confirming km/h as an abbreviation that I supplied. They are reliable sources, and there are many, amny more too, and they support the assertion that km/h IS an abreviation. Ornaith (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I like NebY's idea of a solution to annoy everybody. Let me offer a different one. I'd normally just say make "symbol" its own article an provide a link to it, but the problem is that most readers won't infer from just a link that there's a domain-specific definition of "symbol" in use. So let's make it obvious: creation a subsection that discusses both the origin and use of the domain-specific definitions of "symbol" and "abbreviation" and point out that not all dictionaries will provide the domain-specific definition. In short, resolve the dispute with (many) more words, not fewer words. GaramondLethe 20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith, I think the two of you are still talking past each other. The dictionaries you cited are perfectly reliable sources for a particular domain: common usage. They are a poor guide to domain-specific usage, in this case where "kilometers per hour" is defined officially. If I had to pick one or the other I'd go with the domain-specific language, but I would learn more from an article that drew the distinction between the two domains. GaramondLethe 20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, re your story about the rapping of knuckles. Which edit were you referring to? Perhaps if your edit summaries were more accurate and less misleading, you wouldn't have that problem. Ornaith (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@NebY, re your alternative wording. I like that idea and would go with it so long as it also made it clear that it only applied to official docs from EU countries. We need to keep the paragraph balanced, and be careful not to give a false impression of the scope of the EU official requirement. Ornaith (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, re your Wiki mission statement addition. Educate yes, not just sticking exclusively to the EU line though. We need to remember WP:NPOV too. EU directives apply only to a limited scope of publications. They may insist on the word "symbol" within that scope, but outside of that scope the word "abbreviation" is more normal. We would be neutral if we say they "use the SI symbol km/h as an abbreviation for kilometres per hour" and cover their line too. Now that would be better, from an educational point of view. We do not want readers mislead into believing that they have to comply with the narrow EU view on this when they don't. Ornaith (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy, re consensus point. Does "consensus" mean "majority" of those voicing an opinion, regardless of Wikipedia policies (I've been involved in another discussion elsewhere where that seemed to be the case)? Ornaith (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Garamond, re your dictionary points. Exactly, you would "learn more" if we described the distinction between the two domains. The EU domain is just one part of the complex story, as is the "common usage" (as you put it) domain. We shouldn't be suggesting it is compulsory to use "km/h" or that it is incorrect to use "kph", but we could point out the EU view for their official documents, their "house style" if you like. Ornaith (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith, this applies to the international standard as well. "Unit symbols are mathematical entities and not abbreviations...." (section 5.1) combined with "The metre per second, symbol m/s, is the coherent SI unit of speed. The kilometre per second, km/s, the centimetre per second, cm/s, and the millimetre per second, mm/s, are also SI units, but they are not coherent SI units." (section 1.4, The System of International Units (SI), 8th ed., 2006). This is also known as ISO 1000, which while having been supplanted recently, had been adopted by pretty much universally. This doesn't look like an EU-only policy to me.GaramondLethe 21:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that the EU one seems to be a legal requirement for some uses within a limited domain, the SI one isn't, as far as I know. The "Common usage" domain is the general case, the EU (and SI) domains are more limited. I believe we need to cover the distinction - and cover it neutrally. Ornaith (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think I've lost track of what we're disputing here. I think we've established (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that insofar as "km/h" has an official definition, it is defined (globally and legally) as a symbol, and insofar as "km/h" has an unofficial definition in English-speaking countries, it is often defined as an abbreviation. Have we reached a consensus on at least that much? GaramondLethe 00:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@Garamond , that's not quite how I understand it. The way I read it is that "km/h" can rightly and literally be called an abbreviation in English, and is indeed referred to as such in "common usage" English and in dictionaries, glossaries of technical publications, websites &co. On top of that the SI have designated it as a "symbol" in their specification, apparently so that exactly the same form can be used in all languages, even those where it clearly bears no resembance to the actual literal translation. So I maintain the belief that to keep the English Wikipedia article balanced, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is, in English at least, firstly an abbreviation and secondly an SI designated symbol too. I hope that is clear. Ornaith (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith, that was helpful. Let me ask you this: I can envision a (much larger version) of km/h with several sections: history, US conversion, automobile industry, road signage, and (most interesting to me) the standarization process. I can see handling the abbreviation question by a couple of sentences in the standardization section pointing out that before standardization, and continuing in areas that don't have to deal with the various standards, "km/h" is considered an abbreviation. I'm concerned that this won't sufficiently address your concerns about balance. If you don't mind, would you sketch out an example that shows how you'd like to see this one point be handled? (If you'd rather wait and work this out for the the RFC process, I understand.) Thanks, GaramondLethe 19:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy, re going back to the article talk page. Do you have any arbitration role in this? What is your opinion of how best to tackle this point and keep it neutral, covering all "domains" as Garamond exquisitely put it, and not giving undue weight or attention to the parocial requirements of the EU? Ornaith (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The section Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Quotations states "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted". Since this is a Wikipedia it should be followed unless there is good reason to the contrary. In the case in question, the word "symbol" is a direct quotation from the source text, the word "abbreviation" is not. I therefore see no reason to adopt Ornaith's proposal, especially when the current text follows this guideline to the letter. (The changes that I proposed earlier also follow the guideline to the letter). Martinvl (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to revise my proposal slightly so that it reads:

«The impact of EU directive 80/181/EEC, which requires consistent use and representation of units of measure for "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes"^{[Note 1]} is that the shortened form of "kilometres per hour" should be the internationally agreed symbol "km/h" and not "kph" as is used in certain publications. This affects areas such as speedometer design where the text "km/h" is mandatory¹ and most goverment documents.²

Note 1 - As from 1 January 2010 this was extended to all aspects of the Internal market.

Ref 1 - "Council Directive 75/443/EEC of 26 June 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the reverse and speedometer equipment of motor vehicles" (Document). Council of the European Community. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)

Ref 2 - "Guidance Note on the use of Metric Units of Measurement by the Public Sector" (Document). [United kingdom] Department for Business Innovation & Skills. 1 October 1995. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)»

I am aware that the second document is UK-oriented - has the Irish Government published a similar document? Also more references will be added if needed.

In response to Ornaith's recent comment that "EU directives apply only to a limited scope of publications" - Wrong, wrong, wrong - they apply to all documents in all member states that are produced for administrative (and also other) purposes. They do not apply to areas where freedom of speech take precedence. EU direcitves also apply to labelling of goods that are intended for sale - see Metric martyrs and also to speedometers (see above).

Martinvl (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, Did you see my suggested revision of your wording? Do you have any comments on it?

I have observations on what you write:

• You say "wrong, wrong, wrong" about "limited scope", and then go on to describe exactly the limited scope that I alluded to!
• I see too that the UK document you give the link for uses the word "abbreviation", but not "symbol".
• Which of those documents state that speedos have to use "km/h"?

Ornaith (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Do you have any arbitration role in this?", I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. As i said before, this should be settled be WP:CONSENSUS. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, in the spirit of comity, I think one "wrong" is sufficient. GaramondLethe 22:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me revise your revision with an eye towards accounting for concerns about parochialism (eliding references and notes for the moment).

«The International Committee for Weights and Measures has established the symbol km/s as an SI Unit. SI Units have been incorporated into ISO 1000, ISO/IEC 80000, and NIST 330. The EU directive 80/181/EEC, which requires consistent use and representation of units of measure for "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes" requires "kp/h" as the symbol for "kilometres per hour" rather than "kph". This affects government documents as well as areas such as speedometer design where the symbol "km/h" is mandatory. Note that "km/h" is considered a symbol and not an abbreviation, and should not be written as "km/h." or "km./h.".

A discussion of symbols versus abbreviations might follow. GaramondLethe 22:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

From one point of view I agree, but from another point of view this is rather a heavyweight replacement for "EU directives require the use of "km/h" in official documents in all member states." However, given Ornaith's concerns, it might well be neccessary, though I might well skip the last sentence and wikilink the phrase "consistent use and representation of units of measure" to International System of Units#Writing unit symbols and the values of quantities. Martinvl (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's back up a bit and look at the big picture. I would like an honest and unbiased as possible evaluation from both of you, answering the following questions. Make sure your answers are descriptive and factual, without any hint of criticizing another editor.

Is this working?

Are the two of you close to a compromise that both can live with?

Or is this DRN case just an extension of the article talk page discussion?

If you are close to a compromise, lets wrap it up.

If the dispute appears unsolvable through continued talking at each other, I want to know that. No finger pointing, no "if he would only..." comments, no "I would be willing to live with X" if the other party has already rejected X.

Note that there is nothing wrong with a disagreement that you cannot resolve. We have ways of dealing with that situation.

The basic plan when there is a one to one deadlock is to bring in other editors, get their opinions, and for whoever is on the losing end of the consensus that emerges to graciously accept defeat. I am not going to be one of the outside opinions, BTW, my role as a dispute resolution volunteer is to let you know if someone is violating a policy but otherwise stay neutral and encourage you to resolve the dispute between yourselves.

A good next step if the two of you cannot agree would be to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I will be happy to guide you through it. You might want to seriously consider putting up any proposed RfC on your own talk page first (clearly label it as a draft) and asking for comments / improvements before going live with it. Ideally, both of you should like the wording of the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Points that I would like Ornaith to recognise are:

• The use of the word "symbols" in respect of the EU directive
• The acknowledgement that the EU directive applies to most if not all UK & Irish government publications
• The word "abbreviation" is often misued in the context of describing SI units of measure

If Ornaith would like to go down the RfC route, fine, let him say so, but would he first describe exactly what he wants discussed. Martinvl (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

::Any particular reason why you didn't answer any of the questions I asked ("Is this working?" "Are the two of you close to a compromise?") and instead did something I specifically asked you not to do ("No 'if he would only...' comments")? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The big picture, as I see it, is that there is considerable misunderstanding regarding the metric system as a whole within the United Kingdom which I suspect is also present in Ireland. Ornaith has given me the impression that he is Irish, I have noted that in many places the Irish dimension in both articles had been lacking and that I have done my best to work it in. I trust that there are no outstanding problems in that respect.

In his last posting, Ornaith asked a number of questions:

• «You say "wrong, wrong, wrong" about "limited scope", and then go on to describe exactly the limited scope that I alluded to!».

• If Ornaith had taken the trouble to read all of Ref 2 above, he would have seen that the scope extends to virtually anything that a civil servant might write, that a salesman might write, that a doctor might write, in other words, using the word "limited" without qualifying it conveys the wrong message to the reader. "Almost all government activity" is, in my view, a far better description.

• «I see too that the UK document you give the link for uses the word "abbreviation", but not "symbol"».

• As I said earlier in this posting, there is considerable misunderstanding within the UK about the metric system and since the document in question was an internal document that was only made public in 2007, it is probable that the lawyers never scrutinised it.

