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
RRR	Closed	SaibaK (t)	9 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 21 hours
Jagtar Singh Hawara	Closed	Write&Publish (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 1 hours
Washtub Bass	Closed	DaveCW (t)	19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours
RRR	New	SaibaK (t)	17 hours	None	n/a	SaibaK (t)	8 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 09:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

1 Spore (2008 video game) (Example case)

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Example on 13:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, we have discussed this issue on a talk page, and we reached stalemate in our discussion.

Location of dispute

• Spore (2008 video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Example (talk · contribs)
• Example2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Me and Example2 (talk · contribs) are having a bit of a dispute about Spore (2008 video game). Some of the references in the article support the genre being a god game, others support the genre being a life simulation or a simulation game. I think we need to come with a way to have both listed in the article, as all references seem reliable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried talking about the issue with Example on the article talk page, but I need some extra input on what I can do here to move forward with resolving this dispute, as there are numerous sources supporting the different genres.

How do you think we can help?

Direct me to ways to resolve this dispute, or where I can get assistance in resolving the dispute. We need to come up with a compromise as how to move forward with the article.

--Example (talk)

1.1.1 Opening comments by Example2

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

Statements that this game's genre is simulation are simply untrue. No policy, guideline or essay on Wikipedia demand that we spread lies in article just because the misled reliable sources stated so. --Example2 (talk)

1.1.2 Spore (2008 video game) discussion

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

The dispute at hand seems to be to me that there are multiple possible genres to the article, and many sources backing up the different genres, however the issue of which genre best fits is still an issue. A mediation cabal case might be useful here, the assistance of a third party editor could assist in working out a compromise that works well. Example3 (talk)

Billy Fox (politician)

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Billy Fox (politician) (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 is a disagreement over including references in the article. Since 2007 there has been a link to an RTE programme [1]. Last month the link was removed by User:One_Night_In_Hackneyas a broken link [2]. I have tried to reinsert a working link but it has been repeatedly deleted along with a link to a speech by John Bruton which I had also added. The justification given seems to be that there are too many sources, and that John Bruton does not refer to the Provisional IRA. I think that if there really is doubt about who killed Billy Fox then it is even more important to have reputable sources listed and the reader can make their own judgement. John Bruton also refers directly to the Provisional IRA. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Flexdream (talk · contribs) One_Night_In_Hackney (talk · contribs) RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs) Other users have already been informed via their talk page and the article talk page. 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 N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Billy Fox (politician)}} --~~~~ 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? Discussed on Talk:Billy_Fox_(politician)#References How do you think we can help? Advise on whether to include the 1) RTE link and 2) Bruton link. Thanks. Flexdream (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Billy Fox (politician) discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The original link in the first example had invalid formatting [3] so there's no surprise that was removed. In general, I think the article presents the information quite clearly (in the current version), with circumstances of his death are disputed with various paramilitary groups such as ... + it covers all, with what appear to be appropriate references. I see that Flexdream thinks that two additional references should be added - shown in this diff. I don't see much harm in additional references, but nor at the moment do I see any particular benefit; whilst exceptional claims need exceptional sources, I'm unconvinced that it is necessary to have three references to verify the fact that the Provisional IRA are one of the groups which RS's have said were involved. I don't really believe it's "clutter", but I don't see any real benefit; I think it will be helpful if Flexdream could explain here a little more about why the extra refs are of benefit, and also it will be helpful to see why the other parties - in particular RepublicanJacobite - believe they are not. I have one additional possible suggestion to RepublicanJacobite: if there is no great harm in adding the other ref/refs except for having two or three [n] tags, then how do you feel about adding both or all three in a single numbered footnote with <br /> so that the refs are just one footnote-number, but several refs are shown within it? And a suggestion to Flexdream - in your further response, it would be helpful if you could assign your own preference/importance value on the two links - perhaps you'd be content if just one more were added?  Chzz  ►  06:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC) This hasn't really been discused Talk:Billy Fox (politician)#References. The discussion has instead been completely sidetracked by Flexdream's apparently inability to read a reference properly. I don't see any need for multiple footnotes when one does the job just as well, especially when it's not a controversial statement being referenced. 2 lines of K303 12:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Hi Chzz. Thanks for that. Combining 3 references into one in the footnotes is a good answer to any problems of clutter, but I don't know how to do that. I think the RTE link, which had been in since 2007, is probably more informative than the Bruton link. As for criticism of me not being able to follow where a link points to, judge for yourself. Talk:Billy_Fox_(politician)#References, links really should point to the reference. Then I, and any reader, could check what the source states. I think claims that Fox was not killed by the PIRA are controversial, because PIRA members were convicted. --Flexdream (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Foo.<ref> Some book <br /> Another book </ref> [4] - can some compromise be found, using this idea?  Chzz  ►  11:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Seems reasonable to me. One reference with 3 links? I think the RTE link is the most useful, then the Bruton, then the CAIN. --Flexdream (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC) That could work. Maybe poke the other users that you listed above and see what they think? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Will do. Thanks. --Flexdream (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Well I posted a note on the user talk pages [5] and [6]. One Night in Hackney has deleted the post and told me " don't post on my talk page ever again" [7] and has not responded to the proposed compromise. RepublicanJacobite has been active on Wikipedia [8] but has not responded. I've therefore put the compromise edit in the article. Thanks.--Flexdream (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC) RepublicanJacobite has undone my revision within a few hours [9]. Is the next step to get mediation as it doesn't seem likely there will be any engagement here to help resolve the dispute?--Flexdream (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I've commented on the references issue on the article talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for that. I've commented there also. --Flexdream (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spirulina (dietary supplement)

• Spirulina (dietary supplement) (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?

I am trying to justify an improvement to the page and am frankly convinced I am offering a NPOV version but am being reverted with no proper justification. I need outside POVs to merge the existing version and my suggestion into a proper version while losing the minimum of info.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• MastCell (talk · contribs)
• Rdavout (talk · contribs)
• (William_M._Connolley (talk · contribs))
• (Velella (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.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Spirulina_(dietary_supplement)}} --~~~~ 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?

Tried discussing it but met with a revert edit by another party.

• How do you think we can help?

Commenting on the respective merits of both versions of the incriminated paragraphs and hopefully reaching a compromise.

Rdavout (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Initial versions in dispute

Version 1:

Spirulina is not considered to be a reliable source of Vitamin B₁₂. The standard B₁₂ assay, using Lactobacillus leichmannii, shows spirulina to be a minimal source of bioavailable vitamin B₁₂. Spirulina supplements contain predominantly pseudovitamin B₁₂, which is biologically inactive in humans. Companies which grow and market spirulina have claimed it to be a significant source of B₁₂ on the basis of alternate, unpublished assays, although their claims are not accepted by independent scientific organizations. The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada in their position paper on vegetarian diets state that spirulina cannot be counted on as a reliable source of active vitamin B₁₂. The medical literature similarly advises that spirulina is unsuitable as a source of B12.

Collapsing oudated comment by User:Rdavout

Version 2: Some controversy exists concerning the Vitamin B12 content of Spirulina. The standard B12 assay, using Lactobacillus leichmannii, shows spirulina to contain mostly inactive compounds of vitamin B12 though the 17% active compounds theoretically add up to around 30% of adult RDA levels in a typical 3 g portion. Spirulina supplements contain predominantly pseudovitamin B12, which is biologically inactive in humans. Companies which grow and market spirulina have claimed it to be a significant source of B12 on the basis of alternate, unpublished assays, a view which is supported by a new 2010 peer-reviewed study which confirms the existence of 35.5~38.7 μg methylcobalamin per 100 g of dry biomass - roughly 15% of RDA for adults per gram of spirulina-, by means of two different assays . These more recent claims have yet to gain traction among independent scientific organizations. In their 2003 position paper on vegetarian diets, the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada stated that spirulina cannot be counted on as a reliable source of active vitamin B12. Different studies emanating from the same lead scientist (Fumio Watanabe) similarly advise that spirulina is unsuitable as a source of B12 on the grounds of a theoretical possibility of the existence of anti-B12 analogues although this doubt has never been investigated on any B12 analogue food source, including synthetic B12 sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavout (talk • contribs)

