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	New	SaibaK (t)	4 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days,	SaibaK (t)	1 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 20:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Adal Sultanate

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. Adal Sultanate (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 that the user seems to accept the fact that the reliable sources say "Dakar" was the first capital of the sultanate but wont include it in because he wants to include the previous "zeila" as the capital of a previous adal emirate under another sultanate for reasons i dont understand. also i have given him many reliable sources indicating that the people in the sultanate spoke an ethio-semitic language but he seems to ignore those and he inserted a POV language section to counter my input by including things like "Arab genealogical traditions" which has nothing to do with the language section of the article and also he changed up my original paragraph in the language section and inputted his own interpretation Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? ‎Middayexpress (talk · contribs) Baboon43 (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=Adal Sultanate}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Talk page and through an administrator How do you think we can help? by giving outside input on the dispute i believe it can be resolved Baboon43 (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Adal Sultanate discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Drive by comment - One quick thing you (Baboon43) could do is post a request on the the project pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethiopia and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Somalia, inviting uninvolved knowledgeable editors to contribute to the article's talk page. A third or fourth editor may help resolve things. If no one responds, consider randomly selecting some active editors from those project membership lists (they may not be watching the project page) ... but make sure you dont violate WP:CANVASSING. Or, ask for help from some history/geography volunteers at Wikipedia:Feedback_request_service#History_and_geography. Finally, initiate an RfC following WP:RFC process. --Noleander (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Comment - The presentation above is not at all the situation. The issue actually involves User:Baboon43 being unwilling to accept the fact that the Adal state in question was originally headquartered in the city of Zeila in modern-day northwestern Somalia (c.f. [1], [2], [3]). And he is unwilling to accept this ostensibly because that would place the polity's origins far from his own self-admitted hometown of Harar in eastern present-day Ethiopia, a city that was Adal's third capital (personal information that he volunteered, presumably because he deemed it relevant to Adal-related discussion). He has repeatedly attempted to remove all reference to this fact (e.g. [4]). The matter has been discussed extensively on the article's talk page (1, 2), where relevant links, quotes and references have also been presented, including material explaining the language matter he alludes to above. Middayexpress (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Ok ill give what you suggested a try Noleander, The article is about adal sultanate not adal state emirate city town or anything else, its about the sultanate..also another problem with the user is he goes off topic and makes it personal by now giving links out about discussion on another talk page. his accusations of me having a personal agenda is why i decided to pursue this dispute. as for one of the RS he ignores that states dakar is the first capital is this [5] he also seems to twist my words i never claimed my home town is harar but my ethnic origin is revolved around that city which still has nothing to do with the dispute Baboon43 (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC) As can be seen above, I have never accused the user of having a personal agenda. I mentioned the relevant fact that he happens to be from the very ethnic group that today inhabits the location of Adal's third capital ("i told you zeila was a PORT for hararis and the city of harar it was controlled by them[...] there's no confusion i am a harari and amir nur and imam ahmed were leaders in my city thats truth" [6]). This is personal information that he himself first volunteered (not me) in an Adal-related discussion, clearly because he thought it was relevant. So complaining about me following his own lead and doing the same makes no sense at all. Also, please note that Adal already existed as a state before its original capital was moved from Zeila to Dakkar and from there eventually to Harar; its golden age was, in fact, during its initial Zeila period (c.f. [7], [8]). Middayexpress (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Generally, personal characteristics of editors should never be discussed, even if the editor volunteered the information. Such ad hominem discussions almost always distract from the content decision. See Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. I suggest that you both go back to the Talk page and request other uninvolved editors who are familiar with this topic area to help out. Someone from the Projects or the Feedback Request Service will help, though it may take a couple of weeks to find someone. --Noleander (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Really? i keep getting redirected to noticeboards, RS redirected me here even though they agreed with my sources being more clear than the other users. Baboon43 (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC) In situations where reliable sources conflict, you can compromise by including and explaining what both sources say.Curb Chain (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC) The only reason that the one editor (singular, not plural) on the r/s board agreed with Baboon43's claims regarding Adal's capital was because the actual situation was completely misrepresented there too. And this was made possible in the first place because the user never even notified me of that post. Granted, it's not required that he does, but it is considered common courtesy in an ongoing dispute. Had he notified me, I would have simply linked to this source indicating in plain English that "Zeila in the north became the first capital of the Somali State of Adal", and he is certain to have then received a very different response. That said, I agree with Curb Chain's advice. It seems to be the most reasonable solution given the circumstances, though I doubt it will satisfy the other party. Middayexpress (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC) I've done some Google research, and all the sources seem to agree that Adal's main city was Zeila, then Dakar, then Harar. The switch from Zeila to Dakar was in the early 15th century (around 1415) which, and this is important, is the same time Adal shifted from being a mere emirate to a full fledged state/sultanate. Thus, it is debatable whether Zeila was a capital of the state of Adal or not (although it is 100% certain that it was the major city of the precursor to the state of Adal). In this situation, Curb Chain's advice above is best: Just explain all the details of how Zelia could be considered the first capital; and also how Dakar might be the first capital. Just represent the viewpoints of the sources and you can't go wrong. --Noleander (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC) im not denying the fact the concept of Adal existed before the sultanate was formed in dakar but adal sultanate did not exist in zeila because the supreme sultanate was ifat sultanate..zeila depended on the capital had the capital abandoned zeila than it would decline as seen in the later parts of adal history..Ifat sultanate collapsed when the last sultanate was killed at zeila and zeila was taken over by ethiopian solomonic dyanasty than ifat sultanates royal children went to yemen regrouped and came back and founded a successor called the Adal sultanate..zeila was the richest city in adal and ifat because its a port that is why they call it a main city but there's difference between for ex. new york and washington d.c..one is a capital the other is famous..this source clearly states this although historians on other sources like to mention zeila because it was the seat of the previous sultanate and seem to be unaware of ifat[9] Baboon43 (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC) The article needs to reflect the sources, so we need to figure out how to incorporate the source that says Z was the capital of the "state of Adal". Here is a rough wording that could be useful: "Before Adal was a sultanate it was a ?????. The capital of Adal at that time was Zeila.[use MidDay citation here] In year YYYY the Sultanate of Adal was formed according to most historians, but source CCC concludes that it was formed in YYYY. In year YYYY the capital was moved to Dakar, although some historians believe that .....[citations here]. ". I think this would be consistent with WP policies, and should help the reader get the big picture. Create a paragraph like that, then propose it in the article's Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Helpful advice. However, please note that various modern scholars indicate that Adal was already a sultanate when Zeila was its capital and principal city. That includes the Ethiopianist and Somalist scholar I.M. Lewis, who in one of the links I posted earlier describes the shift of Adal's headquarters from Zeila to Dakkar and eventually to Harar (e.g. [10]). So the confusion seems at least partly to stem from what modern authors have written on Adal. The actual historic descriptions from medieval Arab scholars, on the other hand, are quite consistent in noting the centrality of Zeila vis-a-vis the state of Adal. Case in point, as Edward Ullendorff noted on Al-Maqrizi: "The war of attrition between the central Christian highlands and the Muslim sultanates, entrenched all along the eastern and southern fringes of the Abyssinian plateau, is the principal feature of Ethiopian history during the following two centuries. Proceeding from east to west we first encounter the sultanate of Adal (Muslim writers such as Maqrizi refer to it as Zeila, but Adal and Zeila are largely synonymous and their histories closely connected) on the Dankali and Somali coast. At times Adal formed part of the state of Ifat; its ruler was styled Amir or Imam (Negus in the Ethiopian chronicles), and one of them who opposed Amda Sion's march against Zeila, in 1332, was defeated and slain." Middayexpress (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Adal sultanate did not exist simultaneously with ifat sultanate the source i gave above clearly states that..zeila was occupied by enemy forces so there's no way they can form a sultanate in zeila itself i believe historians are refering to ifat when they mention zeila because ifat is the precedent to adal as children of ifat sultanate formed adal sultanate. As this source clearly states again fall of ifat created new adal in dakar [11] Baboon43 (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC) That modern interpretation seems to be contradicted by the link Lewis link I posted. If we consult the historic testimonials from Arab and other authorities, they tend to be more straightforward about Adal. Regarding Al-Maqrizi: "Adal, one of the Mussulman States (kingdoms) in East Africa that played an important part in the wars between Islam and Abyssinian Christendom. Makrizi[...] enumerates the following seven Islamic States in Southern and Eastern Abyssinia, which he designates as mamalik bilad Zaila: Ifat, Dawaro, Arayabni (Arabaini, Arababni), Hadya, Sharkha, Bali, Dara. From Abyssinian chronicles, other States are known which stood on the same footing as the above, one of them being Adal. -- Adal ('Adal) is situated to the farthest east of those States, and is approximately identical with the present "Côte française des Somalis". The inhabitants are partly Somali, partly 'Afar (Danadkil). It is mentioned the first time in the wars between the Abyssinian king Amda Seyon (1314 - 1344) and the Mussulmans. In the march of Amda Seyon upon Zaila (1332), the king of Adal, who wanted to bar his passage, was vanquished and killed. Under the kings Zar'a Yaekob (1434 - 1468) and Baeda Maryam (1468 - 1478) negotiations took place between the Abyssinians and Adal; afterwards there was fought with changing fortune" [12]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC) I don't think either of you are listening. I repeat: the solution here is to have the article include both viewpoints that the sources state. For example, the article can say "Some historians conclude that the state of Adal only became a sultante in the year YYYY when the capital was moved to Dakar. Other historians believe that the Sultanate of Adal existed before YYYY, when the capital was in Zeila. Yet historians AAA and BBB determined that the Sultanate based in Zeila was not the Sultanate of Adal, but instead was the Sultanate of CCCC. ... etc... " If necessary, list the names of the historians that hold each view. The only complicated thing is if there is a large majority of sources that hold one view over another: in that case the article should use a wording that indicates that one view is more accepted or more commonly held than the other view. --Noleander (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Baboon43 and Middayexpress, I would encourage you to follow the advice that Noleander is giving you. Doing what he describes above will not only take away any reason for the two of you to be in conflict, but will also make the article better. Everybody wins. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2012 (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.