• «Which of those documents state that speedos have to use "km/h"?»

• Ref 1 above.

@Ornaith: On the basis of these answers, what is your position?

@Guy Macon: Once I see Ornaith's answers, I will be able to state where I stand.

Martinvl (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy, this is getting really difficult to navigate through, but did you see my question to you, up there somewhere, about the meaning of "consensus"? Ornaith (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith - you could visit Wikipedia:Consensus.

@Guy, re your 3 questions:

• Is this working?

This is working well for me. It is highlighting the differences in expectations between the disputees.

• Are the two of you close to a compromise that both can live with?

I don't think we have converged enough yet, no. I think we need to possibly explore the neutrality aspect more. There is a requirement there to not represent just one view, but to draw a balance. I do not think we can dismiss the significance of the "common use" aspect here. Perhaps you could prompt the other party to respond to some of my arguments (rather than continually restating his own), and me to his if you think I have failed in that respect, to see if we can more fully understand our differences and, perhaps, adapt or compromise to better encompass them.

• Or is this DRN case just an extension of the article talk page discussion?

I suspect that on the article talk page the discussion would be less civil, at least there is a referee here.

Ornaith (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, re your "recognition of points" addition. First the points you asked me about:

• I absolutely understand that the EU directive uses the word "symbols". I have never disputed it.
• I wouldn't know, but don't question your assertion that the EU directive apply to most if not all UK & Irish government publications. I assume that you will provide a secondary source to allow readers to verify that.
• I wouldn't like to say if the word "abbreviation" is often misued in the context of describing SI units of measure, as I have difficulty, living in a country where the common use of English language is generally unregulated, accepting that words, especially if used literally correctly, are being "misused".

Now some questions for you:

• Do you accept that "km/h" is technically and literally an abbreviation of "kilometres per hour" (forget what the SI or EU say for now, imagine you'd never heard of them and you are relying on your knowledge of the English language and the definition of the word "abbreviation")?
• Do you accept that there are publications such as newspapers, websites, books, movies, music &co. in which the use of words and abbreviations or symbols are not regulated?
• Do you agree that "km/h" had entered usage before the SI was born, and certainly long before the EU was born?

Ornaith (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, re your "the big picture" addition. Comments on your responses, in order:

• I think you are exaggerating the influence of the EU directive in the real world. Most people are only affected at work, and only if they work for the "establishment" or certain other disciplines within industry. Unless you are saying it applies to the output of 100% of the people 100% of the time, then you must agree that there are exceptions that, for the sake of balance, cannot be ignored.
• You supplied the document reference, it used the term "abbreviation" when referring to what the SI call "symbols", what was the point you wanted to make?
• I can't get your link to the motor vehicle doc to work. Can you cite the sentence in it that says that "km/h" must be used as the abbreviation/symbol for "kilometres per hour" on speedometers please.

Ornaith (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl,

• An additional observation: I see that you modified the text of at least one of your contributions way above after I had replied to it, but with no explanation in the edit summary or here, can you please explain?
• For your information: You may not be familiar with it, but Ornaith is a name generally given to a person of the female persuation, and I am not an exception to that generality.

Ornaith (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I missed that one. Thanks for bringing it up again - it is a very important question, which I will address below. For the record, I am temporarily retracting the questions that Martinvl declined to answer above, but I will no doubt be asking them again. It is not reasonable to refuse to answer a simple question like "please give me your evaluation as to whether you are close to a compromise that both can live with" by not answering and instead telling us all once again what you think the other party has to do to reach a compromise.

Enough of that for now; on to the important question.

The question asked is:

"Does 'consensus' mean 'majority' of those voicing an opinion, regardless of Wikipedia policies (I've been involved in another discussion elsewhere where that seemed to be the case)?" --Ornaith

First, I am assuming that we have all read WP:CONSENSUS. If anyone has not, do that now.

Wikipedia policies and guidelines always take priority over the consensus on an article talk page, but it is really important to understand why; those policies and guidelines came from the consensus of a much larger group of editors with far more experience. So if, for example, ten editors on a local talk page all agree that it is OK to violate, say WP:BLP, the actual consensus is ten who say the violation is OK and a couple of thousand who say it is not. (I am picking WP:BLP to talk about specifically because it does not apply to this dispute). So the reality is not that policy trumps consensus, but rather the reality is "you are counting wrong." The net effect is that same, so it isn't wrong to say that policy trumps consensus, but it helps a lot to understand what is really going on.

That being said, the basic principle I just described is often misunderstood by editors who think that WP:BLP (or whatever policy we are talking about) requires them to get their way in a content dispute. Maybe WP:BLP supports them, and maybe they just think it does. In other words, "WP:BLP!!!" is not a magic word that makes all opposition go away and allows the person using the magic spell to get what he wants while ignoring consensus.

So, what do you do if you are convinced that WP:BLP requires you to get your way in a content dispute? First, be suspicious of your own thinking. In particular study our page on confirmation bias. Do you keep finding again and again that Wikipedia's policies support your positions and almost never find that they don't? Are you having a hard time convincing others that Wikipedia's policies support your position? One other editor who does not agree might be wrong. Five other editors on the article talk page and two uninvolved editors at DRN all disagreeing with your interpretation of a policy probably means that it is you who are wrong.

So, is there a method to guard against getting policies wrong? Yes. There is. As soon as anyone disagrees with you about the interpretation of any Wikipedia policy or guideline, quote the exact wording that you believe supports your position and ask them to quote the exact wording that they believe supports their position. That often does it. If you still disagree, get the advice of someone with more experience.

For more information, including the answer to your "vote" question, please see:
Wikipedia:What is consensus?
Wikipedia:Method for consensus building
Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
False-consensus effect
MeatBall:ConflictResolution
--Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, my apologies for not realising that Ornaith is a female name.

• I decline to answer Ornaith's first question as it is loaded.
• I agree that there are publications that use "improper" language - not only in respect of units of measure, but also in the use of at least two different varieties the "f-word".
• I have no idea when the symbol "km/h" was first used in English - probably in an obscure publication reporting on the speed of a French railway engine in the nineteenth century. Before you make any comments, the concept of a symbol predates SI - if you visit Conversion between SI and legacy units you will see a list of units of measure and their associated symbols that were superseded by SI. One of them, the roentgen was both defined and given a symbol in 1928 and symbols have been used in chemistry since at least 1869 (See Periodic table. The illustration in this article show cyryllic script from Medndeleev's book, but the symbols for the chemicals are in latin script).

I will however explain what has influenced my way of thinking. I was brought up in South Africa, which like the Republic of Ireland, was a bilingual country. English is my mother tongue, but I am reasonably fluent in Afrikaans. When I was at school, I was taught that today's date, when written in English was 9 July 2012, but in Afrikaans was Julie 9, 2012. As you can imagine, this caused untold problems when expressed in an all-numeric format - what did "7/9/2012" mean when it appears alongside a signature at the bottom of a bilingual document?

South Africa adopted the metric system in the early 1970's and the country took the opportunity to harmonise both languages by using international standards wherever possible - mph (English) & mpu (Afrikaans) went out of the window and were replaced by km/h. The ISO format for the date was adopted - in South Africa, today's date is written 2012-07-09. The abbreviations "am" & "pm" (English) and "vm" & "nm" (Afrikaans) were discarded in favour of the 24 hour clock. It was this which convinced me of the value of international standards - if one has the choice of a word which has meaning internationally and one which only has meaning locally, then I use the one which has meaning internationally. If Ornaith is from the Republic of Ireland (which is suggested by her other contributions to Ballydesmond) - I am surprised that she has not been aware that terms such as "km/h" are symbols in both English and Irish Gaelic.

Martinvl (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The obvious

The obvious answer has been staring us in the face - "km/h" cannot be an abbrevition - the phrase "kilometres per hour" does not contain a "/". Martinvl (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

While that's a nice bit of lateral thinking, the slash replaces the word "per" when constructing the abbreviation. Replacing words with non-alphabetic typographic symbols has long been considered a form of abbreviation (although this isn't mentioned in the wikipedia article on abbreviation). For example:

• "In the United States, the symbol is commonly called the pound sign. Historically, the pound name derives from a series of abbreviations for pound, the unit of weight."

And, of course, there is still the problem of reliable sources stating otherwise.

• "km/h: abbreviation for kilometers per hour" [9]

You might make a good argument that using "abbreviation" as it is above isn't sensible, but it does appear to be common practice. There might be a better argument for renaming the article km/h (SI Unit) with a separate article for km/h (non- and pre-SI uses), but I would think those two articles could be merged.... GaramondLethe 09:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We really need to look at the section as a whole. Here is a proposed text:

Use of kph and km/h

Sinced the text "km/h" on this Irish speed limit sign is a symbol, not an abbreviation, it represents both "kilometres per hour" (English) and "ciliméadar san uair"(Gaelic)

Although "kph" and "km/h" are often used interchangably as a shorthand for "kilometres per hour", there is a difference between the two notations:

• "kph" is an English-language abbreviation for "kilometres per hour" and is somewhat analagous to "mph", the abbreviation for "miles per hour".^[ref]
• "km/h" is an internationally-agreed symbol for "kilometres per hour". It is constructed as per the rules in the SI brochure,^[ref] the official definition of the International System of Units.

The EU directive 80/181/EEC, which catalogues the use and representation of units of measure used for "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes"^[ref] requires "km/h" be used as the symbol for "kilometres per hour". These "purposes" in this direcitve include but are not limited to primary and secondary legislation, court orders etc.^[ref]. In addition, EU directive 75/443/EEC explicitly states that "km/h" shall appear on speedometers of motor vehicles.^[ref]. Examples of text that does not include all three letters "k", "m" and "h" in the native language of the state concerned, but where the EU directive applies include Dutch: "kilometer per uur" ("hour" is spelt "uur"), Portuguese: "quilómetro por hora" ("kilometre" is spelt "quilómetro") and Greek: "χιλιόμετρα ανά ώρα" (a different script).^[ref]. Similarly, US law requires the use of either "km/h" or "KM/H", but not "KPH" on speedometers.^[ref]

Martinvl (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy, re your latest "consensus" post. You make it sound so straightforward and logigal! Your discussion of policy v. consensus is excellent. In the other discussion that I was involved in though, it seemed that local consensus steam-rollered policy in that case. The motion to enforce a policy was defeated because there was no local consensus to do so. At least that was my view of the outcome! Ornaith (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Garamond, re your "larger article" point. Remembering that English Wikipedia articles should be written primarily in standard "common use" English, and not in EU-speak or even SI-speak, we could have a "The use of abbreviations" section. This section could have comment on the use of "km/h" and "kph" and could describe the SI view and their classification of the abbreviation as a symbol, and their reasoning. We could also mention that the EU have written the SI specification into their directives and whatever the US and others do about it. I don't think we need to labour it too much though. Ornaith (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl. re your addition covering my questions, SA, etc.