Spirulina (dietary supplement) discussion

Collapsing the initial stages of discussion

Hi there, I'm a mediator at the DRN and hope we can bring this issue to a consensus. I'm not an expert on this topic, but it seems that the issue is over a new opinion about the dietary supplement. I would suggest that the most useful policies/guidelines here is WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE which say that we should not give undue coverage to minority viewpoints and fringe theories. We thus need to determine whether the new theory is a fringe theory/minority viewpoint or a valid alternative view. We should, therefore, take a look at the sources. If the new theory comes from a reputable and reliable scientific source (preferably a peer-reviewed academic journal, or something similar), then we can accept it as a valid scientific viewpoint. If not, then it is a minority source and probably does not belong in Wikipedia. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Collapsing long and mostly oudated comment by User:Rdavout Thanks for chiming in, ItsZippy. The dispute isn't only about the addition of this new reference, which indeed comes from a major peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry) but also the presentation of the facts stated in the other studies. No one ever denied that spirulina contains B12 and the present version doesn't reflect that at all (quote: «spirulina to be a minimal source of bioavailable vitamin B12». IMHO, its is pure NPOV to add RDAs and the extra reference to clear things up on that point. There is a true point of controversy however, concerning the reliability of spirulina as a B12 source. This is something else altogether and the policy pages you indicated directly concern this specific issue. The leading scientist to have worked on the issue of B12 notes in his most recent reference that "van den Berg et al. (68) demonstrated that a spirulina-supplemented diet does not induce severe vitamin B12 deficiency in rats, implying that the feeding of spirulina may not interfere with the vitamin B12 metabolism. **Further studies are needed to clarify bioavailability of spirulina vitamin B12 in humans.**" (my highlight). Maybe we could end the paragraph with that exact quote or in any case that idea, while maintaining a strongly skeptic POV. How about --> « Different studies emanating from the same lead scientist (Fumio Watanabe) similarly advise that spirulina is unsuitable as a source of B12 on the grounds of a theoretical possibility of the existence of anti-B12 analogues. A normal profile of contribution of spirulina to vitamin B12 metabolism has been demonstrated in rats though bioavailability of spirulina vitamin B12 in humans has yet to be clarified, prompting a call for caution among people at risk of B12-deficiency, notably vegetarians.» Rdavout (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Since the material in question involves medical assertions and the medical literature, the relevant sourcing guideline seems to me to be WP:MEDRS. That guideline is crystal clear that we need to respect secondary sources (e.g. statements from expert bodies), and likewise crystal clear that we should not cherry-pick primary sources (individual studies) and arrange them to editorially "rebut" expert opinion. In this case, expert opinion is clear, in the form of statements from the American Dietetic Association and Canadian Dieticians organization. We need to accurately convey that expert opinion to the reader, rather than trying to insinuate that the experts are wrong, as version #2 does. If there is in fact accumulating evidence that spirulina is a good source of B12, then expert bodies will alter their opinions, and we'll follow. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work, as best I can tell, and this seems pretty clear-cut to me. MastCell Talk 01:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Collapsing long and mostly oudated comment by User:Rdavout The view that "If there is in fact accumulating evidence that spirulina is a good source of B12, then expert bodies will alter their opinions, and we'll follow." is very reasonable but then *something should be nevertheless written noting that there is a trend towards new information on the subject*. Even as simply as that. In any case "Companies which grow and market spirulina have claimed it to be a significant source of B12 on the basis of alternate, unpublished assays, although their claims are not accepted by independent scientific organizations." is* absolutely unfair given the existing data* and does not convey verifiable reality. I did not cherry pick a study, I completed an outdated statement stating that spirulina companies couldn't refer to any peer-reviewed evidence. If you feel that this is cherry-picking individual sources, just remove the whole sentence in V1 as it *doesn't reflect best-available verifiable truth thus amputated*. Rdavout (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Concerning the issue of expert authority: MEDRS notes that "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization." The American Dietetic Association is not included in the list (note that in any case a name change has to be included as it is now the "Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics") and possibly for a reason: according to their Wikipedia entry, there is a strong controversy linked to food industry funding. Cherry-picking some unpleasant statement: "Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber of The Center for Media and Democracy (an independent, non-profit, non-partisan media and consumer watchdog group) claim the ADA "has learned not to bite the hand that feeds it"" & "The Weston A. Price Foundation avers that, “Registered Dietitians generally get a bad rap in the alternative medical and nutrition communities.”[6] They suggest that dietitians are trained to promote and dispense processed foods, many of which are unhealthy.". I am not calling to eliminate the ADA source but just calling for balance here - the ADA has financing incentives to support fortified foods rather that simple non-agroindustry alternatives. Also quite critically, the 2011 position paper by the ADA [10] removes the 2003 reference to spirulina. It replaces the text "Unless fortified, no plant food contains significant amounts of active vitamin B-12. Foods such as sea vegetables and spirulina may contain vitamin B-12 analogs; neither these nor fermented soy products can be counted on as reliable sources of active vitamin B-12." by the amputated "No unfortified plant food contains any significant amount of active vitamin B-12. Fermented soy products cannot be considered a reliable source of active B-12." Clearly, the ADA decided that they would not decide on the issue and chose not to single out spirulina anymore, though they did keep committed to singling out tempeh for instance. A fair quote suddenly becomes: "The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly American Dietetic Association) states that "No unfortified plant food contains any significant amount of active vitamin B-12."" We unfortunately can only infer that spirulina's B12 was at least not dangerous. At a personal level, I also conclude that the ADA is a pitiful secondary source on the subject given a big mistake concerning B12 content of eggs a paragraph above. Which brings me back to the reason why I started picking on this issue of B12 in spirulina: B12 in eggs. ADA states that eggs are a good source, probably because of a funding issue ;) It is generally accepted that absorption of corrinoid compounds in spirulina is about 10%, that there is a paucity of B12 in them, etc. The mysteriously biased Watanabe article on the subject of B12 sources states in the full text of the article [[11]] that the nutritional impact of eggs on vitamin B12 status is extremely low given the paucity of vitamin B12 but the conclusions mention it among animal sources as excellent sources of B12. A back-of-the-envelope calculation from the exact data in the study seem to indicate that one would need to eat more than 7 eggs to achieve the WHO absolute minimum allowance of 0,48 µg. Somehow, by a sleight of hand, the same article dedices that eggs are a way better source than source of B12 than spirulina while also affirming that bioavailable B12 is respectively 0.13 µg (eggs) and 36 µg per 100 g (spirulina). Literally speaking, it seems that 1.33 g of spirulina will cover the daily minimal allowance posted by the WHO whereas 370 g of eggs... 7 eggs . Of course, this is a just a well-informed *personal* opinion. Rdavout (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC) I think we need to determine whether or not the controversy around spirulina is a notable controversy. Essentially - is the alternative view a notable and widely-regarded view; and is the controversy itself noted by experts? If any sources could be provided here, that would be very helpful. We really need a secondary sources which notes the controversy between the two views, I think. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I agree with MastCell here. We need to respect WP:MEDRS, which says we should not usually use individual studies. If there is a review study or a textbook that mentions the controversy, then we can cover it, but otherwise I think it is probably too early to soften the wording in the article. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Collapsing long comment by User:Rdavout As per above, not so much individual study as completing an exhaustive citation of the scientific corpus on the issue. If we want to avoid double standards here, all other citations must be removed. Why? "The standard B12 assay, using Lactobacillus leichmannii, shows spirulina to be a minimal source of bioavailable vitamin B12." → Absolutely partial and incomplete information as regards the source. In contradiction with both the source and the 2010 peer-reviewed study I included in V2. "The medical literature similarly advises that spirulina is unsuitable as a source of B12.[2][4]" → *The*? In a way that's cherrypicking Watanabe's work out of the rest of the corpus... For sure he's the only one with a vocal opinion on the subject. Other studies just state facts (% of bioavailable spirulina, impact on rats, etc). But I'll prove my point on that specific sentence by finding secondary sources (hopefully).Rdavout (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rationale and suggestion for a version 3

Back from my search for sources. My final conclusion is that there is only one secondary source concerning B12 food sources, "Vitamin B12 Sources and Bioavailability" [12]. This was cited as a source but not to its full value as the only secondary source available to us.
Interestingly I also found zounds of opinionated stances both in full favour of spirulina as a B12 source and in disfavour in *tertiary* sources, which should probably be a sufficient basis for noting that there is a controversy, at least in the public understanding of facts relating to spirulina. The use of the word controversy seems to displease some of us who apply it to the more restrictive meaning of controversy stated as such in a scientific review paper. Either is fine by my book and I now see the point in qualifying the word "controversy" to avoid blurring that distinction.
We learn in Wikipedia:MEDSCI#Summarize_scientific_consensus that "Finally, make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy." That solves the issue in this case IMHO. No need to apply the C-word. The secondary source does not state out loud that there is a controversy but does explore the different issues of uncertainty which should therefore be put forward in the final version.

Regarding the existence of a secondary source...

• Consequence 1: It is the only secondary source among the previous references and, if I understood WP policy well, and correctly identified this source as secondary, should therefore be given precedence over the previous references and superceding in its principle any recourse to either tertiary or primary sources
• Consequence 2: IMHO for the sake of intellectual rigour, a fleeting reference to post-2007 studies should be mentioned while (1) being either exhaustive or quoting nothing (to avoid cherrypicking), (2) stating their inferior source value, (3) removing them after a few years if no new secondary source picks them up (MEDREV#Respect_secondary_sources). Do note however that after giving long though to it I do not mark a strong support to the inclusion of any post-2007 reference in the full text after all. The peer-reviewed primary reference I mentioned has great data but I do feel however that this point should be reminded in the talk page associated to the original article with a further invitation to reference new primary studies on the subject on the talk page rather than the main page.