Jerash

• Jerash (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?

It is about adding town Souf in Jerash article and mentioning that it only played the main role in Jerash city and Jerash goverenate. There are 4 sentences are wrong and I've provided an evidence about that which is:

• First: Look in this version of Souf article, the source here in Jerash article is a circular referencing which is already taken from the wikipedia article. look here to make sure. so this sentence should be deleted cause of fake source.

• Second: Same here, the sentence related to the source has the same circumstances with fake source.

• Third: in here the sentence never appear, and let's suppose it does! this's not the right place and it has no relation with topic. anyway have a look

• Forth: here this reference doesn't mention the sentence in anyway. in addition that user already wrote souf in this version by anyway.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Banimustafa (talk · contribs)
• Historyfeelings (talk · contribs)
• 46.185.141.158 (talk · contribs)
• 94.249.72.86 (talk · contribs)
• 86.108.119.86 (talk · contribs)

user banimustafa is from town Souf, also he only participate for only 1 idea which is Souf.

• 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=Jerash}} --~~~~ 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've discussed that issue in the article for more than 12 days and I wrote a conclusion but no answer and the other part keep playing around the direct answer until I wrote my evidence and no answer also.

• How do you think we can help?

Delete sentences related to fake sources, Cause these sentences are already wrong and doesn't exist.

HF► 18:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Jerash discussion

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

Maybe you should close or remove the rfc template now that you have filed a DRN.Curb Chain (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. --HF► 23:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Proof for point of view:

• 1: Look in (this version) of Souf article, the source (here) in Jerash article is a circular referencing which is already taken from the wikipedia article. (look here) to make sure. so this sentence:Souf was the seed for modern Jerash. should be deleted cause of fake source.

• 2: Same here, the sentence: The people of Souf and its surrounding villages moved to Jerash. Later it became a destination for many successive waves of foreign migrants. related to the source has the same circumstances with the above fake source.

• 3: in (here) the sentence: Souf was the center of the al-Meradh area, the truth is: village Dibbin is the center: (Look Here), as a proof. By the way this's not the right place for this info and it has no relation with topic.

• 4: (here) this reference doesn't mention the sentence related to it in anyway. (look here to make sure) in addition that user already wrote souf in (this version) by simple edit.--HF► 16:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I am a volunteer clerk/mediator here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I just looked at the article and talk page. I am not yet prepared to comment on the actual dispute, but I can give all of those involved some good advice:

• Talking about the article content is Good. Talking about other editors, not so much. Try to focus on article content without being distracted by conflict.
• Providing links supporting your position is Good. Claiming that a source says something without making it easy to check is Not So Good.
• Making sure that your links directly and explicitly support your point is Good. If any of your links don't say what you claim they say, change that now. They will be checked. Check and fix typos now, before someone wastes time on the wrong link.
• Claiming that a link doesn't say what the person who posted it claims it says when it actually does say what the person who posted it claims it says is Bad. If you have done this, change it now. The claims will be checked.
• Remember, make polite, calm and reasoned arguments, and if the other fellow seems to be getting a but upset, become even more calm and even more polite.

More later after I study the situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed links, thanks for concern.--HF► 18:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have taken a quick look at the article, history, and talk page, and two things jump out at me.

First, we have this sentence:

"Souf was the seed for modern Jerash."

with a citation to:

Surhone, L.M. and Tennoe, M.T. and Henssonow, Souf, VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller AG & Company Kg,2010

Now right off the bat, something is fishy here. Wikipedia does not use phrases like "was the seed of." What does "the seed of" mean, exactly? I would expect something like "X is the oldest city in the Y region, dating back to to the year YYYY."

That citation set off alarm bells. Nothing printed by VDM Publishing is a reliable source. They print material copied from Wikipedia. So we have a sourcing problem with this article. The material appears to j=have been added by 86.134.246.80[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerash&diff=490811953&oldid=488940125]

I am dropping a note on Curb Chain's talk page in case he wishes to address this issue in the article.

OK, moving on to the second thing that jumped out at me. I see in the history an edit war between Wakwakwiki (see below) and Historyfeelings over the edits made by 86.134.246.80 [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] which only stopped when the page was put under full protection,[28][29][30][31] then later semi-protection.[32]

For those who may be wondering why Wakwakwiki is not listed under "Who is involved in the dispute?", Wakwakwiki is a banned[33] sockpuppet of Banimustafa,[34] who has his own history of blocks[35] (as has historyfeelings[36]).

Can we all agree that this is not the way to settle disputes and focus only on the actual article content and citations? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I do really agree, I always want to focus on the article. Besides, I agree of what you've said also. --HF► 20:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you User:Guy Macon for notifying me of the problem of VDM Publishing. I have removed the citation involving VDM Publishing so the phrase is unsourced. I can now be removed per WP:BURDEN if another editor so chooses, but I have not myself as I do not know of the veracity of the phrase or if it can be sourced.Curb Chain (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

HF, would you be so kind as to strike out (using <s> and </s>) anything in this DRN that you believe to be resolved? That way we can concentrate on the unresolved issues. Also, check to see if any on the issues in "Dispute overview" are duplicates of issues in "Proof for point of view." Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd use &lt;s&gt; rather than <nowiki>. —Tamfang (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I second this motion. Thanks Guy for this great idea and for moving this discussion along and helping with the content improvement.Curb Chain (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Guy Macon & Curb Chain for your ideas, I think deleting fake sources is not enough, what matters most is deleting the sentences related to that sources since these sentences are not found, and the sentences randomly placed according to a personal desire. Besides, I've checked the issue and there's no duplicates of issue; so we've these sentences, which I suggest an action (according to the "evidences" above):

• Souf was the seed for modern Jerash. For many centuries, Souf was the center of the al-Meradh area during the Ottoman Empire. (should be removed) (At any case I think it would be better to just say Jerash arose from of a number of ancient villages.)
• The people of Souf and its surrounding villages moved to Jerash. (should be removed, or written this way: The people of surrounding villages moved to Jerash. Cause there's no idea of putting a single out any specific village.
• Inhabitants of Souf & Sakib and other villages in Jerash region were among the founders of the modern city of Jerash in the second half of the nineteenth century. (should be removed, or Delete Souf itself, or delete Sakib and Souf, but to inform you there was a source for Sakib in a famous newspaper in Jordan called © Ad-Dustour Newspaper which is here but maybe it is also a circular referencing, you can check that also.