You refused to answer a straightforward question about the English language - labelling it a "loaded". What do you think was the "controversial or unjustified assumption" in it (see Loaded question)? Do you accept that "km/h" is an abbreviation in English?

You misrepresented another question, I asked if you accepted that there are publication in which word usage is not regulated. You equated it to the use of "improper" language and the "f-word"! Why not give a straightforward answer? Do you accept that English word usage is not generally regulated, even in the EU?

Your way of thinking about symbols is not relevent here, I don't think anyone denies that, a language independent "symbol" is a good idea, or that the SI or EU have got it wrong. The discussion here is about the wider issue of "common use" English, and whether English Wikipedia should use standard English or EU-speak as the language for its articles. Ornaith (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, re your "the obvious" remark. Did you read the "Dispute overview" section at the top of this section? You will see your concern answered there. Ornaith (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, re your proposed replacement section. It is much too EU-centric, it is not from a neutral point of view and gives undue weight (see Argument from authority) to the "official" definition, it contains original research around the scope and impact of the EU directive (btw, did you find that quote about the use on speedometers that I asked for yet?). Ornaith (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a prime candidate for WP:LAME to me. I've read the whole shebang, and I very much fail to see the point. What service do you want to provide to the average reader? Is there anything not covered by a simple statement like "The SI symbol km/h is used to indicate kilometers per hour and is mandatory for official EU documents. In less formal context, English speakers sometimes use kph". Even a randy Bonobo can figure out where the terms come from. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's good, but still has a non-neutral tone. It implies that "km/h" is only an SI symbol - it isn't, it is also an abbreviation in standard English. It also asserts "kph" to be informal, which it isn't, it is a standard English abbreviation like "mph", "rpm", "psi", &co. The use of the word "sometimes" implies "kph" isn't in mass use, or doesn't have the same profile in English as "km/h", which would be misleading. Ornaith (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see the last sentence of my previous reply for the abbreviation remark. Nothing in my comment implies that km/h is only an SI symbol. If you don't like "sometimes", substitute "also". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

How about: "The abbreviations kph and km/h are generally used to indicate kilometers per hour. km/h, also the official SI symbol (and common for all languages), is mandatory for official EU documents."? Ornaith (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith, Please stop playing silly games. I have put forward a proposed rewording of the entire section which I think addresses all concerns. Please either indicate exactly what you would like to change or add, alternatively write out what you would like to see. Remember, if we can't agree, the present text stays. Martinvl (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, I prefer Stephan's rewording to yours, and I've reworked it just very slightly to cover my concerns. See above. Ornaith (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith - the phrase "is mandatory for official EU documents" does not convey the truth. It is mandatory that EU direcitves 80/181/EEC be followed for all official documents within the EU and that includes the minutes of the Ballydesmond Parish Council. Martinvl (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, that sounds about the same to me, at the level of detail required in this article. You can link to another more specific article that covers the gory EU/SI minutia. Do you have a reference for the Parish Council assertion, or is that just from your reading of the primary source? What about the quote I asked for to cover your assertion about speedometer design? Ornaith (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ornaith: If you read this reference, and in particular Section 5, you will see the scope of this measure. (And that is only the "public administration" part). Read the Wikipedia article Metric martyrs about other parts. I know that this document is aimed at British central and local government, it derives from an EU direcitve and exactly the same directive applies in Ireland. Since the minutes of the Ballydesmond parish council almost certainly have a legal standing, the the direcitive applies there. BTW, I have arelady told you about this document - didn't you read it. Here is the speedo reference - look at Annex II. Martinvl (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@Martinvl, 4 things:

• I read that UK document before, it doesn't say anything that supports your assertion about Irish parish councils (although it does support my view about the use of the word "abbreviation").
• Yes, you mentioned the speedometer document above, but gave an incorrect link to it, which I pointed out when I said that the link didn't work, and asked instead for a quote from the document. Your new link does work, thank you, but the document doesn't support your assertion. Which paragraph (they are all numbered) did you think did?
• Do you agree with my appraisal of your proposed rewording?
• What do you think of my slight rework of Stephan's succinct wording, bearing in mind it can link to another Wikipedia article giving a fuller definition? Will you agree to use that instead of the disputed sentence - and so allow this dispute to be closed as resolved?

Ornaith (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I will not agree to use it. You make is sound as though the concept of the symbol is an after-thought - in the classroom, especially in science, children might well loose marks if they use "kph" instead of "km/h". I do a certain amount of physics tutoring and I see that the English A Level physics syllabus is very strict on units of measure. That to me is sufficient reason to ensure that the SI notation is given proper coverage. Martinvl (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose it would be too helpful to mention that the SI use of "symbol" was actually an afterthought? The earliest use I've found of "km/h" as an abbreviation goes back to the 1898 US Geological Survey. My French is more than a little rusty, but I'm not seeing any mention of "symbol" in the text of the 1875 Metre Convention. The first use of "symbol" in this context that I've tracked down is from 1976. Now we're down to "Think of the children!" arguments we can probably close this out and move on to the RFC phase. GaramondLethe 21:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Kilometres per hour discussion: Restart

I am going to step in here and attempt to resolve this dispute. To do that, I am going to set some ground rules (for this section only) and I am going to move any comments that do not follow the new ground rules to another section. In this section I am going to try to focus us all on reaching a solution.

First, no more trying to convince each other. We have already established that this is not working (but of course you can keep trying, just not here.)

Second, no offering of compromises, We have also established that that isn't working.

Third, no saying anything about any other editor. Don't talk about what they did, don't talk about what their position is. Don't say anything about anybody.

You are allowed to talk about article content but I am limiting you to a simple statement: "I think the article should say X." Don't say why, don't say that Y and Z would also be acceptable, don't comment on the other editor's statement.

Fourth, I will be asking specific questions, and I expect answers. Specific answers to the actual questions asked, not a springboard to talking about something else. Answering questions supersedes all the other ground rules, so you can comment on one of the forbidden topics if I ask you about it.

The obvious question someone would ask is this: "OK tough guy; what gives you the authority to do this and how do you plan on enforcing it?" The answer is...I got nothing. I have no authority at all. I can't force anyone to do anything. All I can do is to try to persuade you, and you are free to ignore me. The only consequence will be that everyone will see that I tried to resolve the dispute with some bold measures, and you refused to cooperate. Which you had every right to do.

Ready to start? OK, here are my first two questions:

Does anybody want to declare that they have no intent of cooperating with me on this? (Remember, you are completely free to do that.)

There are two names listed under "Users involved", but I see that four people besides me have participated in this discussion. Do we have a two-to-one split on this issue? Does anyone know about anyone else who may be interested or possibly even be lurking? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll cooperate, for sure.

I don't know who else would be interested (other than those you mentioned). There were no others involved on the article talk page.

Ornaith (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll co-operate, though I may not have much else to contribute.

It's possible User:DeFacto is amused, but s/he's blocked. NebY (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to participate (and cooperate) if you think it would be useful, but I'm just as happy to bow out at this point as well. The two positions I'm seeing are close enough that I'm confident I'll be able to support the final version – whatever it is –, and if having one less cat to herd makes that happen faster then I'll do my part by sitting down for a spell. GaramondLethe 22:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to cooperate. Martinvl (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Great! OK, here is the situation as I see it. I have two editors who have a content dispute. No other editors are involved, so there is no point in doing a quick check for consensus and possibly telling one editor that the consensus is against her or him. Both editors have made a good-faith attempt to resolve the issue, first on the article talk page and then at DRN. There are no glaring violations of policies such as WP:RS or WP:V that would allow me to tell one editor that he or she is clearly wrong and needs to back off. Previously there were behavior issues leading to full protection of the article. (No, we are not going to revisit that -- I am here to fix the problem, not to fix the blame.) I think both editors are ready to play nice, but the blocking admin isn't buying it.

In my opinion, the next step is to go to Wikipedia:Third opinion and request an outside opinion. (This is not the same as what I do, which is to attempt to get the two of you to agree without taking sides). The next step if that does not resolve the issue is Wikipedia:Requests for comment, but let's give TO a chance. Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Either one of you can file the request, but I recommend first putting your suggested wording on the talk page and seeing if the other involved editor has any problems with it. If you get stuck disagreeing on that I will be happy to choose the most neutral version, or flip a coin if they are equally neutral. Does this sound like a reasonable plan? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a bit of an anti-climax after that dramatic build-up! I thought you were going to present a sequence of cunningly formulated questions, designed to yield an optimum sentence which satisfied both parties, and which both parties were honour-bound to accept! But, disappointing as it may be, I'll accept your advice that a "TO" is the way forward. I'll go away and read what a "TO" involves, and come back with a suggested wording for the request as you suggest. Ornaith (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia:Third opinion, I see 2 problems with that process:

• The discussion has moved on quite a way, but on this page, from what currently stands on the article talk page, so where should we point the "TO" entry to?
• There are more than just the 2 original editors now involved.

Ornaith (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

[Deleted my own comment: completely wrong, and based upon my somehow not being able to count. (Note to self; next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...)]

Well, 3 said they'd participate after I did, so I make that 4. But if you dismiss the 2 who hadn't been involved previously, that does leave 2, yes. Ornaith (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed "TO" request wording: Talk:Kilometres per hour#EU Directive - 3 July 2012 followed by Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Kilometres per hour. Disagreement about whether a description of the use of "km/h" in EU directives contravenes WP:OR if "km/h" is introduced as an "abbreviation" of "kilometres per hour", whilst also noting that the SI use the term "symbol" for it. Ornaith (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

May I propose an alternative wording:

Disagreement as to whether "km/h", the shorthand form of kilometers per hour, should be described primarily as a "symbol" or as an "abbreviation".

We can bring the EU and SI into the discusssion. Martinvl (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You didn't say what you didn't like about my suggested wording.

I believe that your suggestion misrepresents the dispute as:

1. We are describing how "km/h" is prescribed by the EU, not what "km/h" should be primarily described as

2. "km/h" isn't "the" shorthand form, but "a" shorthand form

3. We should not omit that WP:OR was the policy quoted to support the original reversion

Ornaith (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, ignoring my my prior stupidity, we have four editors who have shown an interest in helping to resolve this. Let's do a quick consensus check:

Guy, just a quick sanity check here (and echoing a concern of Martinvl), we are discussing alternatives for the text of the first sentence of the lead, yes? The current version is:

The kilometre per hour (American English: kilometer per hour) (unit symbol km/h or km·h⁻¹) is a unit of speed, expressing the number of kilometres travelled in one hour.

Or are we discussing the first sentence in the first subsection? That currently reads:

The abbreviations "kph" and "kmph" are used (kph was used on 1975-1976 model cars in US) even though the official recommendation from the BIPM is to use "km/h" - the rationale behind the BIPM stance being that the symbols for units of measure should be consistent world-wide. The symbol (as opposed to abbreviation) is in near-universal use elsewhere, even though the letters "km" and "h" do not always correspond to "kilometres" or "hours" in the language concerned.