Now for the extraction of the relevant information from the available secondary source (quoted in full):

• In the abstract:

"Some plant foods, dried green and purple lavers (nori) contain substantial amounts of vitamin B12, although other edible algae contained none or only traces of vitamin B12. Most of the edible blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) used for human supplements predominately contain pseudovitamin B12, which is inactive in humans. The edible cyanobacteria are not suitable for use as vitamin B12 sources, especially in vegans."

• • Consequence 1: the ADA reference paper (edit[superceded tertiary source], cf. supra) discounting all vegetable sources of B12 is in conflict with this secondary source and therefore clearly unreferencable concerning B12, both for its 2003 position paper (due to precedence) and its 2011 (due to absence of a more recent review article) edit[the reference to spirulina has indeed be removed in the 2011 version of the ADA paper]
  • Consequence 2: as per WP policy, the opinion of the abstract supercedes the exact full text in primary sources, with no particular mention regarding secondary sources ("Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge.") - it should be therefore used as a guide to the use of the full text of the study, but not exclusively.
• In the full text:

"Some species of the cyanobacteria, including Spirulina, Aphanizomenon, and Nostoc, are produced at annual rates of 500–3000 tons for food and pharmaceutical industries worldwide (61). Tablets containing Spirulina sp. are sold as a health food fad, since it is known to contain a large amount of vitamin B12 (62). We found that commercially available spirulina tablets contained 127–244 μg vitamin B12 per 100 g weight (63). When two corrinoid compounds were characterized from the spirulina tablets, the major (83%) and minor (17%) compounds were identified as pseudovitamin B12 (adeninly cobamide) and vitamin B12, respectively (Fig. 2⇓). Several groups of investigators indicated that pseudovitamin B12 is hardly absorbed in mammalian intestine with a low affinity to IF (64, 65). Furthermore, researchers showed that spirulina vitamin B12 may not be bioavailable in mammals (63, 66). Herbert (67) reported that an extract of spirulina contains two vitamin B12 compounds that can block the metabolism of vitamin B12. And van den Berg et al. (68) demonstrated that a spirulina-supplemented diet does not induce severe vitamin B12 deficiency in rats, implying that the feeding of spirulina may not interfere with the vitamin B12 metabolism. Further studies are needed to clarify bioavailability of spirulina vitamin B12 in humans."

(My emphasis) Rdavout (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Consequence 1: There are zero doubts/conflicting evidence on the issue of presence of B12 in spirulina (contrary to what is stated in V1).
• Consequence 2: There are doubts/conflicting evidence on the issue of spirulina B12 metabolism: (63,66) *may not be bioavailable* (in vivo, animals), (67) presence of doubtful compounds (in vitro), (68) *may have its B12 metabolism proceed without interference* (ie.: -/-/?/+), which should be reflected as such: conflicting evidence, general conclusion expressing non-reliability of source in the absence of further research. Again V1 is generally lacking on this point, stating the unreliability of spirulina as an acquired fact and not a dynamic process. Spirulina is *deemed* unreliable due to the absence of human in vivo studies not due to negative results in human in vivo studies. This is a very important difference which is *not* reflected in V1.

To finish, my proposal for a V3: V3b (2ndary source only but more expansive)

A 2007 review study on B12 food sources shows that spirulina cannot be counted upon as reliable food source of vitamin B12 in the absence of further studies on humans despite a high content of active compounds of vitamin B12. The mostly (83%) biologically inactive compounds of vitamin B12 in Spirulina are not bioavailable to humans but though the 17% active compounds theoretically add up to around 30% of adult RDA levels in a typical 3 g portion, there is conflicting evidence concerning its metabolism edit [and it may be anything from a good source of vitamin B12, a source of antinutrients blocking vitamin B12 absorption or simply an unmetabolized source of vitamin B12]. edit[Although the vitamin B12 content is sometimes percieved as controversial, it in in fact well accepted (and furthermore confirmed by 6 different assays in a 2010 peer-reviewed study) - the doubts on the issue concern the metabolism of this vitamin B12, ie. its absorption in human beings of all conditions and the absence of interference of its analogs with the absorption of vitamin B12 from other sources.] (extended)

Collapsing other suggested versions (long comment) by User:Rdavout

V3a (minimalist) A 2007 review study on B12 food sources shows that spirulina cannot be counted upon as reliable food source of vitamin B12 in the absence of further studies on humans despite a high content of active compounds of vitamin B12. Basic and nearly OK IMHO but not strictly in line with the WP policy stating that doubts and controversies expressed in secondary sources should be well expressed. The main problem is that although readers will get the gist of the issue, they most likely won't be able to understand the compatibility of having bioavailability considerations and presence of true B12. Rdavout (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC) V3c (the same, updated with the 2010 study's *abstract* -as per policy- and mentioning the existence of a controversy in the mind of the public) A 2007 review study on B12 food sources shows that spirulina cannot be counted upon as reliable food source of vitamin B12 in the absence of further studies on humans despite of a high content of active compounds of vitamin B12. The mostly (83%) biologically inactive compounds of vitamin B12 in Spirulina are not bioavailable to humans but though the 17% active compounds theoretically add up to around 30% of adult RDA levels in a typical 3 g portion, there is conflicting evidence concerning its metabolism. Although the vitamin B12 content is sometimes percieved as controversial, it in in fact well accepted (and furthermore confirmed by 6 different assays in a 2010 peer-reviewed study) - the doubts on the issue concern the metabolism of this vitamin B12, ie. its absorption in human beings of all conditions and the absence of interference of its analogs with the absorption of vitamin B12 from other sources. A bit more expansive both on the well-established true B12 content and the doubts relating to its metabolism. Rdavout (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've collapsed the two very long comments by Rdavout above. At the top of this page it says "Please keep discussions on this page civilized, present the issues in a concise and calm manner, and try to present a neutral view of the issues at hand." Being concise is important here, as neutral editors coming in to comment on this dispute will be put off by extremely long replies, and long replies also disrupt discussion between the editors who are already involved. I have some more comments about the application of WP:MEDRS to this article - please hold on while I write them up. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Having another look through the dispute, I think the main problem is that, as far as I can see, none of the sources presented so far show that there is a controversy involved here. The source that was given to support the statement in Rdavout's version two doesn't appear to say anything about spirulina's absorption into the body, but only about its chemical properties, judging from its abstract. Using this to back up claims of B12 bioavailability by the spirulina companies appears to be a synthesis of sources, and isn't allowed under Wikipedia policy.

Also, the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada are the major professional associations relevant to this article in those countries, and whatever the "truth" may be, they reflect the establishment view on the subject. Claims that these organizations are biased won't get you very far, I'm afraid. (For more on how this kind of thing works in Wikipedia, I recommend reading our page on fringe theories.) I will reiterate my comment above - if there is a respectable secondary source that mentions that there is a controversy here, or that claims spirulina is a good source of B12, then we can think about including it. Until then, it is really too early to change the point of view expressed in the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of concision. Last time promise! The only important comment is the second one. Please take the time to read it fully. My V1 suggestion is completely outdated as I indeed did not really understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. I am switching your collapses to reflect my present position. Rdavout (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still think that your proposed version is based on a misreading of WP:MEDRS. We really do need a secondary medical source to say that there is controversy about B12 in spirulina, or to say that spirulina is a good source of B12, before we can change a medical claim on the issue. I'm afraid that no amount of new versions will change this fact. If no new reliable secondary sources are forthcoming, then I just don't see that there could be grounds to soften the claim. If you really want to pursue this further, then the next logical step is to file an RfC at Talk:Spirulina (dietary supplement), but if the version you propose doesn't satisfy WP:MEDRS then I doubt other editors will rush to support it. Sorry, but that's just the way the rules work. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess my lack of concision drowned my present position in the mass of text. Do you agree that there is only *one* secondary source on the subject? I am not at all supporting either talking about a controversy nor saying that spirulina is a good source of B12 *anymore*. I've read WP:MEDRS very closely and understood that my initial position was not conform to policy and that the logic between WP:MEDRS was very solid. My present position is to apply the rule closely and remove all non-secondary sources and to match the only available secondary source as closely as possible. Could you please deconstruct how I get this wrong is if I do? I understand the general inclination towards skepticism but that isn't house policy either. House policy is using secondary sources over both primary and tertiary and not cherrypicking either, with more reason when they predate the existing secondary sources. Rdavout (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

When I said that your version is changing a medical claim, I was particularly reacting to the part that said "the 17% active compounds theoretically add up to around 30% of adult RDA levels in a typical 3 g portion", which seems to me to be giving undue weight to the possibility of it being metabolized, when it looks like the source, overall, is saying that spirulina cannot be relied upon as a source for B12. That said, I am no expert on medical matters, so the best thing to do may be to politely and concisely take up this specific point on the article talk page.