And I've got something new about village Sakib, and why It was mentioned; that cause the name of Jerash/Garas was abandoning for Sakib during the Ottoman rule and that was not yet permanent since Garas/Jerash re-appeared in Ottoman tax registers. Look at this reference please.

And we can notice in this part specially Souf was added randomly according to a personal desire without any care. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

If you allowed to end that cases, and I will be glad to strike out cases one by one. Thank you very much--HF► 21:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, here is where we are. HF (historyfeelings) has made what appear to be some valid points here, and Banimustafa has chosen not to participate here, but is still opposing HF on the article talk page. HF appears to me to be be in the right, but I would be more confident in that opinion had Banimustafa chosen to present his side of the story. I am not willing to spend hours crawling through the talk page and making an informed decision, with the probable result being me becoming one more party to the dispute.

I would also note that there is some sockpuppetry going on. Banimustafa has been blocked for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Banimustafa/Archive) and Banimustafa has accused Historyfeelings of sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historyfeelings/Archive), an accusation that did not result in a determination that the accusation is true.

I would also note that admin User:Boing! said Zebedee (who reported Banimustafa to WP:SPI) has expressed an interest in this, and that Curb Chain has made some improvements to the article that everyone appears to be happy with.

So I am throwing this out to the other DRN volunteers for advice: where does this go from here? I am out of solutions. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for caring in this case, I would suggest a solution, which is taking an immediate action toward clear points. If you allowed you can Have a look above, and delete/add anything clear to you. I think if you take an action toward clear points nobody can object at this. For me I would like to take an action specially if it's clear, but as you know I am a part of this dispute and I don't like to break rules. Thanks again for your time.--HF► 23:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, here is my solution. HF, go ahead and make whatever changes you think are right in the article, but do them one at a time leaving at least a couple of hours between them. If the edit stays, good. If the edit gets reverted, wait a while without commenting. I will see the revert (I am watching the page, but I do sleep once in a while <smile> ) and I will, if possible, tell one of you that you are wrong. Make sure your changes are backed up by the sources you cite, because that's an important fact in figuring out who is right. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made changes. I hope this will solve the problem. And as you watch the page, I wish everything will be ok. :) --HF► 17:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like you have not made any changes to the page, just to the talk page. I think you should try editing the page and see what happens. See WP:BRD --Guy Macon (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, It was already done. Have a look here--HF► 14:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC) please.

Ah. My mistake. Your edits look fine to me. If another editor reverts them we can all get together and discuss whether he has a good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 5, 2012 at 01:47 (UTC) Reason: Appears to be resolved --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economy

• Resource-based economy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

This dispute only concerns the section titled 'Alternative use' on Resource-based economy. A paragraph based on citations from verifiable, reliable sources has been repeatedly deleted.

• This is a [| diff] showing the paragraph.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk · contribs)
• OpenFuture (talk · contribs)
• Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs)
• Bobrayner (talk · contribs)
• Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs)

From looking at the talk page, OpenFuture and Earl King Jr. seem to have been involved with the article since at least 26 February 2012 and 12 March 2012‎, respectively. From the first day of their involvement in the article to date, the only major edits these two editors provided have been deletions/ reversions of edits. The deleted/ reverted edits were based on citations from verifiable, reliable sources. Their actions always reverted the article back to its skeletal, bare-bones, un-encyclopedic form.

Starting on 12 May 2012,‎ I began the process of providing several additional verifiable, reliable sources, and began to cite from these sources. Essentially all these citings have been deleted/ reverted by the two users above, always reverting the article back to its skeletal, bare-bones, un-encyclopedic form.

• 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=Resource-based economy}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I tried to resolve this dispute many times on the talk page of Resource-based economy. Each time, the substance of my comments have been ignored (the two editors mentioned above have not responded to the substance of my arguments explaining that the paragraph above [defining the alternative use of RBE] is neutral, and that the paragraph is fully supported by the set of sources referenced at the end of the paragraph). Instead, the editors frequently voiced their personal opinions (not based on WP policies, rules, regulations or guidelines), or repeatedly used the talk page of the article as a forum for general discussion of the article's subject, instead of discussing specific, concrete, substantive issues directly related to improving the encyclopedic content of the article.

(Please note that some parts of the conversations on the talk page focused on issues related to the fact that I translated two verifiable, reliable foreign-language sources and used the translations (in addition to several verifiable, reliable English-language sources) to support my edits. You can probably ignore the substance of these particular portions of the conversations because over the last 2 days, with the help of editor CambridgeBayWeather, we seem to have resolved the issue of the translations, with the final result apparently being that the foreign-language sources can be used in citations and quotations to support my edits.)

Here are some talk-page diffs:

• [37]
• [38]
• [39]
• [40]
• [41]
• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]
• [47]

• How do you think we can help?

Assess the merits of my edit. Determine (or recommend) which part(s), if any, of my suggested edits (the paragraph above providing an alternative definition of RBE) are not supported by the set of sources. If my suggested edits are inadequate to describe the alternative usage of RBE, suggest a proper alternative definition of RBE, based strictly on citations from the sources (referenced at the end of my suggested paragraph): The New York Times, The Huffington Post, The Palm Beach Post, The Orlando Sentinel, TheMarker, Globes (which are all verifiable, reliable secondary sources) and The Venus Project (a primary source). (Or, of course, any additional verifiable, reliable sources that describe the Technocracy Movement's, the Venus Project's and the Zeitgeist Movement's alternative usage of the term 'RBE', such as the six TV interviews listed on the Peter Joseph web site, etc.)

Thank you.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economy discussion

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

IjonTichyIjonTichy has no sources that support his changes. He adds a massive amount of sources, none which define Resource-based economy as he defines it. At best it is therefore WP:Synthesis.

We are also at least four editors that agree on a "best last version" that we want to use as the basis for improving the article, and we have asked IjonTichyIjonTichy to explain what he thinks is wrong with that version so we can discuss how to improve it, but IjonTichyIjonTichy refuses to engage in constructive debate, and even admits this on the talk page. The result was an edit war, but the page is currently protected to stop his repeated edits against consensus, so that is currently under control. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(I added bobrayner and Night of The Big Wind as involved, and notified them, as they also have reverted IjonTichyIjonTichy's changes back to a "last good version", and hence also reasonably are involved in this). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well put by User:OpenFuture: almost certainly WP:SYNTHESIS; 8 references for the last sentence, 2 references for the first sentence in the proposed section and everything else in the proposed section unsourced.Curb Chain (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

My involvement with the article is due to an earlier editwar at the article. I rewrote the article to a short version giving more honour to the original meaning of Resource Based Economy (an economy built on production and export of raw materials like ore and oil) instead of the Resource Based Economy theory from mr. Fresco/Venus Project/Zeitgeist Movement. As a compromise I have balanced both evenly. Reason for that is that the economy based explanation is far older and widespread, both on the internet rather poorly sourced. The ideology seems to be a tiny local project, capable of generating a enormous amount of publicity. Even with the balancing act, I regard the economy based explanation as severely undervalued in the article. The ideology I regard as severely overvalued. So when complainant added a total of 1,402 bytes (about 45%, previous size of the article was 3,114 bytes) to the article, all added to the ideology section, I removed that as giving undue weight to the ideology. And I still stand for that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC) after that, I took a break from the article