I'm confused (again --- it happens a lot). GaramondLethe 16:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I too am confused, or are we making the assumption that the sentence will remain a single sentence? How will it fit into the rest of the article? Unless this is made clear, this exercise is, in my view, a waste of time. Martinvl (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I came to this noticeboard to attempt to resolve a dispute over the content of the first sentence of the second paragraph in the section named "Use of kph". The dispute, as described in the summary at the very top of this entry, hinges around whether the the use of the word "abbreviation" is WP:OR in this context. I hope that clarifies it for those who were not involved on the article talk page. Ornaith (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The proposed text by Garamond Lethe (deleted earlier this morning) states "The SI explicitly states that unit symbols are not abbreviations and are to be written using a very specific set of rules". Given that the CGPM who published the SI manual also have responsibility for defining and maintaining the standards for the metre (and hence kilometre) and second (and hence hour), that their rules regarding symbols have been in place for 64 years and that they are funded directly by governments around the world (including the British and Irish) it is quite reasonable that their recommendations shodul take precedence over earlier recommednations. Therefore there can be no question that in this contect the word "symbol" takes precedence over teh word "abbreviation". Martinvl (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Martinvl, would you be so kind as to go to the section below and fill in your preferred version of the the first sentence of the second paragraph in the section named "Use of kph"? That way I can compare the three different versions and get a rough feel for what the consensus is on each. Thanks!

ROUGH CONSENSUS CHECK

---

The page should read:

Disputed sentence:

The EU directive 80/181/EEC, which requires consistent use and representation of units of measure in all member states for "economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes"^[ref] implicitly catalogues "km/h" as the symbol for "kilometres per hour".

Optional paragraph showing disputed sentence in context:

Use of kph

Although "kph" and "km/h" are often used interchangeably as shorthand for "kilometres per hour", there is a difference between the two notations:

• "kph" is an English-language abbreviation for "kilometres per hour" and is somewhat analogous to "mph", the abbreviation for "miles per hour".^[ref]
• "km/h" is an internationally-agreed symbol for "kilometres per hour". It is constructed as per the rules in the SI brochure,^[ref] the official definition of the International System of Units.

Historic development based on User:Garamond Lethe's earlier proposal will be added here

Many academic journals require the use of SI units which implicitly requires the use of "km/h", not "kph", but the style guides for many newspapers mandate the use of "kph" for "kilometres per hour" (along with "C" or "F" rather than °C or °F when writing temperature). The EU .... for "kilometres per hour".

EU directive 75/443/EEC which regulates the layout of speedometers, uses the symbol "km/h" in all languages.^[ref] Examples of text that does not include all three letters "k", "m" and "h" in the native language of the state concerned, but where the EU directives applies include:

• Dutch: "kilometer per uur" ("hour" is spelt "uur" - no "h"),
• Portuguese: "quilómetro por hora" ("kilometre" is spelt "quilómetro" - no "k")
• Greek: "χιλιόμετρα ανά ώρα" (a different script).

Similarly, US law requires the use of either "km/h" or "KM/H", but not "KPH" on speedometers.^[ref]

Support:
Martinvl (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC):

Oppose:
Put your name here by typing ~~~~:

Neutral:
Put your name here by typing ~~~~:

---

The page should read:

Disputed sentence:

The abbreviations "kph" and "km/h" are generally used to indicate "kilometres per hour". EU directives mandate that just "km/h", also the official SI symbol in all languages, be used in official EU documents.

Optional paragraph showing disputed sentence in context:

TBD

Support:
Put your name here by typing ~~~~:

Oppose:
Put your name here by typing ~~~~:

Neutral:
Put your name here by typing ~~~~:

---

The page should read:

km/h is one of several abbreviations for and one of two standard symbols of the unit of speed "kilometers per hour".
(n.b. Citations and explanatory text that would need to be added in support of this may be found here.)

Optional paragraph showing disputed sentence in context:

TBD

Support:
Put your name here by typing ~~~~:

Oppose:
Put your name here by typing ~~~~:

Neutral:
Put your name here by typing ~~~~:

---

Notes: Names are listed in alphabetical order. Participation is purely optional. Our goal is to reach a consensus, so if you can bring yourself to take your name off an entry that has little support and add it to one that has more support, that would help. However, it has to be real; it does nobody any good agreeing to X here and then insisting on Y when later editing the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy, can we have a section with the one disputed sentence listed too please, to see what we are talking about? Ornaith (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I just added places for that. I also added an extended comment section below. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy, the sentence I want to replace is this one: "EU directives require the use of "km/h" in official documents in all member states." Where is the place you added to put it, you seem to have added a "disputed sentence" heading to each section, incuding above my proposed replacement sentence?

Will you tidy up the form please so that it is clear which is the disputed sentence and which are the proposed replacements for it. Ornaith (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

EXTENDED COMMENTS

You may put whatever material you wish here in order to fully present any material that you feel supports the above. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The text I've proposed is intended to be used as either the first sentence in the lead or the first sentence of a following section. Here are a few comments for why I've written it the way I have. Proposed additional supporting text is currently in my sandbox.

The existing version treats "km/h" as kilometre per hour / kilometer per hour and then describes the two standard unit symbols. However, the name of the article is not "kilometre per hour", but "km/h". While this distinction would appear to be of interest only to folks who had taken too many lit. crit. classes, the string "km/h" has a history intertwined with (but distinct from) "kilometre per hour". For example, "km/h" is one of several abbreviations used before (and after) international standardization occurred, and standardization has created a body of rules by which the string "km/h" must be constructed and represented (down to specifying how the [solidus] may and may not be used and the requirement of an upright Roman typeface).

This distinction (so far unspoken, to the best of my knowledge) has resulted in a bifurcation of the focus of the article. For example, the European Union may have adopted the units "kilometers per hour" to be used in specific areas, but that would more properly be noted in an article on "kilometers per hour", not "km/h". Pointing out that existing dictionaries continue to treat "km/h" as an abbreviation instead of a symbol has very little to do with the definition and standardization of "kilometers per hour", but is a useful and interesting datapoint in the evolution of "km/h".

Elsewhere I had proposed that the article be split in two: km/h (Unit Symbol) and km/h (pre- and non-SI uses). A more natural split might be kilometers per hour and km/h. While I think both can eventually find a home within one article, it may helpful to editors to remind them (and me) that there are two distinct concepts in play. Based on the discussion I've seen so far, this unspoken difference is at the root of the conflict. GaramondLethe 17:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy, the Kilometres per hour article is unlocked again now, and I notice that Martinvl has already introduced part of his proposal from above (including his controversial opinion that "km/h" is not an abbreviation) into it. I consider that to be an inflammatory and extraordinarily bad-faith move, as well as disrespectful to yourself given your efforts here to resolve this dispute amicably. Ornaith (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

diff of above edit. GaramondLethe 07:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We have spent a week discussing this matter and have not got anywhere. Does User:Ornaith object to an RFC on this particular change. In this way we can get a full community viewpoint on the core question and then look at the details later. Martinvl (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed compromise from previously uninvolved editor

Hey guys, I was browsing and I saw this. I think the idea of not using "symbol," "abbreviation," or "initialism" is a good one, but that the way it was presented was not ideal. My proposed compromise is:

"EU directives require the use of "km/h" to represent "kilometers per hour" in official documents in all member states."

I think "represent" is a nice, neutral term that means all the things you guys have suggested, thus working out all the problems. Opinions? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Support I don't like this and neither will anyone else, and that's why I think it is a pretty decent compromise. GaramondLethe 03:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Not my favorite way to build that sentence, but it's OK. It might be useful to have a paragraph (not in the lead) -- Is km/h a symbol, abbreviation, or initialism? -- to forestall further eruptions (I know, I'm an optimist about such good intentions.) A sentence or two about each of those labels for the text string, so that a reader could both understand this controversy and that there was no need for Wikipedia to conform to any of those positions might be helpful. Perhaps as a long secret comment on the page, so that editors would find it when they went to restart this squabble. htom (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

@Guy, should we add this suggested wording as an alternative in the table above as we seem to have two different votes in progress now? Ornaith (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Leaves the worms in the can so that Kilometres per hour doesn't require a long exposition that would be just as appropriate or excessive in any similar article. NebY (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally would like to have it in the table with support and oppose votes (no reason it can't be both places). The key here is that I am looking for a solution that everyone can live with, not necessarily a solution that fits my preconceived vision, so if another format works for everybody, great! That being said, I kind of think my preconceived vision is pretty good, so you might want to give it a try.

Here is what I am hoping to achieve. Every variation of the sentence we are considering is listed. All are formatted the same way for easy comparison. Each has votes showing us who supports it and who opposes it. All extra arguments are in another section.

If I can achieve the above, then we can all look at the alternatives, and, I hope, someone will say "Hmmm. I am the only one supporting number 827, but 19 people support number 32767, and I can live with number 32767, so I will give it 20 supporters and number 827 zero supporters." (Made up numbers, obviously -- did you know that 47.36% of the numbers on Wikipedia are made up on the spot?).

BTW, anyone should feel free to edit the tables above -- this is Wikipedia where a single click can undo a change and a single click can put it back, so there is no possible harm to being bold, as long as you accept that someone else may be just as bold in undoing your changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Braille

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Vanisaac on 08:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC).

• Template:Braille (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

We have been in a long dispute over which braille systems should be included under the heading of "unified braille". Specifically, the main contention is over Tibetan braille. I have already requested a 3rd opinion, and I waited for several weeks for those recommendations to be accepted by the other editor. When it finally became clear that the other user in the dispute would not be implementing the third opinion, I did so in the most neutral way possible, and was reverted within minutes.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Vanisaac (talk · contribs)
• Kwamikagami (talk · contribs)
• Coastside (talk · contribs) (3rd opinion)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Template:Braille}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

talk page discussion 3 May - 12 May. 3rd opinion requested 18 June, answered by Coastside 18-19 June.

• How do you think we can help?

Given that Kwamikagami is an admin, and that this has had a chilling effect on my editing, I think that simply having more editors who are willing to stand for policy would be a help.

VanIsaac_WS^contribs 08:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Braille discussion

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

This is not the dispute. The dispute is what to call the family of French-based braille alphabets. It is only by contravening this convention that Algerian braille is notable. At first we had "Latin based", but Vanisaac objected that wasn't accurate. Then we had "Universal braille", and Vanisaac was happy with it for a while, but then changed his mind. I don't really care what we call it, but I do object to Vanisaac's OR that certain braille alphabets are "unclassified" because he can't find them in a list, despite the fact that they are transparently based on the nearly universal French order, as he himself admits. That would be like arguing that the Latvian alphabet is "unclassified" because it doesn't appear in a list of Latin-based alphabets.