Also, a part of your new version that is obviously problematic is your removal of the positions of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada. The positions of these organizations obviously qualify as "medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations", which in turn qualify them as secondary sources per WP:MEDRS#Definitions. (This also means that there is more than one secondary source on the matter.) Again, per WP:MEDRS, these statements absolutely do belong in the article. These organizations show the mainstream medical opinion on this matter, and the mainstream medical opinion is exactly what we should be showing on Wikipedia. I think that if you can understand and accept this, then the best thing to do is to take this discussion back to the article talk page and try to work things out with the other editors there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks for the extra detail.

- I understand your point 1 though I disagree given that the rest of the sentence explicity states that there is a metabolization issue. The fact that there *is* B12 is a very important part of the secondary reference. The present version is unambiguously false in the sense that it attracts the attention to a lack of B12 (a false statement) instead of uncertain metabolization - a very different issue altogether with very different consequences (no B12 = that's it ; possibly unmetabolized B12 = possibly a good source of B12, possibly a B12 absorption blocker, possibly nothing at all - three possibilities which have barely been investigated but which are of course so contradictory that caution is warranted). I've slightly adjusted my main proposal to reflect that point in the clearest of ways.

- As for point 2, the 2011 paper [13] doesn't mention spirulina (or any algae) anymore although it continues to single out fermented soy products. It should supercede the 2003 version shouldn't it? I am not favoring the removal of the reference just because its a tertiary source but primarily because it's a superceded tertiary source.

I'll try getting MastCell back in the discussion because going back to the talk page without him discussing the issue will basically mean that my position will be simply archived and forgotten. Rdavout (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The current edition of the ADA guidelines explicitly states that "no unfortified plant food contains any significant amount of active vitamin B12". That's as clear and unambiguous as you can get. They haven't changed their position on spirulina; they've broadened it to include all plant foods. It's sort of disingenuous to imply that the ADA has changed its position on spirulina; obviously, they continue to believe that it contains no active B12. I'm again left wondering why there's a problem conveying this information clearly to the reader. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This may be sunken cost bias on my part but I am not ready to leave the present version as such given the many approximations to be found in the present version. Point taken on ADA, then clearly "The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada in their position paper on vegetarian diets state that spirulina cannot be counted on as a reliable source of active vitamin B12.[10]" *is* obsolete and has to be replaced by "The American Dietetic Association states in its position paper on vegetarian diets that state that "no unfortified plant food contains any significant amount of active vitamin B12". Same as previously but without singling out anything - I call that a pretty big difference (they're *not* saying it has anti-B12 for instance), plus contrary to other points made in the main secondary source (on chlorella for instance). Same goes for the other points: all primary sources should be removed, punto basta - no double standards here please! The information is not clearly conveyed to the reader contrary to what you say. Present versions says: no B12. Verifiable reality is: B12, uncertain status on assimilation on B12 (anti-B12? zero-effect-B12? true-B12?) thus not recommended source. VERY different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdavout (talk • contribs) 12:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the changes you're suggesting. Expert opinion is quite clear here: plant foods, including spirulina, do not contain any significant amount of active B12 and thus cannot be relied upon as a source of B12. Surely we can convey this honestly and clearly to the reader, without making up stuff about "anti-B12"?

Also, we don't need to remove all primary sources - we just need to make sure that we, as editors, are not trying to arrange primary sources to "rebut" established expert opinion, like that of the ADA. There is no blanket prohibition against primary sources - only against misusing primary sources. This is spelled out in WP:MEDRS. I think your edits misused primary sources, citing them selectively in an effort to undermine expert opinion from the ADA. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sune Sik, Duchies in Sweden

• Sune Sik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Duchies in Sweden (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?

Edit warring by two Swedish editors (1 and 2 below) who have teamed up, as they have done previously, to go against the opinions given by WP:3O editors. The conduct of user Kuiper is always full of personal ridicule, false accusations and twisted facts. He has stalked me for years, and I would like to have an inter-action ban as recently has been granted on Commons. Links given on the talk pages of the related articles show how he has behaved. The content dispute is regarding whether or not an academic theory from the 18th century, cited by experts in 2003 and 2007, can be included in an article.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs)
• Andejons (talk · contribs)
• Czarkoff (talk · contribs)
• ItsZippy (talk · contribs)
• SergeWoodzing (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.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Sune Sik, Duchies in Sweden}} --~~~~ 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?

WP:3O, diskussion on the talk pages of the two articles and of Dukes of Östergötland

• How do you think we can help?

Give neutral opinions on the content disputes, adjust content to the benefit of the articles, inter-action ban as requested, help exert whatever discipline is possible on anyone behaving disruptively.

SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sune Sik, Duchies in Sweden discussion

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

I think that before we work on the specific content issue here, we should deal with SergeWoodzing's request for an interaction ban with Pieter Kuiper. I have informally mediated a dispute between these two users before, and they have a long history of disputes. I think the request for an interaction ban is reasonable, if only to prevent further drama. I'm in the process of filing a request on this at ANI. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The thread is up at WP:ANI#Request interaction ban between User:SergeWoodzing and User:Pieter Kuiper. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The twisting of facts and incessant unnecessary arguing is still going on. Should it be discussed here instead - or is double discussion what is intended? SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried to exit the discussion about Sune Sik before, but as I am stated as a side of dispute here, it seems I have to serve this duty. So, as I see it, the problem is in absence of consensus on whether to include the medieval theory about the ducal title of Sune Sik. The opponents of inclusion claim that this theory is fringe and thus was consequently dismissed by modern studies. The proponent of inclusion (SergeWoodzing) believes it to be notable, true and worth inclusion. Personally I would prefer this theory included with references about its relation to present day theory. I was not participating in other articles discussed here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I have now added a source which indicates that a reliable publisher today (2007) considers the 18th-century author worth mentioning. And yes, I have asserted that the theory is "notable" and "worth inclusion", but I have never asserted definitely that it is "true". Very few people have ever written anything notable about the Sune Sik grave, and the few things we know about him have all been recounted only in that context. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I do sincerely believe that that must effectively resolve the dispute.
2. As the other parties ignore the due process of dispute resolution, this case should be probably resolved on the grounds of lack of the content dispute.
3. (suggestion) You might want to find more sources to support Your position. Though I think this one does the job, the more references You give, the better coverage You provide. Additional benefit could be from the information that could be added to this page.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As SW says, no one has disputed that the content he tried to add to Sune Sik is largely correct. I do believe that Boraen described Sune Sik as a duke, but reserve judgment on exactly it should be described.

The matter is, instead, whether this is relevant. For me, what was proposed in an academic thesis 300 years ago is only of interest if it can be tied to a longer academic debate: are Boraen's claims about Sune Sik taken seriously today? So far, I have seen nothing to suggest this. SW has claimed that modern historians have studied Boraen's paper, but have not said anything about what they write about Sune Sik. Until I see either that they consider his claims interesting, or a modern, reliable source that discusses Sune Sik bring up Boraen, I will consider him irrelevant. That Boraen can be used as a source in some contexts should not be taken as a sign of his relevance here.

As far as the spill-over debate at Duchies in Sweden, it seems to no longer concern Sune Sik at all. As it has barely started, I don't see why the discussion page there cannot be used.

Andejons (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently the article is a stub, and thus (in my opinion) no WP:UNDUE issues could be raised. Apart from that, the first the first application of ducal title is an interesting fact, so I don't see any problems with inclusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A 1724 student's thesis cannot have any bearing on the first use of a ducal title. If Boræn wrote about a duchy of Östergötland in the 12th century, it was a gross anachronism. Rubbish does not get notable by being old. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Aside from catchy wording, I see strong personal opinions, but I see nothing to back them up. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

DC Nation Shorts

• DC Nation Shorts (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?

Cartoon Network has a new block of programming coming in 2012 called DC Nation that will broadcast Young Justice, Green Lantern: The Animated Series, and mostly animated shorts. A month ago, several news sites were given some information on it and a Wikipedia article was written on it. Friday night, a preview of the content was shown during the premier of the Green Lantern animated series including two of the animated shorts (Aardman Animations Batman and Teen Titans). Clips of upcoming content was also shown including the previously released Blue Beetle trailer/pilot, Lego Batman, and Gotham City Impostors. I added these new reveals to the article and the editor in dispute has removed them twice under claims the additions are unsourced. The first revert I explained the source despite citing it already in the article. The second time, I added the preview on YouTube to the talk page such that the editor can see it for his/herself. And, again, it was reverted. He/she also removed the section for Teen Titans which was confirmed previously in the article's references.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Alucardbarnivous (talk · contribs)
• WikiEditor44 (talk · contribs)

The other editor in dispute added the comment "DO NOT ADD ANY OTHER SHORTS, WITHOUT A SOURCE!!" to the page.

• 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.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=DC Nation Shorts}} --~~~~ 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?

Explained source and showed the source on the talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

Determine if a nationally broadcast preview of content is source enough material.