Complainant seems to be extremely interested in having been editing heavely on several RBE-ideology related pages. Is it possible for the complainant to explain his involvement in the Zeitgeist Movement (and related subjects), because of a possible Conflict of Interest? Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest. I developed the Zeitgeist Movement article from a skeletal, un-encyclopedic version into something closer to an encyclopedic article. (It is not perfect but it is a huge improvement over the original.) In my edits, I included many citations and quotations from reliable sources providing relatively extensive criticism of many aspects of RBE (and TZM). IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Page has been protected for 72 hours because of edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I placed the protection, and any admin here is free to modify or remove without additional notification. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, the protection was clearly the right thing to do. I am not going to name names at this point, but if an editor is edit warring, he/she needs to figure out a better way to resolve disputes. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is ab excellent place to start learning. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The editor in question could start with answering the questions posed to him. Like "What is wrong with the current version". He still hasn't answered that. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OpenFuture has been spamming my user talk page. I've removed his numerous comments but he keeps on spamming. What can be done to stop his Ad hominem attacks? Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is untrue, and irrelevant for this dispute resolution. As it says above: "Please keep discussions here calm, concise, and on topic.". --OpenFuture (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OpenFuture continues to spam my user talk page. Can someone stop him please? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No, he is asking you to stop your personal attacks. [48] Instead of doing so, you start censoring your talkpage from the inconvenient truth. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It is also an outright lie, as you can see from the timestamps. I have in no way continued to do anything at his talk page after my comment above. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Time stamp of my first request to stop spamming is 16:46, 28 May

Time stamp of [| most-recent spamming] is 17:25, 28 May

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I am a volunteer clerk/mediator here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for discussing disputes about article content, nor disputes about user conduct. If you are in a dispute about what is in the article, discuss what is in the article, not what other editors are doing or have done. If your dispute is only about user conduct, let us know and we will close this and point you to the right place to resolve that kind of dispute. If you think you have both kinds of dispute, put the editor conduct dispute on hold and work on the article conduct dispute.

I will have more to say on the actual article content dispute after I have studied the issue more. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are three proposals for inclusion as the 'Alternative use' section of Resource-based economy. (Of course the references would need to be re-positioned to the end of sentences (etc.) to make the paragraph easier to read, including the bank of references at the end of the paragraph, and the spaces between references would need to be removed, etc.) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Proposal no. 1: The paragraph I proposed above in this DRN request.

---

Proposal no. 2: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a classless, moneyless, and stateless global system in which money, debt, credit, exchange, barter, wage labor (or any other system of servitude), private property and the profit motive would serve no purpose and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone and everything is supplied. In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development. The premise upon which this global socio-economic system is based is the belief of TTM, TVP and TZM that the intelligent application of highly advanced science and technology can enable an Earth that is abundant with plentiful resources, enabling a high standard of living for all of the Earth's inhabitants, and thus TTM, TVP and TZM believe that our current practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. It is toward this RBE idea that TTM, TVP and TZM work to educate and inform people. TTM, TVP and TZM believe that in RBE can create a sustainable future where humanity is not united by religious or political ideology, but by the scientific method, venerated as the savior that can develop a system of human equality, thriving from the cooperation and balance of technology and nature.

---

Proposal no. 3: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a moneyless, classless and stateless global system in which wage labor (or any other system of servitude), private property and the profit motive would serve no purpose and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone and everything is supplied. In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development. The premise upon which RBE is based is the belief of TTM, TVP and TZM that the intelligent application of highly advanced science and technology can enable an Earth that is abundant with plentiful resources, enabling a high standard of living for all of the Earth's inhabitants.

---

Proposal no. 4: A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. The Technocracy movement (TTM), the Venus project (TVP) and the Zeitgeist movement (TZM) use this alternative definition of RBE to mean a moneyless, classless and stateless global system in which wage labor (or any other system of servitude), private property and the profit motive would serve no purpose and all human needs such as food, housing, goods, services, etc. would be available to everyone. In an RBE, resources would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development.

---

---

---

This looks like a WP:COATRACK to me. The idea that there are economies that are largely based upon extraction of natural resources and others that are resource-poor is bog-standard economics theory. Linking a bunch of different political and economic theories to it with "A resource-based economy (RBE) can also mean" is classic coatracking that can just as easily be done with other basic economic concepts like labor, debt, investment, etc. The fact that the particular coats chosen are somewhat fringe (why not list what RBE "can also mean" to Republicans or Marxists?) makes it even worse. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There's only one that needs to be mentioned, because only one can be shown to have notability, and that's the meaning that TVP/TZM uses. Having it be larger than the main section is indeed, IMO coat-racking. I think we all agree that it should be mentioned, just not how much and what it would say. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy, if Republicans or Marxists, or any other group, also had their own definition of RBE, and the mainstream media covered these definitions in several verifiable, reliable sources (print and broadcast), would it not be reasonable to, say, create something like a disambiguation page on WP, with links to each of the definitions?

I propose to fully, completely, un-ambiguously separate the TTM/TVP/TZM definition of RBE from that of mainstream economics. T/T/T have very low opinion of mainstream economics; in fact they believe it is a complete fraud. In numerous video lectures and other presentations, T/T/T have voiced severe criticism of mainstream economics. The T/T/T definition of RBE has absolutely nothing to do with mainstream economics. The two concepts of RBE are divorced from each other and alienated from each other because of their irreconcilable differences, and they must be un-ambiguously separated. Any attempt to place the two fundamentally estranged, incompatible definitions on the same page is bound to failure. Even if somehow we succeed in placing these two different definitions on the same page in the short term, the effort is highly likely to fail overall in the longer term, necessitating additional DRN's (like this one) and likely going all the way to binding arbitration. I propose we solve this problem once and for all.

I propose creating a disambiguation page that looks perhaps something like this:

Resource-based economy may refer to:

* Resource-based economy, the economy of a country whose GDP to a large extent comes from natural resources

* Resource-based economy, a global system proposed by several alternative-views movements

If a reader selects the second link, they'll be taken to a page containing something like, say, one of the proposals above (no. 1, 2, 3 or 4) for the alternative definition of RBE.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is not enough things to say about the TVP meaning of RBE to warrant it's own article, and I don't really see how it solves anything. It definitely doesn't solve this dispute. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To my opinion, the second sentence should read: * Resource-based economy, a proposed global system proposed by several fringe movements Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The TTM article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Energy. TVP is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views. TZM is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views and WikiProject Rational Skepticism. That's why I propose alternative views (or rational skepticism). IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You lost me. I don't follow what you are talking about here. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to your and Night's comments regarding the second line of the proposed disambiguation page. I'm proposing the second line of the proposed disambiguation page read something like this:

* Resource-based economy, a global system proposed by several alternative-views movements

Or this:

* Resource-based economy, a global system proposed by several rational-skepticism movements

Or this:

* Resource-based economy, a global system proposed by several non-mainstream movements

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling it "rational-skepticism" is directly delusional. "Non-mainstream" could work, possibly. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Good. If you are OK with "non-mainstream", I'm OK with it too. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I just see one editor passionately wanting his version into the article and several other who like to see the article neutral. This start to look like POV-pushing. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

IjonTichyIjonTichy has no sources that support his changes. He adds a massive amount of sources, none which define Resource-based economy as he defines it. At best it is therefore WP:Synthesis. I think it is massive p.o.v. pushing also. That section, the best last version was fine and got the job done. Having that section with 10 citations to one sentence that do not really explain anything but give more revolving information is pointless and seems advertising. Accusing the other editor of spamming a talk page is down right wrong and seems way over the top uncivil and now used for garnering sympathy here. Forget the idea of saying several of these fringe groups want world wide R.B.E. - The Technocracy groups doesn't. None of these groups are connected to each other. Venus Project does not like Zeitgeist and vice versa. Lumping them together as the same thing is not proper. IjonTichyIjonTichy seems to be trying to wear everyone down. The spare last best version leads to all the groups mentioned. Right now that can stay. Some work went into making it pretty good. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The current skeletal, substance-free, un-encyclopedic version of the alternative-definition section in the article still defines TTM's, TVP's and TZM's definition of RBE as "an economic theory in which things such as goods, services and information are free." Which, as I explained earlier (on the article's talk page) in several comments that were ignored (please see the diffs above), is a meaningless, empty statement that could also describe a prison camp, a jail, a gulag, concentration camps, and other places of detention or confinement. Or military service. Or an orphanage.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This shows the problem with allowing a WP:COATRACK. It appears that the other editors have tried to accommodate the POV pushing by allowing a small coatrack with a vest or two hanging on it. The results is a complaint about not allowing the full coatrack and the entire collection of coats. I say get rid of the coatrack altogether. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No. None of the things you listed above are economic theories. The claim that a gulag is "an economic theory in which things such as goods, services and information are free" is beyond absurd. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone considered a hatnote like "For the moneyless economy advocated by [group], see that group's article"? —Tamfang (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with this proposal. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The main problem with that is that The Venus Project contains zero information on the topic. Trying to improve that article proved fruitless before, maybe it could work now. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What about the two other utopian articles that begin with "The"? —Tamfang (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone considered a hatnote like "For the moneyless economy advocated by [group], see that group's article"? That is treating people like children that need to be led along. Bad idea. Right now the article is fairly good. All the groups mentioned in that section have links that go to their own articles if people click them. Its overkill to help people or lead people that way. A Prison camp, a jail, a gulag, concentration camps, and other places of detention or confinement military service, orphanage??, being a logical part of the discussion??, comparing that to what we are talking about? No. IjonTichyIjonTichy is not making constructive argguments, has no support for his or hers changes on the article, is bashing fellow editors about spam and vandalizing. Best course is to give a time out to IjonTichyIjonTichy|IjonTichyIjonTichy, maybe ask him not to edit the article for a while since zero people support what he is doing and he is not listening to feedback on his edits, just doing the same types of over kill information things based on o.r. p.o.v. syn. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me take each of your arguments in order.