We seem to be confusing the title for the topic. Nav boxes, like articles, are based on their topic, and the title needs to be chosen to fit, not the other way around. — kwami (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with Tibetan braille being classified as such, and the 3rd opinion says that any system not found in a source as being part of this system should not be included in it.

Whether you invent names like "Latin based" or "French derived", it doesn't change that there are no sources which support your classification. The fact that I would actually agree with many of them - the notable exception being Tibetan braille - doesn't change the fact that without a source actually saying it, it's OR - either on your part (for Tibetan) or on both our parts (for Armenian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Yugoslav, &c). So while I may not like the 3rd opinion's finding and solution, it is the only one that is actually in line with Wikipedia policy on original research. If you had a citation for any of your claims, we wouldn't be having this dispute. The fact is, we only have one explicit source listing unified braille systems - the '54 Unesco report - and they list only French, English, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Russian, Devanagari (Bharati), Swahili, and Indonesian. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 08:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You want to claim that Tibetan braille is not French-based. Fine. Please provide a ref. The Unesco report is irrelevant, since that's not the topic in question and does not address the issue (obviously, since it was published in 1953 and Tibetan braille was not invented until 1992—essentially, you're arguing that no alphabet invented after 1953 can be based on French/international braille, which is ridiculous).

On April 25, when you introduced the title "unified",[10] you defined it like this:

In 1878, the [Congress] proposed an international braille standard, where braille codes for different languages and scripts would be based, not on the order of a particular alphabet, but on phonetic correspondence and transliteration to Latin.[11]

Please provide a ref that Tibetan braille does not fit this pattern, since it so obviously does. (You argued that the %age of cognacy in Tibetan braille is too low, but that is OR: you have not provided a published cut-off point. Even the French and German-braille %ages are not very high.)

— kwami (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A) I don't have to find a citation to refute original research. B) My count on Tibetan was 12 anomalies out of 34 letters, or 65%. German has 0 anomalies or 1, if Eszett is not a ligature, and French is maybe 1, depending on how accented letters are treated by the World Braille Council. That's 96% at very the least for French/German. I'm not sure exactly where I would stick the demarcation line, but I can tell you that it is somewhere between a D+ and an A. C) Where I would stick the demarcation is immaterial, because it is OR. The reference we have says French, English, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Russian, Devanagari (Bharati), Swahili, and Indonesian only. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 10:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course you do. That's the definition of OR. If you have no citation, you have OR, and we don't accept OR. Nearly everything you've said about Tibetan braille, for months now, has been OR.

We calculated the %ages for French and German. They were rather low—French has 14 anomalies out of 44 letters, or 68%. Your ref says "based on" Latin. Tibetan braille is based on Latin, as you have admitted.

Please provide a ref that the cut-off date for Universal Braille alphabets is 1953. Not that it's relevant, because that's not the issue here. — kwami (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you calculated percentages for French and German on a basis that I consider both unsupported by the actual evidence and fundamentally irrational. But again, I'm not arguing that you should accept my interpretation of braille unification, only that we implement the neutral third opinion and follow Wikipedia OR policy: The only source with an explicit list says French, English, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Russian, Devanagari (Bharati), Swahili, and Indonesian are unified braille systems. If you can find a SOURCE for any others, I will be elated to include them. Absent a source, it is OR, and does not belong. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that your opinion is just that, an opinion, and OR. I suppose it won't matter to explain, again, that the Unesco source is irrelevant, since you haven't understood it so far. If you can find a RS that Tibetan braille is not Latin based, please present it, and notify me on my talk page. — kwami (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you not read anything I've said above? The only classification that is sourced is that French, English, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Russian, Devanagari (Bharati), Swahili, and Indonesian are unified. EVERY classification of a braille script beyond those nine is original research by either of us. I freely admit, above, multiple times, that either of us trying to classify any other braille systems in such a way is contrary to WP:OR, which is why I implemented the 3rd opinion recommendation earlier today, which you promptly reverted. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course I read it. Do you think it's not possible for someone to be informed of your opinion and yet still disagree with it? That's quite arrogant of you. What you're claiming is that we need to restrict ourselves to a list published in 1953. Any alphabet they omitted cannot be included in our template; any alphabet devised since then cannot be included in our template. That's far beyond the requirements of OR. There's such thing as common sense, and recognizing the Latin alphabetical order in alphabets is trivial. If we follow your fundamentalist interpretation, we can't say they follow the ABC order, but we can't call them "unclassified" either, because we have no source for that. We can't call them "other", because we have no source for that either. Our only choice would be to delete them from the template. Yet you're happy to include most of them. You just object to one, which crosses an arbitrary line which you invented. — kwami (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course they can be included in the template. We just can't give them a classification that is unsupported by documentation. Trying to make up rules and statistical interpretation is the crux of the problem that we have. We have a different interpretation of what makes a system unified. Without documentation, trying to classify them is OR. So the default position is to simply not classify them when we can't cite it. I may not necessarily agree with that arrangement (I don't), but I can at least defend it with a source. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue I am a volunteer here at DRN. The primary dispute here seems to be pretty clearly addressed by WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. What material is being added or restored here? The previous status quo was without the use of "unclassified" - ergo, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wants to change that status quo. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that has gone on for several months now, and we have significantly expanded the number of Braille articles in the template since then, so there are two questions: 1) How do we identify a status quo of the navigation template? 2) How do we incorporate all of the additional articles that have been added to the navigation template in that time? VanIsaac_WS^contribs 16:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's simply a case of looking at the article's history and determining when and how the dispute started. Where was the first change-and-revert? Whoever made that first change and was reverted is responsible for providing the independent evidence. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The relevant criterion is the 1878 congress, quoted in the 1953 Unesco document and every other history of braille, which declared that braille in all languages should follow the order of Braille's original alphabet rather than their own alphabetical orders. The defining difference between French braille and the early English braille alphabet was small: W had been tacked on as an extra letter rather than being in position #23; after the international standard was established, it was moved to match the French position. There is now a large family of such braille alphabets. They're self-evident, as they have a = 1, b = 2, c = 3, d = 4, e = 5, etc., or else that same order applied phonetically. That's just what we have in Tibetan, a point which VanIsaac concedes. Almost all diverge from perfect unity in one respect or another (extra letters, sometimes reassignments of basic letters esp. in non-Latin scripts); the question is whether there's a cut-off point, which VanIsaac judges Tibetan has crossed. He has no source to justify such a call.

VanIsaac objects to calling this international family of braille alphabets "Unified international braille", saving that for a rather poorly defined convention in the Unesco publication. Fine. I don't particularly care what we call it, and have changed the rubric in the template to "Other French-based alphabets" to meet his objection. Perhaps he has some other title, which would better capture the "international braille standard" order set forth in 1878 for English, French, and German.

(BTW, only three Tibetan braille letters, q x y, contradict the original braille standard. Compare pinyin, where q x r contradict the norms for Latin alphabets, yet is still considered to be Latin. VanIsaac judges this to be too much, but I don't see how that's anything but his personal judgement.) — kwami (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are some passages from the 1953 doc that VanIsaac places so much importance in:

[Due to] the tendencies in America and Germany to re-arrange the Braille alphabet ... [the 1878] Congress decided ... that it should be adopted ... with the values of its symbols unaltered from those of the original French. (p 25)

[This only applied to the 26 letters of the Basic Latin Alphabet. The extra French, German, and English letters and contractions were never unified, as can be seen at a glance in the WP-fr article,[12] which contrasts them.]

This was effective as far as the scope of the Roman alphabet allowed, but, as most Asian and African languages contain more letters or sounds than Roman had equivalents for, they had to find some way of representing them. Most of the designers of Braille spoke English and some of them turned to the contractions of English Braille to find signs which would provide precedents for local letter values ... But beyond these again, many non-European alphabets included letters for which no Braille precedent had been created. Arbitrary signs had to be allotted to them, with the consequence that even throughout these traditional Brailles only limited uniformity was achieved. (pp 27–28)[13]

The interesting thing about this quote is that it's actually talking about braille systems in Asia in the period where there were multiple braille systems in India and the mess that had been caused by different applications of similar principles to all the different languages of India. The actual development of unified world braille is captured several pages later: "In 1949, the government of India, alive to the difficulty of reaching accord within India, asked UNESCO to study the whole problem on an international level." (pg 30) There is a great deal of history of other Asian braille systems, as well as Perso-Arabic braille given, but the conclusion does not come until page 39 - "In 1950, the government of India (...) accepted the recommendations of its (Unesco's) braille committee (but) the details of the signs for many letters in Indian and other languages remained to be determined. The Unesco program included a provision for the Perso-Arabic conference; and the government of India raised the question as to whether it and Ceylon might not also participate so that simultaneous agreement could be reached on such letter-sounds which several large linguistic families shared in common. (... The conference's) results laid the foundation for complete uniformity between all the languages within India and between them and Ceylon, while at the same time securing the maximum affinity with the braille systems designed for the Perso-Arabic and African languages and the old traditional braille of Europe." So while the original development of unified braille happened in the 1870s and 1880s, it wasn't until 1950 that it was truly extended outside of the closely related languages and orthographies of Europe. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the Unified international braille of which VanIsaac speaks. It is not actually a unified system, but rather a family of partially compatible systems. Even English, French, and German, the original three brailles, diverge from each other to a large degree. How much divergence is too much would of course be a judgement call, and would need to be sourced to not be OR. — kwami (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue Okay, thank you; that summarizes the locus of the dispute, I think. Now, VanIsaac, how do you maintain that your proposed additions are not original research? Remember, OR is anything that can't be verified by the letter of outside sources (i.e. not simply your interpretation of outside sources, but what the sources literally say). Sleddog116 (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

So there are actually two completely separate questions here. The first is what my preferred grouping would be, which is actually identical to Kwami's, except that I firmly believe that Tibetan can not be defended as being unified, Latin-script based, French based, or whatever term Kwami makes up for it. For the record, I consider "Unified braille", "Unified international braille" or "World braille" to be the prefered terms, as those are actually attested in outside sources. Contrary to the original usage I had seen, it appears that "World braille" is actually more common than "Unified", due to its development by and oversight of the World Braille Council, but Unified is somewhat more descriptive, so I think we're splitting hairs on this one. So if you want to know what my prefered version is, it would be the version from May, with Tibetan not erroneously classified as Unified.