Alucardbarnivous (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

DC Nation Shorts discussion

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

The only reason why I put up the note was because users were adding things saying "Lego Batman", "Teen Titans" and "Gotham Impostors" are going to be shorts. I highly do not think this is true. Teen Titans might be a number of shorts, but Lego Batman and Gotham Impostors..... Gotham Impostors is meant for a higher age audience while Lego Batman just doesn't seem to fit. There is no sources to back this information up. --WikiEditor44 (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just watched a video on the article's talk page. The video could have been added as a source for these shorts.--WikiEditor44 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi you two, and thanks for posting to the dispute resolution noticeboard! I see that you are very focused on your particular dispute, but I think it that in this case it would help for you to look at the bigger picture here. When I took a brief look at the article, my first thought was, is this topic actually notable? Now, I don't edit very much in this topic area, so I might be wrong, but all of the references listed look like either blogs or fansites. Is this topic mentioned in sources that pass Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources? Because if not, then the quickest way to resolve this whole thing might be to take the article to AfD. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of Article Title: Maharshi vs. Maharishi

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Maharshi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Maharishi (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 issue is: what is the proper spelling for the title of the article? Should it be the spelling of Maharshi (with one ‘i’) (which is said to be the Sanskrit origin) or should it be spelled Maharishi (two 'i's) which is “recognizable to readers” and “consistent with English-language sources” as specified in WP:TITLE and used exclusively in 15 English dictionaries, 3 encyclopedias and misc. other books? See complete list of sources here Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Keithbob (talk · contribs) Will Beback (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 N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Spelling of Article Title: Maharshi vs. Maharishi}} --~~~~ 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? On November 9th I created a fully sourced, article for the mainstream term: Maharishi. Five hours later Will Beback, removed all of the content of the article and merged it with an unsourced article, headed by an “Unreferenced” clean up tag. Rather than revert this disruptive edit and begin a possible edit war, I opened a thread on the talk page of the merged article and suggested that the title of Maharshi (one 'i') be changed to the mainstream spelling of Maharishi (with 2 ‘i’s). I cited WP:TITLE which says: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources" "the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and recognizable." Despite my citing of more than a dozen English dictionaries, encyclopedias and books which use that spelling exclusively, Will Beback refuses to concede that it is the mainstream spelling and will not provided any sources to justify his opposition. Instead Will Beback seems to want to continue to disrupt Wikiepedia process by making comments that assume bad faith and personalize the issue rather than sticking to discussion of content. I would like to have input from uninvolved editors in the community. Sources that spell Maharishi with two "i"s Dictionaries Webster's Online Dictionary says: "Maharshi is a common misspelling or typo for: maharishi." "Maharshi (Sanskrit महर्षि maharṣi, from महा mahā "great" + ऋषि ṛṣi "seer"; also anglicized Maharishi" Webster's Dictionary No listing for Maharshi Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (2009) Retrieved November 9 2011, No listing for Maharshi World English Dictionary No listing for Maharshi Cambridge Dictionary No listing for Maharshi Online Etymological Dictionary No listing for Maharshi Collins English Dictionary No listing for Maharshi Merriam-Webster's Collegiate(R) Dictionary (2004) Retrieved November 2011, No listing for Maharshi Collins German Dictionary (2007) Retrieved November 2011, No listing for Maharshi Oxford Dictionary No listing for Maharshi Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English No listing for Maharshi Dictionary of Hindu Lore and Legend (2002) Thames & Hudson, Retrieved November 2011, No listing for Maharshi Dictionary.com the Free Dictionary No listing for Maharshi Oxford Learners Dictionary, Oxford University Press No listing for Maharshi Chambers Biographical Dictionary (2007) Retrieved November 2011, No listing for Maharshi Drury, Nevill (2002) Watkins Publishing, The dictionary of the esoteric: 3000 entries on the mystical and occult, page 200, No listing for Maharshi Dictionary.com says: "Origin: Sanskrit maharṣi" Encyclopedias Encyclopedia of American religious history: Volume 3 - Page 602, No listing for Maharshi Britannica Encyclopedia No listing for Maharshi The American desk encyclopedia, Luck, Steve (1998) publisher: George Philip Ltd, page 499, No listing for Maharshi Books American Veda, by Philip Goldberg, page 362 Responses to one hundred one questions on Hinduism - Page 145 Essence of Maharishi Patanjali's Ashtang Yoga By J.M.Mehta Data Dayal Maharishi Shiv Brat Lal Verman By Muḥammad Anṣārullāh, Sahitya Akademi Raman Maharishi (Mystics Saints of India) by BK Chaturvedi People Maharishi Bhrigu Maharishi Dayanand University Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Maharishi Valmiki Glimpses of Indian Culture By Dinkar Joshi Even Ramana Maharshi’s name is sometimes spelled Maharishi: Dalit's inheritance in Hindu religion By Mahendra Singh page 187 Philosophy of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharishi The serpent of paradise: the story of an Indian pilgrimage page by Miguel Serrano page 202 How do you think we can help? By allowing uninvolved editors to comment on the content issue and any relevant behavioral issues. — Keithbob • Talk • 19:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Spelling of Article Title: Maharshi vs. Maharishi discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Basically, this is simply an article naming issue, I'm not sure why Keithbob is not treating it as such and is bringing this here. However there is a heightened burden on Keithbob due to his conflict of interest regarding one of the names. I think it is incumbent upon him, if he is going to be editing in this topic, to be fully neutral in his editing and not seek to promote one version over another.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC) The comment above, is an example of Will Beback's chronic use of unsubstantiated accusations of conflict of interest on a talk page or noticeboard, designed to poison the well and caste doubt on an editor who disagrees with him on content. This is a violation of WP:COIN which states "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.". An overview of this disruptive behavior (with diffs) can be found here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Would you like me to substantiate it? Do I have your permission to disclose the relevant facts?   Will Beback  talk  02:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC) How can supporting a spelling that differs by one letter from another by any logical standard be used to try and corner another editor with a COI claim. This is not only a staggering reach in attempts to harm another editor, but is bad faith and railroads this discussion. You say this is a a simple content discussion yet you drag in this COI accusation with clear attempts to threaten and intimate another editor. Poorly done Will. Very poor.(olive (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)) As I wrote above, I'm not sure why a simple page title issue has come to this noticeboard, rather than being resolved by a simple page move proposal. But since we're here, let's talk about the underlying issue. Editors with conflicts of interest are called upon to take particular care to edit neutrally. In this case, Keithbob is not reviewing both sides and making a neutral determination. Instead he is promoting only one side, the side where he has an interest. All I'm asking is that he edit neutrally rather than promoting one particular POV.   Will Beback  talk  06:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC) We are here because 1) per this page: "This noticeboard is for resolving Wikipedia content disputes". 2) Will Beback has egregiously obstructed the progress of a reliably sourced article both in his removal of that newly created article and by refusing to recognize the overwhelming list of objective sources on the talk page 3) When asked: do you have any sources? (to support your actions) he replies:"I haven't looked". 4) He continues to assume bad faith, criticize and politicize a comprehensive list of two dozen mainstream sources and usuges on the talk page 5) He assumes bad faith and makes false claims such as above: ["Keithbob is not reviewing both sides and making a neutral determination. Instead he is promoting only one side, the side where he has an interest"] in attempts to intimidate me and gain the upper hand in a content dispute.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Clerk Question: The complaint is over the spelling of the article title and the redirect limbo as to which one gets the name and which one gets the redirect? Hasteur (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, that is correct. It is my assertion that Maharishi (two 'i's) should be the main article and the alternate spelling can either have it's own article or could have a subsection in the Maharishi (two 'i's) article. At present Maharishi (two 'i's) is redirected to Maharshi (one 'i') but all of the sources cited in the article are for the spelling Maharishi (with two 'i's). This creates an article that is incoherent, misleading and a dis-service to Wikipedia readership since they are in most cases not aware of the single 'i' spelling since it is the Sanskrit origin of the word Maharishi and is almost never used or even referred to in English dictionaries, reference books, newspapers etc. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC) The two spellings are just variants, comparable to "czar" and "tsar". Keithbonb has not offered any explanation for why he decided that they are separate terms requiring separate articles. Keithbob has a conflict of interest regarding companies with "maharishi" in the title. It is my belief that it is not optimal for someone in that position to be pushing one over another. OTOH, there would be no problem with him repsenting a full overview of both sides, and seeking neutral input on which is prefereable.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I have never heard anything so ridiculous. Kbob has a conflict of interest with anything with the word Maharishi in it... and lets see anything, with the word bob in it too, like bob sled, and what colour is his car? Will, this assumption of bad faith is a violation of the TM arbitration, and you are deliberately poisoning the well here. I'd suggest you take this allegation to the COI Notice board but I'd hate to waste anyone's time with this although maybe they could use a good laugh over there.Your comments, all levity aside do not befit a Wikipedia administrator.(olive (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)) Keithbob has not replied to my question of whether he is willing to have his conflict of interest disclosed and discussed. Until we get a response, hyperbolic remarks like that posted above are unhelpful. I don't see anyone here proposing that "maharshi" and "maharishi" are actually separate words, so it's not clear why the second article was created instead of simply adding to the existing article. As for the best name for the comprehensive article, that's a simple naming issue.