First, hatnotes are not "treating people like children." They are a legitimate part of Wikipedia's disambiguation system. You can dispute whether a hatnote is needed in this particular case, but questioning the basic concept of hatnotes will not get you far.

Second, whether the current article is fairly good is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it is not. It gives too much WP:WEIGHT to the fringe theories. I think a hatnote is a better choice.

Third, the prison/jail/gulag argument was a legitimate argument. It wasn't a convincing argument, but it makes a fair point -- that the fringe theories that IjonTichyIjonTichy wants to coatrack are not well described by just saying things are free. Some things (food, shelter) are free in a prison, but hat's not what the fringe theories are talking about. That is why the hatnote is a good idea; it leads the interested reader to the actual articles on those fring theories where they can be properly described.

Fourth, "has no support for his or hers changes" is exactly correct. IjonTichyIjonTichy has to deal with the fact that the consensus is against him. That being said, he is doing the right thing here; proposing alternatives and trying to gather support for them. It would be wrong to not examine and fairly evaluate the alternatives he suggests.

Lastly, as for telling IjonTichyIjonTichy to stop editing the article, that's not going to happen. He has just as much right to edit as you or I do. Of course we all have to follow such key policies as WP:CONSENSUS, but we do not gang up and exclude someone just because they have a minority opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah o.k. points taken, but, the guy IjonTichyIjonTichy is edit warring and accusing others of vandalizing, censoring and spamming. That is why the hatnote is a good idea; it leads the interested reader to the actual articles on those fring theories where they can be properly described. I don't think its a good idea because if people have any interest they can click on the main three articles in Resource-based economics, all of which explain things in detail about the three subjects. I am also just trying to help IjonTichyIjonTichy here because I am afraid he is going to be blocked or prohibited from editing this article in question at some point. That is the only reason I only suggested he take a break since his editing tactics have been rejected on the talk page of the article. So please mister User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon lay off. I did not come here to gang up on anyone. Also it is a well known fact that Wikipedia does gang up on people and that editing teams control many articles. I do not think that is the case on this article in question. Assume good faith here Mr. Guy Macon as I do not like this interaction accusation style. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Earl, both you and Guy Macon are making valid arguments and you are both right. And I apologize for accusing people of vandalizing, censoring and spamming. I can see now that these accusations were baseless and unwarranted, and you have every right to be upset and angry at me. I was a less experienced editor at the time that I made the accusations. (I am a little bit more experienced now after collaborating with so many great editors over the last 7 days in improving The Zeitgeist Movement, but I am still not anywhere as experienced as any of the editors involved in this DRN).

I have not edited the article since it was unlocked, and I have no intention of doing so without following key policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, because I have full confidence that you, Guy Macon, OpenFuture, Tamfang, Arthurfragoso and other interested editors would continue to do a good job in improving the article (of course, if the consensus is that an improvement is needed). Regards and best wishes, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oy, everybody cool down! Nobody is ganging up on anyone, and nobody is telling people to stop editing, and nobody needs to lay off anything!

We're just saying that it would be good if IjonTichyIjonTichy discussed his controversial changes first.

For the hatnote, it has to go to The Venus Project is implemented, and that means that article has to be improved first. We can maybe "Gang up" on the article? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree fully. This is a good idea/ action-plan. 12:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 5, 2012 at 01:50 (UTC) Reason: No discussion for 4 days, issue appears to be resolved --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Achille Talon

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. Achille Talon (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 centers around a character called Vincent Poursan, who is named as an example of punning names. The character in question is a retailer selling anything the plot requires and "mercantilism in the flesh" (paraphrasing our french colleages). His name sounds like Vingtcinq Pourcent" (25%). This has been changed to "2000%" (interpreting the name as "vingtcent" (twenty hundred), which is not even french or, more recently as "centvingt" "120" which makes no sense. Calling for a source has proven ineffective, consulting with our french colleages has yielded only responses from the same users. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Tamfang (talk · contribs) Pkoppenb (talk · contribs) Kleuske (talk · contribs) To source a pun is _very_ hard. I've been scouring the net for one, but came up blank. An example of punning names is, however, neccesary to explain the character of the comic of which i have been a fan since i first read them, some 35 years ago. 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=Achille Talon}} --~~~~ 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've tried to argue, bring arguments on the talk-page, but that has only resulted in one party deleting the mention of Vincent Poursan and its replacement by "Virgule de Guillemets" without any explanation as to _why_ that's a punning name, leaving the reader thinking "so what?". I'm a fan of Achille Talon since childhood and i'm getting pretty fed up by my two esteemed opponents. How do you think we can help? Provide a thirdfourth opinion, take a look at the arguments presented and judge for yourself. Kleuske (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Achille Talon discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Template:Cue Hi everyone. After having a brief look through the talk page discussion, it seems that you are all missing a very important point, which is that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to put their own interpretations of a source into Wikipedia articles, per the policy on no original research. If no sources exist that explain the nuances of Vincent Poursan's name, then the policy says that we cannot include it in the article at all. If there are no English sources then French sources would be perfectly acceptable, but if there are no French sources explaining the reference then we probably should leave it out. Looking over the article, it looks like the sourcing is a major issue: the existing sources look like they probably wouldn't pass our guidelines on reliable sourcing, and a significant proportion of the article is unreferenced. Someone needs to go through the article and either source statements to reliable sources or remove those statements for which sources cannot be found. Removing the interpretation of Vincent Poursan's name may be a necessary consequence of making sure the article is verifiable. Having said this, we are allowed to source descriptions of the characters to the comics themselves; however, any attempts to interpret the characters' names would run counter to the advice on using primary sources found in the no original research policy. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC) It seems Kleuske and I first met M.Talon about the same time! I'd explain my reasoning (again) but Strad makes it moot. —Tamfang (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Agree 100% with Stradivarius' comments above. The WP:Verifiability requirement requires citations for all assertions in the article. The following paragraph is in dispute: Characters have punning names. The local retailer (his business being whatever the plot happens to require) is Vincent Poursan, which in French sounds like vingt-cinq pour cent ("twenty-five percent"). The name of Talons love interest, Virgule de Guillemets, who is the editor in chief of a highbrow ladies magazine, translates (roughly) as "Comma of Quotationmarks" and sounds like an aristocratic name. There are no citations (footnotes) provided for that paragraph. Unless an editor can provide a reliable source that talks about the punning, that whole paragraph should be removed from the article. Ditto for all other paragraphs/sentences missing citations. See WP:Verifiability, WP:Original research, and WP:BURDEN. --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 31, 2012 at 13:43 (UTC) Reason: The dispute appears to have been resolved by application of policy. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:43, 31 May 2012 (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.