Now, the second question is what I can actually defend with concrete citations, of which I can only find a single source that actually lists the various unified world braille compatible systems, which is the grouping that I've consistently given above - from page 74-79 of the Unesco report - French, English, Greek, Russian, Devanagari - representative of all the Indian languages, called Bharati braille (pp 112-113), Perso-Arabic, Indonesian, and Swahili - representative of African languages including Malgache, Hausa, Sulu, Shona, Mundang, Chinyanja, and even Maori (pp 82-84). This is the version that I believe actually conforms to the policy guidelines brought in by User:Coastside the last time I tried to actually gain a consensus on this issue, and which was so perfunctorily reverted to its current state. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

PS, Kwami has taken the opportunity of this process to again thwart consensus by adding the invented "Category:French-based braille alphabets" to the contested articles [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] and [24]. I consider it to be extremely counterproductive, antagonistic, and acting in bad faith to push non-consensus actions while in the middle of a dispute resolution process. Kwami, you did the same sort of thing (contested page moves) back when we had people trying to come to a consensus on Writing Systems article naming conventions last year, and I consider it to be taking advantage of my refusal to edit war with you while this dispute is ongoing. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(uninvolved editor comment) Would you both please consider the possibility of regrouping from scratch. Perhaps English, Other alphabetic, Non-alphabetic. The purpose of a template is not to instruct but to help a reader find their way to the articles they need. If someone is looking for information about Japanese Braille they are not at that point worried about whether it is a syllabary or abugida. That is detail that needs to be spelt out in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tried several times to suggest presentations that side-step the whole contentious issue and had them rejected out-of-hand by Kwami. If you look at the template talk page, you can see that I drew up a version organized geographically, and the rejection offered absolutely no solution to help get past the dispute. It's quite frustrating to have your good-faith efforts to resolve a dispute be so summarilly dismissed. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Berber people

– New discussion.

Filed by Dzlinker on 11:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC).

• Berber people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Some users are opposing the proved fact that some well known people are of berber descent (Augustinus, Apuleuis..).

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Dzlinker (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• Tachfin (talk · contribs)
• Omar-Toons (talk · contribs)
• Amazigh-cause (talk · contribs)
• RobertMfromLI (talk · contribs) 

Jayjg, RobertMfromLI and Omar-toons are not cooperative about this, they just revert with the repeated "no consensus" tag, although more and more arguments were given.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Berber people}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Yeh! like 100 times.

• How do you think we can help?

Help to decide wether it should change or still the same

Dzlinker (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Berber people discussion

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

Hello everyone, I'm Mr. Stradivarius, a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. This doesn't give me any special power or privileges - I am just here as a neutral third party to try and help you all to work things out. Actually, if it's all right with all of you, I'd like to try a different approach with this dispute than the one we usually use at this noticeboard. We have been talking about getting editors involved in disputes to leave a short statement here, rather than diving straight into discussion. (We have had a few problems where editors use the noticeboard as an extension of the talk page, creating large amounts of discussion before any neutral third parties get involved.) Please understand that the following is only a request, and not a requirement in any way, and you should feel entirely free to ignore it if you so choose.

So, here goes: if possible, I would like all of the involved editors to leave a short statement below about the dispute. Please try and keep it below 400 words. Your statement can cover any/all of the following:

• How you first came across the article
• What you think the dispute is about
• How you think the dispute would best be resolved
• How you would like the dispute resolution noticeboard volunteers to help

If you like, you can include a couple of diffs if you think that would be appropriate. To Dzlinker - you have already provided a summary of the dispute, so you don't have to add a new statement if you don't want to. But also, your overview was very short, so if you do want to include a statement, then feel free. To the others, if you decide to include a statement, then thank you very much for your cooperation. If you're all ok with doing things this way, we will start the dispute resolution process proper when we have collected everyone's statement, or after a set period of time has passed. (Maybe three days?) Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, and a very important point that I forgot to mention - please don't talk in each other's statement sections! If at all possible, I would like you to stick to editing your own section. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Filer, have you listed any reliable sources to indicate that your additions are Berber?Curb Chain (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Amazigh-cause

Apuleius is Berber. He said that he is half Numidian half geltulian. Numidians and Getulians were Berber groups. Semptimus is not prooved to be Berber. Augustine is disputed among scholars. He was romanized and confused the Libyans/Numidians with the Phoenicians. Amazigh-cause (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by InsertUsernameHere

Talk:Fascism#democracy

– New discussion.

Filed by R-41 on 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC).

• Talk:Fascism#democracy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The problem is involving a dispute over fascism's political relationship with democracy. The article titled Fascism currently says that fascism rejects liberal democracy but denies that it is entirely against democracy. Two users, Yiddi and The Four Deuces (TFD) have claimed that fascism did not claim to be democratic and that it was opposed democracy entirely. The user Trust Is All You Need (TIAYN) noted that fascism has claimed to support a form of democracy. TFD made a statement that caused the dispute to solidify, TFD said: "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" - the bolded part is the part that I and others have contested is not accurate.

I agreed with TIAYN that fascism did indeed claim to support democracy, and I provided evidence of fascists declaring that fascism supported a form of democracy. Italian Fascist theorist Giovanni Gentile in the Doctrine of Fascism that he ghostwrote for Mussolini, declares support for an "organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy". I utilized the World Fascism encyclopedia by Cyprian Blamires as a reference for the quote, and furthermore the source goes on to explain fascism's claims to being democratic, see here: [25], Blamires' source is a reputable source that is available at English language university libraries, including Harvard University's library, see here [26]. Note that I am not saying that fascism is democratic in practice, I am saying that fascism claims to be democratic. What I am saying is that the issue of fascism being undemocratic in practice does not mean thereby that the ideology opposed democracy or was not democratic in theory.

TFD responded that sources by scholars were needed to verify this. I provided sources from preeminent scholar on fascism Roger Griffin and A. James Gregor (I initially forgot that I used Gregor's source and said it was by another scholar on fascism, Emilio Gentile, out of confusion, because the authors have two books that are visually similar). Both these sources clearly showed scholars acknowledging fascism's ideological claim to be democratic, see here for Griffin's source: [27], see here for Gregor's source: [28]. TFD responded by saying that WP:WEIGHT applied. I responded that the issue of TFD claiming that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" is factually inaccurate and that that claim cannot hold WP:WEIGHT because the sources I provided demonstrate that fascism did claim to be democratic in theory. I suggested that TFD accept a compromise involving a statement along the lines of: "fascism is widely regarded as undemocratic in practice in spite of claims by fascists that they are democratic". TFD did not acknowledge this. The argument continued, and I and the users TIAYN and Collect have grown frustrated over what we view as stubbornness by TFD to admit that his argument that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" is not factually accurate and is thus an untenable argument. TFD claims that I am promoting an obscure claim.--R-41 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Yiddi (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
• Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs)
• R-41 (talk · contribs)
• Collect (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Talk:Fascism#democracy}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Have attempted Wikipedia:Negotiation to seek a compromise. The compromise was involving an acceptance by TFD and users on a phrase we could both agree upon, basically along the lines of the following: "Fascism is widely regarded to be undemocratic in practice in spite of claims by fascists that they support democracy". Wikipedia:Negotiation failed, frustration between users has grown.

• How do you think we can help?

There needs to be a resolution on the specific issue of TFD's continued claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory", that TFD is using to justify an argument that fascism was entirely, and without any qualifications, "opposed to democracy", because I have presented evidence that contradicts this claim. As I have said, TFD is refusing to accept the material as disproving her/his argument. He/she claims that WP:WEIGHT applies to justify her/his claim, I claim that WP:WEIGHT does not apply to her/his claim because it is factually inaccurate. Her/his claim needs to be reviewed as to whether it is logically tenable to uphold, given the fact that sources I have have been provided that appear to completely refute it.

R-41 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism#democracy discussion

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

From uninvolved volunteer. I suggest working in two steps. First reach agreement about the sources that you think are most relevant to the topic. You'll be using objective criteria like author's expertise, academic publisher, reviews, how much on the topic, how recent. Then look at them to see how they treat the different aspects of fascism. That should help you move away from yes/no on particular phrasings, and instead give a thorough treatment to the relationship between democracy and the different theories and practices of fascism. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your idea, but the issue of TFD's claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" being contradicted by the fact that in theory there are multiple examples of fascism being declared by its theorists or leaders to be democratic. Again the issue is not that it actually is democratic in practice, but that in theory it did claim to be. The problem is that TFD's claim that it is not consistent with what fascist theories proclaimed, and that indeed scholars like one of the most preeminent scholars on fascism Roger Griffin, and another prominent scholar on fascism, A. James Gregor, have noted fascist claims to be democratic. I understand and appreciate what you have said, but it seems to me that TFD's statement, that he is using for his argument, is factually inaccurate.--R-41 (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I just want to commend User:R-41 for writing a well detailed but striaghtforward file and Dispute Overview.Curb Chain (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is also accurate and dispassionate, and I commend him highly for it. Meanwhile, I think it would profit others to read the discussions at the article talk page. Collect (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Also note TFD's "response" at [29]. Where one editor dismoisses the sheaf of answers provided by another editor as "pointless" I fear that this is not just a "content dispute" but a case of WP:Collect's Law being demonstrated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Collect.--R-41 (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to focus on the article, not on editor behaviour. If someone makes a statement on a talk page that you don't find convincing, especially if it's a short statement, probably best to ignore it. I think there is a substantive disagreement about article content behind this, which is the only thing we could address here. Could you state what that disagreement is. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The disagreement is about the basis of TFD's argument that the article should say that "Fascism opposes democracy" based on TFD's claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory". The reason why TFD's statement is important is because that is the basis for her/his argument for removing the current sourced sentence from the intro that says that "Fascism condemns liberal democracy for basing government legitimacy on quantity rather than quality, and for causing quarreling partisan politics, but fascists deny that they are entirely against democracy." and replacing it with "Fascism opposes democracy". The problem is that there is evidence that fascists in their theory declared themselves to be democratic, but they did indicate that they opposed liberal democracy. I have provided several sources to verify that fascist did claim to be democratic. Therefore, the fascists did not oppose democracy - "oppose" indicates that fascists held a negative value towards democracy as a whole without any qualifications - the evidence suggests that in their ideology, they did not declare such a negative value towards it as a whole without any qualifications, but they did indeed oppose liberal democracy.--R-41 (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Absent from R-41's exposition, which presents only support for his/her position re. the disputed content (and yet is eulogized somewhere above as "dispassionate" and highly commendable!), is any material that might support TFD's position. E.g. Jackson J. Spielvogel, associate professor emeritus at Pennsylvania State University, in Western Civilization: Since 1300 (Cengage Learning, 2011), quotes Mussolini/Gentile: "Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it" et seq. [30]. Writegeist (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of descriptions of fascist ideology say it was anti-democratic, and ignore that in an essay attacking democracy, a Fascist said that fascism was democracy. The few scholars who have commented on the sentence have not given it a lot of attention and do not appear to agree on what it meant. Anthony Arblaster, for example, said, "Yet even Mussolini, or his ghost-writer Gentile, paid lip-service to the term by definining Fascism in the next sentence as 'organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy'." (Democracy, p. 48)[31] Arblaster's interpretation does not support the view that fascism was democratic or even claimed to be. We should not take an obscure, ambiguous quote and provide it with a weight and meaning not accepted in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so we are not here to discuss fascism, but you want help in resolving whether the article should contain a statement "fascism is opposed to democracy". Is that correct? Please answer but I have given one suggestion already and I'm hoping that another volunteer will comment and lead. Itsmejudith (talk)

I really think an administrator has to review if TFD's claim is logically tenable. Just look at TFD's last claim posted here, it is completely illogical. He shows the Arblaster source that shows the statement by Gentile that fascism is "organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy" where the author claims it was disgenuine, and goes on to say "Arblaster's interpretation does not support the view that fascism was democratic or even claimed to be". But he did acknowledge that fascists claimed to be democratic, the quote by the Fascist theorist Gentile declaring it to be "organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy" the author happens to believe that it was disgenuine. Do you see the logical fallacy with TFD's argument that fascism didn't even claim to be democratic?--R-41 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope a volunteer will come along who will help you to formulate the problem in a way that will allow it to be resolved. But if you do want to discuss sources (as I suggested above), then I will be happy to facilitate that. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source that describes fascism's claim to be democratic in detail: The civic foundations of fascism in Europe: Italy, Spain, and Romania, 1870-1945 by Dylan J. Riley.