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Take it to the COI Notice Board and do not continue to poison the well and derail this discussion. This discussion does not depend on answers to your interrogations of an editor, and that have nothing to do with this issue. Your behaviour is becoming increasingly disruptive.(olive (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)) Keithbob said that he wants people to comment on the behavioral issues, so I assumed he was including his own behavior. If he does not want to a discussion of behavior then he shouldn't invite it.   Will Beback  talk  11:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Take note everyone, this is how experienced Administrator, Will Beback, behaves when his bias against a topic is so strong that he cannot bear to bring himself to accept the obvious reality that "maharishi" is a commonly used term in Western culture as verified by two dozen dictionaries and encyclopedias and comments from uninvolved parties. By his own admission he has not researched the subject and yet he continues to deny, oppose, obstruct, and then in desperation, attack the people who participate in this objective community process for expanding and improving the reader friendliness of the encyclopedia. Absolutely shameful behavior. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I've never commented on the best title, one way or the other. I simply said I think that it is incumbent on you to do a thorough review, not just promote one spelling. I've done nothing to "deny, oppose, obstruct" except to urge him to be more responsible. All this drama here is unnecessary. I never heard back from you on why you thought that the two spellings are different words requiring separate articles, or how you want to proceed with the conflict of interest issue.   Will Beback  talk  05:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC) As far as content goes: Please note the Google searches linked in Fladrif's comments below, are all default searches for Maharishi (two 'i's. ) See the note on the search page that he provides which says: "Showing results for maharishi mahesh"--- even though he entered the search term as: Maharshi Mahesh. The bottom line is that "Maharshi" (one 'i') yields 368 Google search results and "Maharishi" (two 'i's) yields 4,280 Google search results. There is no reason to politicize this content issue towards Mahesh as there are several Indian gurus with the name Maharishi ie Ramana Maharishi (see source list above), Maharishi Bhrigu, Maharishi Dayanand, Maharishi Patanjali, Maharishi Valmiki etc. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I agree with the points raised by TransporterMan below and support the direction to title the article "Maharishi". --BwB (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Comments please, by editors not involved in this dispute Maharshi is the correct spelling, not Maharishi, which is one of the idiosyncratic misspellings of Hindu terms commonly employed by MMY and the TMO, apparently so as to be able to trademark them. The alternate spelling "Maharishi" is associated almost exclusively with MMY. See Websters, eg. [14] Apart from the common use of Maharshi rather than Maharishi for other persons who have used that honorific, his own title is frequently spelled Maharshi, not Maharishi, particularly in Indian sources who know how the words are supposed to be spelled. Google [15] Google News Archive [16] Google Books [17] In 1955, his first book on TM used "Maharshi Bal Bramachari Mahesh" not "Maharisi". Beacon Light of the Himalayas, and that spelling continued to be used as he came to be called Maharshi Mahesh Yogi by 1957 [18] as did ads published in the US as late as the mid 70's [19] I should think that Maharshi should be the preferred spelling for this particular article, with the alternate idiosyncratic spelling confined to the MMY-related articles only. Fladrif (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Welcome back Flad. Since you have a long history of interactions with the TM articles you may want to reposition your statement in the above thread above. I also have a history with the TM articles but no involvement in this dispute, but did post above. Your choice of course.(olive (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)) Qualifying information from the page top per this link, Webster's, cited above [20] , "Maharshi" is a common misspelling or typo for maharishi."(olive (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)) My personal feelings on the matter are simple: Maharishi is what I would look up. This is an English encyclopaedia and it is a modern encyclopaedia. I wouldn't know what to look for if I had to search for Bee by it's Latin (and arguably correct) name; I would expect to find its Latin name in the article named Bee. Call me lazy or uneducated if you will but I really feel that the commonest denominator is the most appropriate (however accurate it may be). The article should be named Maharishi (two i's) and Maharshi (one i) should redirect to it. Then explanations can be written into the article about the alternative spellings. fg 19:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC) I'm a neutral mediator here at DRN. It seems to me that the article title should be Maharishi with Maharshi redirecting to it. The number of dictionaries which do not even list the one-i version is quite compelling as to what the average member of the public would look for when they come here. A note should probably be made in the article about the variation in spelling, but I find the argument that the widespread use of the name came virtually exclusively from its use by MMY and the TM movement to be somewhat weak when I can do a publication-date-limited search at Google Books and find 60 books published between 1800 and MMY's birth in 1917 that use the 2-i version. If I take what was said above as gospel and that MMH did not begin using the 2-i version before 1955 the count increases to 374 books. (In both cases there could be some duplicates or other false hits.) By comparison the single-i version gets 2,180 and 3,990 publications, so the single-i version was far more common during that early period but the 2-i version was not by any means unheard-of. If you then repeat those searches for the period 1955-2011, the two-i version has about 55,000 publications with the single-i having about 40,000; if you limit it to 2000-2011 it's 24,000 2-i to 16,000 1-i. At the end of the day, though, the argument which bears the most weight with me is that I've never been interested in the subject before — which is not to say that I've never had contact with it — but nonetheless, I wouldn't even think of looking up the single-i version. Indeed before reading this listing, I didn't even know that the single-i version even existed. I might have been uncomfortable basing a wiki-decision on my personal experience were it not for so many dictionaries including the two-i version and excluding the one-i version. At the article talk page Will Beback says that he's sure that there are as many sources supporting the one-i version as the two, but does not list them. At this point he might convince me to change my mind if he were to present them, but he has not chosen to do so. In short, the two-i version may have been popularized, either intentionally or unintentionally, by MMY and TM but if that's the case then they've been sufficiently successful at it that it's the more common form. Finally, about the procedural point raised by Will Beback, if the listing editor had come here requesting the page move, I (at least, I can't speak for the other mediators here) would have bounced this to the requested move page, but the listing editor only requested neutral comments and that is an appropriate use of this noticeboard. If consensus cannot be achieved, then it can still go to WP:RM. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC) TransporterMan wrote: "At the article talk page Will Beback says that he's sure that there are as many sources supporting the one-i version as the two, but does not list them." FYI, I never said that. The closest I said was "I'm sure there's no lack of sources" for the other spelling. My complaint was that Keithbob had apparently made no effort to find them, and that he seemed to think it was not his job to be try to find any.   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I'm going to echo TransporterMan and say that Maharishi should be the main article spelling with Maharshi the redirect. This an English encyclopedia and commonly used English spellings are preferred. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I agree with TransporterMan and Binksternet. If there is any other evidence for Maharshi being more common then I'm open to persuasion, but looking at the evidence above it seems that Maharishi should be the name of the article and Maharshi should redirect to it. No comment on the possible conflict of interest, other than we should take conflicts of interest seriously. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC) On the basis of common use in dictionaries, I would be inclined to agree. On the other hand,if you search for Books with 'Hinduism' in the title and either 'Maharshi' or 'Maharishi', you get 1070 results for Maharshi to 570 for Maharishi. Maharishi is the better spelling for an article referring to the concept of 'Maharishi- an exotic title that won't get you confused with Yogi Bear'. Maharshi is best for the actual concept within Hinduism that the article describes (despite the list of MMY-organization links from a certain POV fork that Will merged into the article in an attempt to avoid just this sort of conflict). Nevard (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Since there appears to be no further comments, I will summarize the feedback we have received from editors not involved in the general topic of Maharishi, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and TM. (Note: While his participation in this forum is apprecoiated I am not including User:Fladrif in my summary of uninvolved editors since he/she has extensive experience editing the MMY and TM articles and the TM ArbCom of 2010.) Therefore I summarize as follows: Userfg: "The article should be named Maharishi (two i's) and Maharshi (one i) should redirect to it." User TransporterMan: "It seems to me that the article title should be Maharishi with Maharshi redirecting to it." User Binksternet: "I'm going to echo TransporterMan and say that Maharishi should be the main article spelling with Maharshi the redirect." User Stradavarius: "looking at the evidence above it seems that Maharishi should be the name of the article and Maharshi should redirect to it" User Nevard: "On the basis of common use in dictionaries, I would be inclined to agree." "Maharishi is the better spelling for an article referring to the concept of 'Maharishi" "Maharshi is best for the actual concept within Hinduism that the article describes" So it appears that 4 uninvolved users feel that the article title should be Maharishi and that Maharshi (one i) should redirect to Maharishi (two i). One editor agrees that Maharishi (two i) is the commonly used spelling per dictionaries but also feels that Maharshi (one i) should have its own article since it is a prevalent spelling within the concept of Hinduism. Therefore there seems to be a clear consensus amongst the uninvolved members of the community that the main article should be called Maharishi (two i) and Maharshi (one i) should redirect to it. Thank you to all those that participated in this community forum.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Awesome! Resolved is a wonderful word  fg 17:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See Also list

• Maharshi (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 is discussion on the talk page about reducing or removing the See Also list.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Keithbob (talk · contribs)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs)
• Bigweeboy (talk · contribs)

I have created a See Also list with all related article names. In my opinion it meets the criteria for WP:ALSO which says "A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles. Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." However, I am open to feedback from the community.