Class action lawyers

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. Class action lawyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? User "TooCostly" keeps reverting page to a very biased version. I tried to clean it to a more strict neutral point of view and warn them, but they simply delete the changes/warnings on their talk page and revert the changes. No communication from them on talk page. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Useredit8741 (talk · contribs) Toocostly (talk · contribs) Cannot get response from user. 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=Class action lawyers}} --~~~~ 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? Warned user on their talk page. Mentioned changes on the talk page of Class Action Lawyers. How do you think we can help? Looking for explanation on how I can get this person to keep the neutral point of view version, either by locking page or blocking them. Useredit8741 (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Class action lawyers discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. This is an edit warring issue but I don't know what else to comment on beyond that.Curb Chain (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) I agree - this looks like a conduct dispute, and not something that this noticeboard is equipped to deal with. The version that Toocostly prefers is an obvious violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and Useredit8741 was right to revert it. Reporting it here was also a smart move, as edit warring is almost always a bad idea, even if the individual reverts are justified. I have redirected the page to Class action for now, as Useredit8741's version was unreferenced, but I would have no problem with restoring the article if someone wants to write a neutral article that also satisfies Wikipedia's verifiability policy. I will warn Toocostly about the edit warring policy on their talk page now. If the edit warring continues then we might need to ask an administrator to block them, by filing a report at the edit warring noticeboard (or less likely, the administrators' noticeboard for incidents). Or alternatively, feel free to send me a message and I will file the appropriate report. And finally, Toocostly, your version is definitely not neutral enough for Wikipedia, but maybe you could try starting a blog and posting it there instead? If you put it on a private blog then it will stay around, but I'm afraid that it won't stay around for very long on Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 05:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC) I observe that Toocostly has no Wikipedia history at all other than this hobbyhorse "article". A cluebat may be necessary. —Tamfang (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 3, 2012 at 15:31 (UTC) Reason: Looks like the problems have subsided on the page, no real discussion here other than comments by mediators. If problems persist, I suggest going to WP:WQA 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.

Comparison of rugby league and rugby union

• Comparison of rugby league and rugby union (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 (Aircorn) first came upon the general topic of the dispute after Gnevin posted at the Rugby union Wikiproject looking for help in dealing with a quote being in the lead. He also posted the same notification at the Rugby league Wikiproject. After some discussion the quote was moved out of the lead. There was still some disagreement about how the quote should be used or if it even belongs in the article. After both myself and Gnevin were unsuccessfully in trying to remove it, Gnevin found a similar quote and added it next to the original one. Gibson Flying V removed this quote and that has lead to a protracted discussion as to why one quote is valid but the other not. The original quote is pro-league, while the second one was pro-union. The diffs presented here are just a fraction of the reverting that has occurred over this issue. These two recent reverts [49] [50] (on slightly different issues) have convinced me to look for outside help.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Aircorn (talk · contribs)
• Gibson Flying V (talk · contribs)
• Gnevin (talk · contribs)

Mattlore (talk · contribs) commented initially, but has not made any further comments. Two users also responded at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Comparison of rugby league and rugby union over a related issue. That concern was the quote being in the lead, which appears to have been resolved now. I will notify Mattlore, but at this stage I have not notified the two users from the NPOV noticeboard. Let me know if that should be done.

• 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=Comparison of rugby league and rugby union}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Talk:Comparison of rugby league and rugby union#Moving on and User talk:Gibson Flying V#Comparison of rugby league and rugby union are where the bulk of the discussion has occurred, but you might also like to read Talk:Comparison of rugby league and rugby union#Quote in the intro for a bit more background.

• How do you think we can help?

We need more people with a neutral perspective (i.e. not in favour of one sport over another) to look over the dispute concerning the quotes and help us decide what the most nuetral way to present them is. The options are no quotes, both quotes or to just have one of the quotes. They could also be incorporated into the text of the article. The talk page discussions detail our particular preferences. Advice on any other issues would be a bonus and if possible it would be good to provide a way forward if other similar issues arise. Thank you to anyone who is willing to look into this.

AIRcorn (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of rugby league and rugby union discussion

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

Hello everyone, and thanks for bringing this dispute here. I'm a semi-regular mediator/clerk here at DRN, and I thought I'd try and lend a helping hand with this problem. This is quite an interesting dispute as the three editors involved are all regulars at Wikipedia, so we are all familiar with the policies and guidelines, and we have all probably been in a dispute or two before. An upshot of our collective experience is that naturally we all know the neutral point of view policy and have had the opportunity to put it into practice many times. Something seems to be going wrong somewhere in this article, however, as we are all claiming that our edits are neutral, but we are disagreeing about each other's interpretations of what being neutral actually means. So, before we look at any specific content issues, I would just like to throw out a suggestion for a guiding principle of neutrality as it applies to this article. Now, this is only a suggestion, and you are all free to disagree with it - that is absolutely fine. I would like us to discuss it first, though, as I think that once we have agreed about this general idea it will be a lot easier to find a resolution for the specific content issues that we have been having problems with.

My suggestion is simple: I think that, in this article, we should treat rugby league and rugby union as having equal worth. That is to say, we shouldn't imply in any way that one of them is better than the other. Now, one sport may be faster than the other, and one may be more tactical, and mentioning that is no problem, as long as we can back it up with facts and statistics rather than leave it as assertion and opinion. The problems arise when we start to use these differences in the character of each sport to imply a subjective judgement of good or bad about either of them. Now, as far as I know (which is admittedly not very far), there is no way of objectively judging which sport is "better" than the other, and I make this suggestion because I think it would be best not to try. However, I would be interested to hear what you all think of this. If you think I have tripped up in my reasoning somewhere, then please let me know - that would be a great way to kick-start the debate. (Of course, it's ok to agree with me as well. ;) I'll be looking forward to hearing your opinions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure I agree with your reading of the situation. While I'm not a RL man myself I don't consider it to be of less worth than union. Also while I personally feel union is more enjoyable to watch than league I know that that is my opinion, just as I know that it's my opinion that blue is the best colour or it's better to be warm than cold. I am aware of my baggage and I try not let it effect my editing of RL ,colours or what ever else. I've only attempted to tidy this article and remove some pieces of the blatant NPOV.

My reading of the situation is we have 1 user to is blatantly pushing the POV that RL is a superior game and using what ever they can find on the internet as stick to beat union.

I think what we need is an agreement that sources outside of wiki can be biased too and that just because it's printed in a newspaper or the internet doesn't mean we should use it a reference Gnevin (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To be fair I think you both are agreeing really. Treating league and union as equal is the reasonable approach, any other way would be a POV. Even comments around which is faster and which is more tactical is debatable, both can be played at different speeds and both require tactics. If this approach, as suggested by Mr. Stradivarius, is used then I think you end up with the result advocated for by Gnevin; the quote doesn't have a place, and certaintly not in the intro. I don't think you need an overarching "determination" on the validility of sources or anything along those lines to reach this point.

For the record, I am part of the rugby league wikiproject and prefer that sport over the other.