Here is a paraphrase of Riley's work from a Wikipedia article I wrote: In the fascist and quasi-fascist regimes that governed Italy, Romania, and Spain from the 1920s to the 1970s, authoritarian democracy was promoted as an alternative to liberal democracy, multi-party based democracy was dismantled and replaced by corporatist representation of state-sanctioned corporate groups that would unite people into interest groups to address the state that would act in the interest of the general will of the nation and thus exercise an orderly form of popular rule. {Riley, Pp. 4-5) Italian Fascists argued that authoritarian democracy is capable of representing the different interests of society that advise the state and the state acts in the interest of the nation.(Riley, Pp. 4.) In contrast, fascists denounced liberal democracy for not being a true democracy but in fact being un-democratic because from the fascist perspective, elections and parliaments are unable to represent the interests of the nation because it lumps together individuals who have little in common into geographical districts to vote for an array of parties to represent them that results in little unanimity in terms of interests, projects, or intentions, and that liberal democracy's multi-party elections merely serve as a means to legitimize elite rule without addressing the interests of the general will of the nation. (Riley, Pp. 4.)

TFD has criticized this source in the past because Riley takes the unconventional stance of saying that although fascism was definately not liberal democratic, fascism did claim to be democratic and could conceivably be considered an authoritarian democracy (outside of the conventional liberal democratic idealist view on what democracy is). Riley's source focuses particularly on the original fascism, Italian Fascism, it claimed to represent an "authoritarian democracy" and Riley notes that the basis of its claim to be democratic is through its corporatism whereby the Italian Fascists claimed that they upheld the general will of their nation through participation in corporatist sectoral organizations. Now TFD would be correct to say that Riley's opinion that fascism may have been democratic in practice is certainly a minority view, but Riley's description of fascism's claim to be democratic through appeals to public participation in the state and to the general will are important, and I believe are of interest to at least mention briefly the fascism article. Riley's source shows, like the other sources I have shown, that fascism did indeed claim to be democratic and sought to present itself as democratic.--R-41 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

All the reviews of this book that you presented say that Riley's writings on fascism and democracy challenge existing views and you would need to show that discussion of his views had gained some sort of recognition. The article should reflect what is typically found in mainstream sources and we should not be including views that are universally ignored. Certainly we should not present them as facts. TFD (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I knew that you would focus on Riley's view that fascism may be democratic in a sense, rather than acknowledging that he has noted fascism's claim to be democratic. Don't you get it TFD? I mean it is rattling my mind that you cannot acknowledge that fascists DID claim to be democratic, your statement "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" is factually false, and you know it. Your position appears very irrational and delusional given the statements by fascists themselves declaring support for democracy, as noted in secondary sources here.--R-41 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear fuel cycle

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Jpritikin on 08:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC).

• Nuclear fuel cycle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Talk:Nuclear fuel cycle#It's not a cycle

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• NPguy (talk · contribs)
• Jpritikin (talk · contribs)

NPguy never tried to improve my summary. He only reverts it in total. I have repeatedly revised to try to meet his objections.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Nuclear fuel cycle}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I have discussed this issue on the talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

Not sure

Jpritikin (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear fuel cycle discussion

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

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I'm afraid that I agree with NPguy on this one, point by point, in his comments at the article talk page, including the non-usability of the Caldicott Twitter post currently included in the article. A source which appears to be reliable and which says exactly what you are trying to say can, however, be found here and it appears there are any number more which can be found through this search. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Zombie Diaries, World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by CyberGhostface on 19:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC).

• The Zombie Diaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There's been a non-stop edit war going on at these two articles between User:Bradswanson2010 and various IPs (who may or may not be related) regarding the two films in question. Basically it comes down to the budget of one film and how wide the release was for another. Taking a look at the history pages it's non-stop "Undid revision by so and so."

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Bradswanson2010 (talk · contribs)
• 217.33.166.226 (talk · contribs)
• 81.105.0.14 (talk · contribs)

I'm going to guess that the IPs might belong to the same organization/person and may be involved with the films in question.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=The Zombie Diaries, World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I left a message on Bradswanson2010's page as well as a notice on the film Wikiproject.

• How do you think we can help?

I suppose an experienced editor can take a look at the two pages and come to a conclusion as to what direction should be taken.

CyberGhostface (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The Zombie Diaries, World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries discussion

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

My immediate thought when looking at this case was, "let me check the article talk pages." I saw no comments on the talk pages, and it appears that none of the editors involved have communicated with each other outside of edit summaries. Is this correct, or am I missing something? Because I think our first step is simply for said editors to "sit down" and talk about it - not fight about it, please note, but just communicate. If, after this, nothing comes out of it, we can move on to our next steps in this - potentially at WP:3 or something of the like. Theopolisme _{TALK 20:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)}

Yes, both 217.33.166.226 (talk · contribs) and 81.105.0.14 (talk · contribs) are makers of the films in question and are attempting to hide the low budget of the first and the fact that the release of the second was limited to only three cinemas in the UK. The budget of £8,100 is widely known, referenced frequently online and has even been verified in the page discussion thread by Michael Bartlett - one of the directors. For the makers to now attempt to edit the page to try to present their films in the best light is not representative of the truth - that being that The Zombie Diaries budget was £8,100 and that the The World of The Dead was released at 3 UK cinemas for 3 days before the DVD release. Bradswanson2010

Bradswanson2010 is completely incorrect in a number of his assumptions. There is no evidence that the film World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries was screened at only 3 cinemas. Bradswanson2010 has provided a dead link as evidence. It was a limited release before the dvd release, but to state 3 screens without evidence cannot be accepted as true. Also, the evidence to support the budget of £8,100 for The Zombie Diaries is based upon posts on messageboards, blogs and not from any official source. The imdb budget entry states £500,000! I don't believe this is correct either, however it demonstrates that it is more accurate not to state the budget, as it is clearly unknown at this present time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.0.14 (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Kevin/Michael, as you know, filmmakers inflate their budgets on imdb, much the same as your two alter info on here to make your films appear more successful than they actually were. The £8,100 budget is consistent across all the references and a widely known figure. You also know that your film was released at 3 cinemas for 3 days before the films release on DVD complete with spectacularly misleading cover. Bradswanson2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradswanson2010 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Clear case of edit warring. On World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries the budget isn't even stated so why are you making an issue?Curb Chain (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the evidence, it cannot be certain what the budget for Zombie Diaries was, nor the number of screenings World of the Dead had. Based upon that, they should not be referenced on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.0.14 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The evidence that the budget to The Zombie Diaries is £8,100 is referenced five times. Based on what you say, there is no actual evidence that The World of the Dead was released in any cinemas. Bradswanson2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradswanson2010 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright - thank you all for responding. 1st note, please remember to always sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~) - it makes it easier to see who's who and what's what. Now - as Curb Chain said, this really seems like just a huge edit war. This may be a case for Wikipedia:AN/EW - as I don't think you two(three) are agreeing on anything over this medium. Rather, you're letting this stretch out in a great number of reverts. I looked at the references, and it appears that Bradswanson2010 is correct - the references that are not dead links do say that the budget is £8,100. However, as 81.105.0.14 will not accept this, and as both of you are in the wrong for WP:EWing... I recommend that, if you two can not come to a consensus, this dispute be brought to the Wikipedia:AN/EW. Another final note to CurbChain - on World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries, it appears the debate is regarding the number of screenings. Theopolisme _{TALK 12:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}

I believe the point on the dead links was to do with the '3 cinema screenings' reference. As it has been agreed that is not reliable as it is a dead link, it should remain as 'limited' as it is common knowledge the film released a very minor theatrical run. Regarding the budget, the links provided by BradSwanson2010 are blog sites and not from any official source. So it is unreliable information. If you notice Bradswanson2010's recent amendment to World of the Dead to do with misleading cover art, it is clear he has an agenda to try and stoke up anything that tries to paint the film-makers and the film in a bad light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.166.226 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As it is now appears evident that you two can not come to a consensus, I believe that this dispute should be brought to the Wikipedia:AN/EW - I really don't have any other suggestions at this point, as it appears that you both are acting hostile-ly towards each other and it is not as much a content dispute as a personal battle between you. Thanks, and please let me know- Theopolisme _{TALK 14:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}

217.33.166.226/Michael/Kevin, you cite "common knowledge" for stating the film had a limited theatrical run. It is also "common knowledge" that the run was three screens. It is "common knowledge" that the budget for the first film was £8,100. It is also quite clearly common and referenceable knowledge that both films had misleading cover art. There's no agenda there - just adding to the facts here on Wikipedia. Bradswanson2010 Bradswanson2010 (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring report filed - this is not something we can help you with over here. See Wikipedia:AN/EW] Theopolisme _{TALK 16:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}

I would welcome a resolution, but one that is based solely on the evidence available. Although there is no official budget confirmed by the production company, then perhaps the term 'rumored' should be used if £8,100 is stated on wikipedia. Regarding the number of screens, there is no evidence at all to support the number of screens being 3, so it should not be stated as a fact on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.166.226 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above. £8,100 should remain but only with a "(rumored)" and the 3 screens should be removed completely as there are no facts at all or evidence to back it up.

General Welfare clause

– New discussion.

Filed by Foofighter20x on 05:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC).