• Should the See Also list be removed?
• Reduced? If so,then what is the objective criteria that should be used to reduce it?
• Or should it be kept the way it is?

• 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

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=See Also list}} --~~~~ 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?

Yes, Talk page discussion

• How do you think we can help?

By providing comments from uninvolved editors (ie those who did not participate in the 2010 TM ArbCom and have no past history on the TM article topics).

— Keithbob • Talk • 19:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

See Also list discussion

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

Only the links to Maha, Maharaj, and Rishi are even remotely appropriate. This isn't even a question of whether the School article should link to every school with 'School' in its name- how many of the links in the See Also section of the Maharishi fork were even to articles on people who have been described as 'Maharshi's? One? I'm sure there is already a list of 'every organization founded by MMY followers' somewhere- it doesn't need to be duplicated in this article. Nevard (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you think should be done. Which items should remain on the See Also list? Or do you feel the entire section should be removed? Thanks for your input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not in favour of a long list of links in the See Also section. Perhaps we can have a link to Maha, Maharaj, Maharishi Bhrigu and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi would be enough. But I am also happy if there is NO See Also section, with the difference in spelling being explained in the body of the article. --BwB (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all of the entries on the list except Maha, Maharaj, Maharishi Bhrigu and Rishi. Per the comments above. I did not include MMY as he is already wiki linked in the article text. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Kamala Lopez

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Kamala Lopez (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 dispute had originally been addressed on Oct 10, 2011 through dispute resolution. The argument is about the appropriate venue for an opinion about a film made by Lopez that webberkenny wishes to pound into the article. The back and forth on talk pages for Mr. Stradivarius and Drmies is enlightening about the very personal stance he/she has taken. The bottom line: Mr. Stradivarius made it very clear after our first Dispute Resolution go round that... "...it is ok to have some criticism of the film in her biography, but only from mainstream film critics, and there should not be too much weight on the criticism compared to the other coverage of the film. Criticism from Simpson should probably be limited to the article on the film itself..." Webberkenney refuses to abide by that decision. I believe he/she should be admonished for vandalism as he/she was in Nov 2008 and blocked from editing this article. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? JHScribe (talk · contribs) Webberkenny (talk · contribs) I believe the most telling statement about webberkenny's state of mind is from the Mr. Stradivarius talk page on which he/she (Webberkenny - ed) states: "Simpson is and has been an artist on the national and international levels working in the peace movement, very notably since 9/11. You are trying to elevate Lopez (probably yourself) to Simpson's level, and the level of thousands (if not millions) of legitimate, hard working activist. Ask Cindy Sheehan or S. Brian Willson or Mimi Kennedy or Frank Dorrel or any of a host of other relevant peace activists today, and they will know and applaud Simpson's work and refute any claims you (Lopez) have of meaningful activism. Lopez (you) have a long and sordid history of alienating people including Ben Affleck, a well-respected political activist who has revealed Lopez's (your) narcissistic, phony tendencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webberkenny (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)" 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. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Kamala Lopez}} --~~~~ 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? Several administrator talk pages and a previous Dispute Resolution ruling has not resolved this issue. How do you think we can help? Block webberkenny from editing this page. JHScribe (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Kamala Lopez discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. For those interested, here are the talk pages this dispute has been carried out on: Previous DRN thread Talk:Kamala Lopez Drmies' talk page thread Thread on my talk page (and see the thread below as well) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Not sure how my advocacy and support for Simpson is any more virulent than is JHScribe's in support of Lopez. I'm certainly not creating a resume/fan site for Simpson as s/he is for Lopez. I have made the case, after Simpson mentioned the film in a very recent Huffington Post two-part interview, that of genuine significance are the failure of the film after such a successful run of the play on which it's based, and the disappointment of the author and star of the film. I think it's disingenuous and very clearly biased to continually try to paint a picture of Lopez as #1 the creator of the project and #2 the director of a wildly successful and important film, none of which are close to true.Webberkenny (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Your "support" or fanaticism for yourself is fine. You have your fan page and film page and all the outlets for your rants you could possibly want. However, a decision was rendered and editing has culled this page to simple facts. The film page is a fine place to put your "mainstream" critic info. I doubt many if any critics saw the film. I'm sure they would have commented on the acting if they had. As for the truth about the film, which seems to escape you, Lopez IS the director of the film but credit for creating it is given to you. Also, it was awarded by a nationally and internationally recognized group. My final question - what has Lopez done to make you this bitter? At least make it clear how you have been wronged personally rather than dragging Ben Affleck into this... Ben Affleck? Really? JHScribe (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC) You continue to reveal your self as a Lopez sock puppet. If you are convinced that I am the subject of a page on which I am and have been contributing for a long time, why not report it and let a legitimate investigation by Wikipedia administrators be instigated and carried out?Webberkenny (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Enough with the sockpuppet stuff. Investigation open and closed. I will await the ruling on the dispute and abide by that decision. I hope you will also. JHScribe (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Clerk's note: The requested relief, blocking or a topic ban, is not within the power or scope of this noticeboard. If that is actually the only relief desired, a request ought to be made at WP:ANI (please leave a note here so this discussion can be closed, if you do so), but — and I do not mean to imply anything by this, but just to make you aware of the issue — please be careful about WP:BOOMERANG should you care to go forward with that suggestion. Is there some other manner in which we might help? — TransporterMan (TALK) (as clerk) 15:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC) I will investigate the remedies you have mentioned. However, I would appreciate your opinion about this debacle. Not necessarily a "you're right, he/she's wrong" but rather your viewpoint as an experienced Wikipedian. An opinion/recommendation for the appropriate placement of the content in question was rendered by Mr. Stradivarius. I accepted that as a guideline that should be followed. Because my counterpart does not, I feel the content has become irrelevant but the enforcement of a standard should be imposed even if it results in a bad outcome for me. I'm sorry that this ongoing disagreement has necessitated your involvement. I'm sure there are many many more important things you could be doing. JHScribe (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC) I'm basically going to defer to my respected colleague's opinion on this matter and, at the risk of biting, instead make these comments to both editors: A great deal of the problem that he, Drmies, I, and most other experienced Wikipedians have with this dispute is that it is being fought out on arguments which have very little to do with the way in which Wikipedia goes about doing business. You both need to realize that those of us who are here for the long haul have one central interest: what's best for Wikipedia. Not what's best for any topic, subject, person, or editor, but what's best for Wikipedia. That's not just a roll-your-own concept or it-means-whatever-you-think-it-means concept, either; it's well defined and refined though the Five Pillars, Wikipedia policy, and everyday convention. If what's best for Wikipedia in general is not your first and most important interest and goal in being here, that does not mean that you are not welcome here — within limits. But so long as you choose to limit your editing to articles about which you have a passionate interest then you're constantly going to be a square peg in a round hole and never really "get" why and how things happen here. It's also going to cause you to feel a sense of urgency about your favored articles which experienced Wikipedians do not feel since there is no deadline. So you wanted my opinion, here it is: both of you should stop editing the articles in question and spend a couple of thousand edits and two or three months doing several of the gazillion other things you can do at Wikipedia and then, if you still think it's needed, come back to these pages prepared to argue the issues on the basis of Wikipedia policy and what's best for the encyclopedia, not on the basis of the arguments made so far. If your reaction to that is "No thanks, I'm only interested in this" or "this is too important to wait for that" or "I need to defend x, y, or z" (which are all different ways of saying the same thing) then you might want to rethink why you are here at all as most folks who take that position and don't "get into" Wikipedia as a whole generally do not get what they want and become frustrated or bitter because Wikipedia's goals are different from their own. I'd recommend that at the very least that you both read my advice to new users page and follow and read all the links, especially (but not only) the one to my Wikipedia, Bicycles, and Wagons essay. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Thank you, sir. Will do.Webberkenny (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC) I appreciate the 50,000 foot view and find it consistent with my understanding of the policies but...the issue of a fair and balanced page versus a fan page or inappropriate location for certain information remains and your position means that the last edit is the final word. I will not reverse it although, again, it would be in agreement with my understanding of Mr. Stradivarius' original recommendation. The mission is also to offer feedback to new contributors and give them specific examples, isn't it? I do not believe any amount of time away from the subject will result in a change of my position as stated on the article's Talk Page. That is - what constitutes a balanced article? I don't feel that any of the critic opinions meet a criteria as "mainstream" (excepting the quote from Joe Morgenstern of the WSJ or Congressman Dennis Kucinich or Patricia Foulkrod, Producer/Director of The Ground Truth)[21] and so feel the SOURCE not the opinion is the issue. I visited an ANI discussion and it seems that Wikipedia is a place where individuals (including the two of us) can battle and edit war without end while the merits of the argument are kicked around and policies are subverted to avoid any decisions. As I see it, awaiting the decision only benefits one of us. My recommendation - edit the section yourself and I will not change it. webberkenny, would you agree to that? No matter what, I will not darken your virtual door again after this. I will, however, begin editing elsewhere and hope to find consensus instead of conflict. As for my conduct on Wikipedia, I already realize that I came charging in, guns blazing. This experience has changed my approach and dramatically improved my knowledge of standards and policies so I guess that's a plus. Ciao JHScribe (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

• Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (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 disagree on which form/order of the lead is neutral, and discussion between us two seems to get nowhere. I proposed a third option, but that was not acceptable to the other user either.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Araignee (talk · contribs)
• Viramag (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.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints}} --~~~~ 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 tried discussing the edits, but have not come to an agreement on the lead to date.

• How do you think we can help?

More voices discussing the changes would be appreciated, as it seems it's mainly myself and the other user. It's necessary to get outside opinions, and I have also posted a request here, but I'm not sure how else to generate a discussion.

~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discussion

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

Hi there. I'm a mediator here at the DRN, I hope we can resolve this issue. I have looked at the issue and the debate and it seems to me that both parties should read WP:LEAD before continuing. A large part of this dispute is that there has been a misunderstanding of this policy. A lead section should cover an article concisely in a way that would allow it to stand alone as an article. It needs to interest the reader, not be over detailed and should be complete in its coverage. I have found that using the sections in the article as a rough guide for paragraphs is really helpful, as it means you will cover every aspect of the article in the summary. Thus, I would advise presenting information in the order that the are presented in the rest of the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I just finished reading WP:LEAD (wasn't aware of it, thanks). By rearranging the intro to Viramag's version, I believe it focuses strongly on the idea that the LDS Church taught that it was a mental disease. The source used is dubious, is not an authoritative document or official doctrine, and worse yet, is really not very helpful to a reader trying to find out the church's relationship with homosexuality, instead trying to draw a controversy into the historical labels that the church may have used. Instead, I feel that mentioning that homosexual activity is not allowed is far more helpful to the worldwide audience as an intro.

It does make sense that the lead would more or less follow the sections in the article. As such, I think it would be helpful to have "Current theology and policy" moved above history. Part of the difficulty is the need to separate the potential historical labels (illness, tendency) from the actual policy. Per the article's sources (historical arguments from Quinn excepted, which are explicitly mentioned in the article), the policy has been more or less consistent throughout the history of the church (i.e. homosexual behavior is not acceptable), while the progression of labels has more or less been the natural societal labels.

All this being said, I also find the current lead to have some details that are not relevant and perhaps may be interpreted as POV. That is why I propose this version instead, which could probably be condensed a bit more. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I would echo the comments by ItsZippy. The lead should summarize and using the articles sections as a guide for summarizing is a good method.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree...and I believe that the current version and my condensed version, linked above, both follow the order (belief, history, politics), whereas the other version does not. What changes would you propose? ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The current order of the article is history, then belief, then politics: that is how the sections are arranged. As such, that is the order the lead should take in summarising the issues, with the historical view before the current belief. If you think the lead should be in a different order, then you would have to change the order of the article. However, as this is already a contentious issue, you would need to seek consensus before making the change. Unless and until such consensus exists, the lead should follow the order of the article, with history before current beliefs. If you think it should be different, then I recommend you make suggestions on the talk page to change the order of the entire article, to try and establish consensus. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look in the actual content of the "history" section, it talks about belief before history...(i.e. "The LDS Church teaches that the Bible forbids homosexuality")? ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Zoophilia

• Zoophilia (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?

Another user and I cannot agree on content of article, and we keep reverting each other back and forth. I want the edit war to end, but I also don't want to leave the article in its current state with lots of lost information (which is what the other user wants).

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Plateau99 (talk · contribs)
• Someone963852 (talk · contribs)

User insists that I am "pro-zoophilia" even though I am trying to deal with the article from a neutral-POV. User constantly reverts edits and erases large chunks of the article claiming that such chunks are "original research" when in fact those chunks are cited by mostly scholarly sources. I want the edit war to end.

• 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.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Zoophilia}} --~~~~ 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 talk page is going in circles and is not resolving anything

• How do you think we can help?

Stop the edit war, allow the article to be brought back to the way it was on November 12, 2011 (before the edit war began)

Plateau99 (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Zoophilia discussion

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

In particular, I strongly oppose User:Someone963852's desire to eradicate the terms "zoosexual" and "zoosexuality" from the article, even though there are scholarly sources which back them up. To eliminate the terms without even mentioning them would be pushing to article in a POV direction (in this case, anti-zoophilia).

To prevent me and Someone963852 from reverting each other indefinitely, a solution should be reached Plateau99 (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you had been paying attention (instead of reverting every single thing I edited), you would see that the terms "zoosexuality" and "zoosexuals" were merged under the Terminology section. I changed zoosexuality and zoosexuals to zoophilia and zoophiles respectively for consistency with the article's name (as I mentioned multiple times before on the talk page and edit history).

Please stop thinking that everyone is "anti-zoophilia" if they made a change you disagree with. Someone963852 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not about pro or anti zoophilia -- this is about removal of information. In your most recent edit, you have gotten rid of most of the arguments in the "arguments for zoophilia" section. Those arguments should be brought back because they were fully cited; granted, some parts needed more citing, but that's what Wikipedia is all about: constant improving. Your reverts are not improvements, they are a step backwards. In addition, the correct terminology throughout the article should be "zoosexual" -- this isn't "pro-zoophilia" bias, it is because of the zoosexuality sources I listed on the talk page. And your comparison between zoosexuality and "pedosexuality" is not a good one. Zoophilia and pedophilia have nothing to do with each other. In fact, that was in one of the arguments you erased. Plateau99 (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It might seemed like I removed a ton of information, but that's because you were the only one editing the pages for months. No one cared to recheck the sources or remove original research. I came along and removed the ones that were "bad," so they all add up after those times.

Also, the materials you added weren't "improvements". Actually, they were a step backwards for the article because they were filled with original research and non-neutral POV materials. Most of those original research and non-neutral POV material came from the "arguments for zoophilia" section, so I removed it. Not because I'm "anti-zoophilia", but because they weren't constructive for the article.

My edits (mainly removal of original research, non-neutral POV material, unsourced additions, poor/ unreliable sources, irrelevent materials, claims that aren't backed up by sources, opinions) are trying to make the article fair and neutral, but you keep reverting them back to the "pro-zoophilia" slant. Someone963852 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you that my intention is not to make a "pro-zoophilia slant" in the article? If anything, you're making an "anti-zoosexual" slant in the article by censoring information. The only reason I am not undoing the changes you've made right now is because I know that if I did it, you'd revert it 2 minutes later.

The fact is that your edits to the article are wrong and they should be reverted. The information which you claim is unreliable and irrelevant is very much relevant and well sourced. It isn't up to you to decide what is and is not relevant in an article.Plateau99 (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Now this discussion is going in circles again with you (being pro-zoophilia and all, but claiming you're not [although your edit history of the article contradicts you]) accusing others of being "anti-zoophilia" when you disagree with their changes. Someone963852 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi fellow editors (that's not at all cheesy is it?!). It might be a good idea if you take a short break from discussion with each other until someone can take a good look at the issue and start the process of finding the compromise you have so far not found yourselves. Relax and spend a couple of days reading other articles or something. A little time off will do you both some good. No harm in it anyway  fg 03:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Royal Hospital School

• Royal Hospital School (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 is a section in the Royal Hospital School (RHS) article about the Royal Hospital School Association (RHSA), which is an alumni association for RHS. Contained in that section was a statement that leavers from RHS no longer join the RHSA and that RHS no longer collects subscriptions for RHSA. All editors involved in the dispute know this to be true, as the other two are both officers of the RHSA. However, the other two have on several occasions removed this statement without asking for sources or any normal Wiki behaviour. I believe this is because the statement is an embarrassment to the RHSA and the editors therefore have a conflict of interest. The statement is relevant in that it speaks to the current relationship between RHS and RHSA. There has certainly been no question raised as to the truth of the statement.

In addition, both Ian R R and Anthal1845 have persisted in adding their email address into the body of the article inviting those interested in the RHSA to contact them, which is unencylopedic.

Furthermore, in the box on the right to the article were links to two online resources for RHS alumni - the first being the RHSA and the second being a popular and well-established Facebook group called RHS Arms. Ian R R and Anthal1845 have persistently removed the second of these links.

[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

I should state my own conflict of interest. I am an administrator of RHS Arms. Quite separately to that I am a member of RHSA and have been involved for some time in a dispute between members of RHSA and the general committee. However, I believe my edits have at all times been within the wikipedia guidelines.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Ian R R (talk · contribs)
• Anthal1845 (talk · contribs)
• JustResignGC (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.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Royal Hospital School}} --~~~~ 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 noted the issue on both the article and user talk pages but have received no reply. Edits have been re-inserted since I made the talk page edits.

• How do you think we can help?

Is it reasonable to delete an (albeit uncited) statement which is relevant and which all parties know to be true? Is it OK to insert an email address into the body of an article in that way? Is it OK to have a reference to a facebook group in that way (does this differ from having as link to the RHSA's own website?)

JustResignGC (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Royal Hospital School discussion

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