• General Welfare clause (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

At the beginning, the article text was factually correct, though the section in dispute was poorly cited (an error I've corrected). It appears the crux of the dispute is that editor Esplainin2do did not or does not understand the context of stating that the GWC in the U.S. Const. does not confer upon the federal government of the U.S. a general police power. This is widely-held consensus among constitutional historians and lawyers.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Esplainin2do (talk · contribs)
• Foofighter20x (talk · contribs)

It appears Esplainin2do intends to impose a hyper-narrow view onto the article in hopes of what I'm not sure. However, Esplainin2do's hyper-narrow interpretation is not entirely correct, as the secondary source cites I've inserted demonstrate. Esplainin2do chooses to view those sources as cherry-picked evidence, opting to rely upon primary sources instead, which I'm not sure conforms to WP:OR.

Outside of that, Esplainin2do is being belligerent, antagonistic, and accusatory; put another way, I feel like I'm being trolled. I've tried to get Esplainin2do to go back to the status quo ante and build consensus, but time and again he's refused. Trying to work with him on this has not yielded fruit.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=General Welfare clause}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussion on the talk page has not worked. I've even requested assistance from two other editors, but their engagement was highly transitory.

• How do you think we can help?

Impose order. Provide guidance.

Foofighter20x (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

General Welfare clause discussion

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

Autobiography of a Yogi

– New discussion.

Filed by Tat Sat on 05:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC).

• Autobiography of a Yogi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

This article is about a book that was published in 1946 and is in public domain. Instead of having the book's original cover, the page advertises a subsequent edition of the book published by Self-Realization Fellowship, one of the 5 or 6 Publishers of the same book. The trajetory of this book publication has many disputes and controversial issues since after the author's death, Self-Realizatin Fellowship made nearly one thousand changes in the original text and forged the author's signature. Red Rose supresses reccurrently all the contoversy from the article. There was even a lawsuit in which SRF accused Ananda, another publisher of the book, of violating its copyright . SRF lost the lawsuit: . "We hold that SRF was not entitled to renew its copyrights in books authored by Yogananda." - The legal case is posted in Wikisource. Thank you.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Red Rose 13 (talk · contribs)
• Sitush (talk · contribs)
• NestedVariable (talk · contribs)
• Tat Sat (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Autobiography of a Yogi}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I tried to discuss the changes made in the article but it is impossible to reach a consensus when there is sectarism. Also Red Rose provides innacurate information given him by SRF.

• How do you think we can help?

It would help to have an editor with experience in book pages who is also familiar with ethics in publication.

Tat Sat (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi discussion

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

• Tat Sat is jumping the gun here. The present dispute is fundamentally one concerning an image, it (the dispute) has existed for < 24 hours and whether Tat Sat realises it or not, I am pretty experienced and have no particular axe to grind with regard to it. I have asked for input from Magog the Ogre and also at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Use_of_a_book_cover_and.2For_frontispiece. While I foresee that somewhere down the line issues relating to this article will probably require attention from DRN, now is not the time. I propose that this request be closed as premature. - Sitush (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Tat Sat has reverted the article to more or less the version 3 years ago, as claimed by 2 other editors which, I agree, is not an improvement to the article. Tat Sat must engage in better communication (skills) on the talk page or here and as stated and make a case for the changes he believes should be made to the article and not revert back to older and poorer versions of the article.Curb Chain (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sitush and CC. Tat Sat needs to understand Wikipedia policies in terms of what constitutes to be reliable content. The article as it was 3 years back contained numerous irrelevant, unsourced and pov materials. Wikipedia is not a forum to present both sides of a conspiracy theory. NestedVariable (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Tat Sat and we are in the middle of negotiations and I believe we were coming to a logical, fair resolution for a book which at the moment has 6 different publishers with 6 different covers (with probably more in the future as the 1st edition revision is in public domain) that we need to represent in a fair manner. Tat Sat needs to learn how to be part of a collaborative group creating a article that is neutral and is properly sourced. This is premature and I agree with Sitush, Curb Chain & Nested Variables.Red Rose 13 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly I cannot agree. While we were discussing the page in order to attain consensus, Red Rose kept editing and made TEN small editions. Please check this information, it´s true. I reverted the article and was threatened to be blocked, while nobody found anything wrong with Red Rose´s editions. We had agreed we would discuss the issues one by one before editing, since the trajetory of the book is controvert, and includes disputes and lawsuits. Red Rose suppressed all the controversial issues, considering only SRF´s points of view and using SRF as the paragon of truth. We cannot ignore that SRF forged Yogananda´s signature many years after his death (this technical term meaning "the creation of a false written document or alteration of a genuine one..."). This polemic point in question - one among many - impairs SRF´s credibility and contradicts the guidelines of Publication Ethics. The page as it is advertises SRF. That´s why I asked for WP:DRN. You cannot choose SRF´s cover in detriment of all the others presently in print and authorized by law. The book was published in 1946 WITH a cover that cannot be hidden nor kept from public knowledge because someone does not like it. This should not even be the object of discussion. We need the help of an experienced editor of book pages, aware of the ethics of publication. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You were warned because you were causing disruptive edits by reverting back even after multiple editors asked you to come to a consensus first. Take a look at WP:NOT. NestedVariable (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think it is important to point here that the other 3 people involved in this dispute - with all due respect for them - do not think the article is sectarian, since they edited it. I am the only one who disagrees. And Red Rose´s editions - literally hundreds of them - (please check the history of the editions) - are not considered disruptive. Thank you. -- Tat Sat (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• You have been advised on several occasions to be careful regarding your accusations and, indeed, not to personalise discussions. Yet you do it again now. Why? Please show me the diff where I say that the article is not "sectarian". I have explicitly stated that I have no axe to grind here and that things need to be discussed. I've made attempts to progress that discussion in various places, as have others. The only thing that is causing problems with that discussion is your reverts to what is indubitably an unacceptable version. You should note the Curb Chain - who is uninvolved - also considers that version not to be an improvement. Please take a read of WP:CONSENSUS. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Do not worry, Sitush, I have understood I am not to revert the article. Again, with all due respect, anyone who compares both versions will see that SRF´s point of view prevails in the present one. In fact, it is the only one; SRF´s cover illustrates the present page -- not the original cover of the book -- and all the controversy and disputes and lawsuits have been suppressed - together with a brief explanation of the differences in the content of the book before and after the author´s death. That´s why I say the page is sectarian. I am not accusing anybody personally. Perhaps I am sending the wrong input. I am trying to focus on the book´s trajetory as a literary and most controversial publication. And I agree with you that the version I reverted to needs to be edited. But at least it is not sectarian, since it contains relevant information which counterpoints SRF´s point of view. I am glad to acknowledge that you never said specificaly that the article "is not sectarian". I made this wrong presumption because you helped Red Rose to edit the page, insert SRF´s cover and remove a lot of content. I demand your pardon. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward, discuss changes first on the talk page and come to a consensus. Make sure you are not basing major content on primary research but secondary notable/reliable sources (Ananda or SRF related/affiliated sites or personal blogs/ websites are not considered neutral or notable source in regards to this topic as both of these two rival groups have interest in the content). Currently as the article stands, gets its content from notable secondary sources. Feel free to propose contents that adhere to the same principles. Take a look at other featured articles and see how the content is being presented. Do not create abrupt disruptive edits or make personal attacks against the editors. It's a community site, try to work with other editors (including Red Rose) collaboratively in improving the content. Glad to see you are open to consensus moving forward. Everyone has their own views about certain things but wikipedia is not the vehicle to express it. All information needs to be properly sourced. Thank You. NestedVariable (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• NestedVariable, thank you for your post, but the page as it is contains only information provided by SRF and favorable to SRF. Could you please kindly explain to me why is it so? Even the cover of the book is SRF´s, instead of the original one. I think it is relevant to know also what Ananda says and not only SRF. They are both accountable for what they say and they both publish the book, although different versions of it. Their books are sold at amanzo.com, Barnes & Nobles, etc. and people want to know why there are two version of the same book for sale. For instance, I think the page should contain SRF´s explanation for the changes in the book and the forgery of Yogananda´s signature, as well as Ananda´s comparison of the changes made in the text before and after the author´s death. These are relevant and most pollemic issues. What you are saying could be a fallacy to protect SRF from controversy. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with you. I think only anonymous sites could not be used as a means of reference. Thank you Tat Sat (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The cover of the book is under discussion in various areas. We will probably come to a consensus as per to what to do next. Please have patience. Getting to your next point, it is not important for wikipedia what Ananda or SRF thinks or says. All information needs to come from reliable secondary sources to ensure that we are maintaining Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as per wikipedia guidelines. If what is claimed by Ananda or SRF is true then there has to be some reliable secondary sources of information. Please take a look WP:IRS and WP:NOR. This will hopefully make wikipedia guidelines clear to you. Thank You. NestedVariable (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Again I insist that this discussion about the cover of the book should not exist. The book was published in 1946 with a specific cover and this cover is the original one. That´s all. Also when someone goes to buy a book of which there are 6 or 7 versions with different content and different signatures of the same author in different covers, he will want to know why. Of course we have to quote the Publishers and hear what they say. People will read the explanations and will form an opinion. It is not a matter of deciding who is right and who is wrong, it is a matter of information. Sorry, but I am obliged to disagree with you again. Besides SRF has sued Ananda for copyright violation and lost. The book entering public domain is a direct consequence of the results of this lawsuit which can be accessed at Wikiquote. That´s why I am asking for the help of an experienced book editor. The trajetory of this book is full of controversial issues and relevant information about them. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"Also when someone goes to buy a book of which there are 6 or 7 versions with different content and different signatures of the same author in different covers, he will want to know why"

Well, you are presuming wikipedia is a platform of advocacy. It's not. Follow the guidelines as per WP:IRS and WP:NOR. NestedVariable (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• This books is unusual because there is one current book and about 5 or so books printed from the 1946 version which is a total of about 6 different publishers. TatSat is suggesting that we take down the publisher SRF's cover and I agree to that because I think that all 6 publishers and future ones because there will be more, need to be considered on this page and since they are not present, we need to expand to include them as well. The page itself is titled Autobiography of a Yogi with no particular edition mentioned. So I am agreeing with one of TatSat's prior suggestions to just put Yogananda picture there instead. I have the same sepia type picture but with a better resolution I would like to add. Considering the unusual situation of having the first edition in public domain and therefore the number of publishers already in existence this seems like the only reasonable and fair thing to do.Red Rose 13 (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over map of india and pakistan in article death of osama bin laden

– New discussion.

Filed by Jagmeet612 on 19:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC).

• Dispute over map of india and pakistan in article death of osama bin laden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

the map in the article death osama bin laden shows a part of the map under pakistani terretory but it is claimed by both india and pakistan. and by showing it under pakistani terretory ascertain it as a pakistani territory,which disputes the neutrality of wikipedia acording to standards. it is requested to rectify the mistake at the earliest .

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Jagmeet612 (talk · contribs)
• Jagmeet612 (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Dispute over map of india and pakistan in article death of osama bin laden}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

it can be helped by properly checking the map from verifiable sources

Jagmeet612 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over map of india and pakistan in article death of osama bin laden discussion

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