Also, just to make it black and white (because it had me very confused for a while) User Gibson Flying V was known as User Jeff79 at the start of this dispute. Mattlore (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I should have mentioned the Jeff79 = Gibson Flying V fact earlier. As far as I know this board does not necessarily deal with user conduct, but this may be a path we have to go down. I thought this might be a less drama filled alternative and after consensus was agreed (admittedly grudgingly) at the NPOV noticeboard, I hoped it might prove successful here too. As far as the article goes I echo Mattlore in saying that Gnevin and Mr. Stradivarius are on the same page, one that I agree with too. If we can keep opinions out of the article altogether it would make it much easier to manage. AIRcorn (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Misread Mr. Stradivarius' comments looks like we are all on the same page Gnevin (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Naturally I too agree with you, Mr Strativarius. While for most experienced editors it goes without saying, I think it's good for Gnevin and Aircorn to read what you said about avoiding subjective judgement of good or bad. Perhaps you said it because you noticed their use of colourful language such as "pro/anti-league/union"; "which is the better game"; "favour one code over the other"; "say a lot harsher things"; "show RL in a good light"; "horrible quotes"; "a pissing contest"; etc. It's also clear they're having trouble assuming good faith and have become a bit emotional about me personally, attempting to paint me as the villain with dramatic stuff like "fighting tooth and nail against consensus"; "your other slanted edits"; "Your [sic] adopting an entirely hypocritical approach"; "The charges you level"; "blatantly pushing the POV that RL is a superior game"; etc. One thing I'm particularly curious about is what Aircorn is suggesting above when he said regarding my user name: "As far as I know this board does not necessarily deal with user conduct, but this may be a path we have to go down." As (apparently) one of the "400 most active Wikipedians" I'll typically be undertaking more than one little project at a time. That I changed my user name during discussions about this article is purely coincidental. I don't think anyone would begrudge a user the right to change a 5-year-old ID that was comprised of their real name and year of birth, would they? Anyway, I'm pleased that Aircorn has brought more people into this, although I think it will bear as little fruit for him as his last attempt. I'm afraid we do need to get specific though, because the crux of it is this: Gnevin and Aircorn are on a mission to have the dreaded New York Times quote (and possibly other well-sourced content) not merely shifted, but removed from the article altogether. To help them achieve this, they've created some nice big chunks of text between the pair of them on various talk pages to make it appear as though there's a real debate going on (a tactic I'm sure you've seen before). I've done my best to refuse joining the party as most of this "debate" has centred around their intriguing view that a quote from a player who was at the time recently paid to leave rugby league and play rugby union is just as valuable and deserves equal prominence as a quote from a New York Times journalist (who I will go out on a limb and say is completely neutral and disinterested). They appear to be hoping that when the player's quote is rightly removed the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater. The article was an unreferenced perma-stub made up of various anonymous IPs' POVs until I came along and started adding referenced content. When I was choosing sources, I set an especially high standard and used, amongst others, a sports science textbook and a reputable American newspaper. I decided that British/Australian/New Zealand newspapers would be unsuitable as even they are too close to the subject. Recently, I attempted to add the use of an article (about rugby union) from a Canadian newspaper, which I thought was another shining example neutrality, but was knee-jerk reverted without discussion. By comparison, when I removed the quote box containing the player's words, I then said on the talk page that it would be fine to use if properly contextualised. An option so far not taken up, apparently in favour of simply expelling all independent sources. Personally, I'd prefer to represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Great, it looks like we are all agreeing about the basic need for neutrality in the article. Now, I notice that there have been a fair few personal remarks made about editors in the discussions so far. There has been nothing terribly bad, and I have definitely seen much worse in my experiences mediating. However, it is vital to remember that any remark which focuses on the contributor and not on the content runs the risk of escalating this dispute, and to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction we all need to stop making these kind of remarks, right now. I suggest that for the duration of this dispute, you all make a conscious effort to avoid mentioning the other editors in your posts at all. In the vast majority of situations it is possible to rephrase comments that mention editors into comments that only talk about content. To take an entirely hypothetical example, it is ok to say that a certain passage in the article makes one sport seem "better" than the other; it is not ok to say, or even merely to imply, that the editor who wrote this passage is biased.

  So, on to the content at hand. I think for now, we had better check that we all agree about the basic properties of the New York Times quote. This should be a simple process of observation, but I've learned that you can never be too careful with these things, so I want to make sure that we all agree about this before we move on to more delicate matters. I would summarize the quote as follows:

1. The source it appears in, the New York Times, is top-quality.
2. Ian Thomsen is a respected sports journalist, and this was also true in 1995 when he wrote the article.
3. Thomsen does not have any conflict of interest regarding rugby league or rugby union.
4. The quote is Thomsen's own subjective opinion.
5. The quote portrays rugby league as a better sport than rugby union.

Would you all say that this is a fair characterization? If you have any objections, or any other points you think I have missed, feel free to outline them below. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I changed your list to a numbered list , hope you don't mind Gnevin (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Would agree with all of the above . I think the key point is 4 it's an opinion
2. I also think it's worth noting that the source is hopelessly outdated . RU has changed in so many ways since that quote was wrote including many affects of becoming professional Gnevin (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Full quote from the source is Thirteen-man rugby league has shown itself to be a faster, more open game of better athletes than the other code. Rugby union is trying to negotiate its own escape from amateurism, with some officials admitting that the game is too slow, the laws too convoluted to attract a larger TV following; nonetheless, compared to the popularity of rugby union's World Cup in South Africa last June, the rival version this month has disappointed. From a historical perspective 1995 was the year rugby became professional. Thomsen is basically comparing a professional sport to a sport still mostly made up of amateurs (or players that have only just turned professional). Seventeen years is a long time in sport after such a major change. Among other things the laws, which have been mentioned in the quote, have undergone changes since then. Comparing the Ashton quote using the same criteria you get:

1. The source it appears in, the The Independant, is top-quality.
2. Ashton is a respected sportsman, and this was still true in 2011 when he was quoted in the article.
3. Ashton has a conflict of interest regarding rugby league and rugby union, having played both.
4. The quote is Ashton's own subjective opinion.
5. The quote portrays rugby union as a better sport than rugby league.

If the only concern is the conflict of interest then there are other sports journalists out there that could be used. In the end there are strong opinions both ways when it comes to these sports and the only neutral way is to present both or neither. AIRcorn (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Mr Stativaruis' analysis. I apologise in advance if I'm jumping ahead here, but I would add regarding point 4 that while it is Thomsen's subjective opinion, it is not a subjective opinion in the same sense as artistic preference or favouring winter over summer. He is commenting on observable, measurable phenomena, and while he has not quantified these, others have. Sources in the article (plus the National Post one inexplicably removed) confirm his observation that rugby league is the faster of the two, making it closer to a fact than an opinion (I would also like to mention that faster does not necessarily equate to better, and it would be a subjective opinion in itself to assume that it does). That rugby league is "more open" can be attributed to the undisputed fact that it has 26 men on the field as opposed to rugby union's 30. In addition to what Aircorn says above about union's amateurism at the time, in the 'Gameplay' section of the article it is confirmed that rugby league is more physically demanding, lending support to the "better athletes" comment. Regarding rugby union being "too slow, the laws too convoluted to attract a larger TV following" you'll all have noticed that he actually assigns this view to "some (rugby union) officials". I've not found other sources for this, but I'm willing to trust in Thomsen's journalistic integrity and assume that this is something he did actually observe. Lending support to the television viewing figures aspect is the fact that Australia's late-night viewing record set by the 1991 rugby union world cup final was subsequently broken by the 1992 rugby league world cup final[51]. I would also add a 6th point or an addendum to the 5th: It portrays rugby league in 1995 in a better light than rugby union in 1995. The good thing about using the quote box as it appears now alongside the part of the 'History' section that deals with the 1990s is that it is "frozen in time" if you like. I don't think the Thomsen quote would be, or is intended to be, taken as contemporary or timeless.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The reference from the National Post mentioned in Gibsons Flying V's last two posts that was removed by myself and Gnevin is not inexplicable, an explanation is provided on the talk page[52]. We have both [53] [54] also invited him to discuss it there. Anyway two, three or more people having the same opinion does not make something a fact. No matter what way it is spun it is someones opinion on how the game was in 1995. I think it could possibly be worked into the text next to where it talks about the switch to professionalism, something like this. It is better editing style in any case. AIRcorn (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The lead of the article should not include any quotes, nor should it contain any judgmental material. The reason is that there is not enough room in the lead to give the appropriate context which is needed to help the reader interpret the judgements. On the other hand, the body of the article can and should contain judgements and opinions of important commentators on rugby. The WP:NPOV policy requires that all viewpoints be represented fairly in the article. Generally speaking, editors should put aside their own prejudices and try to make the article as unbiased and objective as possible. Quotes from notable commentators are appropriate for inclusion, however, the quotes should not be hand-selected by editors; instead, any quotes used should be quotes that were selected by secondary sources. In other words, a quote should be included only if a secondary source writing about rugby mentions the quote. --Noleander (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what Noleander said. :) As far as I am aware there is no requirement to stick to quotes that have been selected by secondary sources, but in cases like this where quotes are controversial I think this would be a very good way of keeping all the involved parties honest about what they include. There are a number of points in WP:QUOTE that I was going to bring up as well, but if we can agree to this then it probably won't be necessary to go through all of them. So, would you all be willing to give this principle a try? I'm not sure there are any secondary sources that quote either Ashton or Thomsen, but I bet that there are plenty of other juicy quotes listed in the secondary sources. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 06:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions about how to present these, or similar, quotes (box or intext). Personally if we are going with quotes I would like to keep them short According to such and such union is "much slower than league", while Chris Ashton says union has "much more of a tactical side". Also when you say selected by secondary sources do you mean a newspaper quoting someone as opposed to us quoting a newspaper? I ask because if that is the case then the Ashton one could pass as it is sourced by Hugh Godwin[55]. AIRcorn (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If the fate of the New York Times quote is to hinge on how controversial it is, I would ask that this question be looked at thoroughly. For reasons I've outlined above I remain to be convinced that the quote is (outside the talk pages of Wikipedia) controversial at all.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, when I said "controversial" I was specifically talking about that the fact that the quote has been disputed on the talk pages of Wikipedia. So it looks like your answer to my question above is a "no", then. :) For now, let's just bear that solution in mind should we get stuck later on, and move on to the next step. Now, we've agreed that we shouldn't treat rugby league or rugby union as subjectively better or worse than each other, and we have also agreed that the New York Times quote portrays rugby union as a better sport than rugby league. So the question now would seem to be how we reconcile these two facts. Here's what WP:QUOTE has to say about it:

1. "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided."
2. "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it. Instead of using quoteboxes to highlight its notability, explain its importance before introducing the quote or in an introduction to the quote."
3. "Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose."

And here's how I see the quote faring in relation to these three points:

1. We definitely have to be careful here. We have agreed that the quote itself is not neutral (i.e. it favours rugby union), so if we do include it we need to make sure that we present it in a way that preserves the overall neutrality of the article.
2. As it is, the quote stands out prominently, and readers' eyes are drawn towards it. Because of this, WP:QUOTE implies that the prominence of the quote makes it seem as though Wikipedia endorses Thomsen's opinion. With nothing to counteract that prominence, this would indeed seem to create a neutrality problem. Also, the importance of the quote is not explained.
3. Though the quote is indirectly related to the text around it by being made in the historical context of the move to professionalism in 1995, this may not be immediately clear to readers unfamiliar with the subject. For instance, Thomsen is not mentioned in the text, and neither is the speed of the game or the quality of the athletes, both integral parts of the quote.

From this analysis, there do appear to be problems with the way the quote is used in the article, and it seems that something needs to be done to reduce the emphasis on the quote, whether that is by better putting it in context, or by introducing contrasting viewpoints. Gibson Flying V, would you agree with this analysis, and if not do you have any suggestions on how it can be improved? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

portrays rugby union as a better sport than rugby league have you mixed up your codes? Gnevin (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)?

Classical_Liberalism

• Classical liberalism (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?

Several editors claim that the interpretation given in the article for the origin of "dismal science" has been shown to be incorrect. Another editor believes that the view currently expressed in the article is "mainstream," and should therefore be left, correct or not. The other editors disagree that the current interpretation is either correct or commonly accepted by experts.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• The_Four_Deuces (talk · contribs)
• Zac Gochenour (talk · contribs)
• Austinecon (talk · contribs)

Several more users are involved, posting only under their IP address.

• 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=Classical_Liberalism}} --~~~~ 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 the talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

Judge the evidence and adjudicate the dispute based on a third party reading of the evidence presented.

ZG (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Classical_Liberalism discussion

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

• I changed "Classical Liberalism" (a redirect) to "Classical liberalism" (the article presumably in question). —Tamfang (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In an article on the libertarian website Library of Economics and Liberty, it says, "Everyone knows that economics is the dismal science. And almost everyone knows that it was given this description by Thomas Carlyle, who was inspired to coin the phrase by T. R. Malthus's gloomy prediction that population would always grow faster than food, dooming mankind to unending poverty and hardship.

"While this story is well-known, it is also wrong."

This "wrong description" is included in the article and is reliably sourced to Mills, John. A critical history of economics. Basingstoke, Hampshire UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002. Another source (Diane Coyle's The Soulful Science: What Economists Really Do and Why It Matters, Princeton University Press, 2010, p.42) says, "[Malthus' "Essay on the principle of population"] earned economics the description the "dismal science" from historian Thomas Carlyle."[56]

While it may be that the blog is right and mainstream historians and economists are wrong, we need to go with the academic consensus. I can find no evidence that the blog`s view has received any acknowledgement.

TFD (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is that libertarian article if anyone should want to, y'know, look at it. —Tamfang (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Consider the following quote, and the title of the essay in which it appeared:

"Truly, my philanthropic friends, Exeter Hall Philanthropy is wonderful; and the Social Science—not a 'gay science,' but a rueful—which finds the secret of this universe in 'supply-and-demand,' and reduces the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone, is also wonderful. Not a 'gay science,' I should say, like some we have heard of; no, a dreary, desolate, and indeed quite abject and distressing one; what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science. These two, Exeter Hall Philanthropy and the Dismal Science, led by any sacred cause of Black Emancipation, or the like, to fall in love and make a wedding of it,—will give birth to progenies and prodigies; dark extensive moon-calves, unnameable abortions, wide-coiled monstrosities, such as the world has not seen hitherto!" (Emphasis added)

Source: Carlyle, Thomas - An Occasional discourse on the Negro Question, pp. 672-73 (1849)

I cannot find any evidence that calls into question the econlib.org claim that this was where Thomas Carlyle first labeled economics the "dismal science".

We should report what the sources say about the origin of the phrase "dismal science." We should not put the claim in Wikipedia's voice, nor should we ignore a minority view that quotes Carlyle himself as saying otherwise. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly no dispute here that the consensus (in the sense of "people who are at least vaguely familiar with the phrase 'dismal science' and have at least some impression of its origins and why Carlyle used the term") believes the phrase referenced Malthus and related pessimistic ideas. The question is what the consensus (in the sense of "economists who are specifically referencing the text and have developed an opinion on the origins on that basis") holds, assuming any such consensus exists.

It is unclear to me at least whether the Mill text cited above by The Four Deuces is making a claim about why Carlyle used the phrase, as opposed to merely saying, essentially, that the subject is depressing and therefore deserved that description. The Coyle text seems even less useful as evidence of the mainstream economic consensus, as the link given above has the author describing (in an adjacent passage) the modern discipline as "autistic economics". (I make no judgments here as to whether this is an apt description. I'm just suggesting that a neutral reader would probably not see something like that as the consensus voice of mainstream economics talking about itself.) It's possible better evidence exists that informed economic consensus still holds the essay Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question disparages Malthusian population economics (despite not referencing Malthus), but in that case those would be superior cites. Austinecon (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This dispute appears to be a case of severe IDHT by users upholding a blog over scholarly monographs precisely covering the issue from University presses clearly indicate the preponderance of scholarly opinion. We follow the weight of the preponderance of scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Fifelfoo, we should present the view expressed in the scholarly monographs. It appears to me that the sources are strong enough to express that view plainly as fact, as suggested in WP:YESPOV. LK (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The Levy article is not terribly accurately described as a blog entry so much as an online encyclopedia entry (an encyclopedia with entries written by scholars in the field, including some with Nobel prizes, and some very much not libertarian -- e.g., Stiglitz or Thaler) that has been published in some form elsewhere as a scholarly monograph and later book ("How the Dismal Science Got Its Name: Classical Economics and the Ur-Text of Racial Politics", University of Michigan Press, 2001), referenced in Journal of History of Economic Thought reviews (See Leonard, Thomas C, "Review Essay: Increasing Happiness by Thinning the Herd", JoHET, vol 30:1, March 2008, 117), etc. It also has the added advantage of referring directly to the text it's ostensibly discussing. Austinecon (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved clerk/mediator for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard here. LK and Fifelfoo, WP:YESPOV doesn't say what you think it says. If you are referring to "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice", this is not uncontested or uncontroversial. The fact that we have a direct quote from Carlyle showing that the alleged factual assertion is wrong makes the assertion contested and controversial. You can report that sources X and Y say the contested and controversial assertion. You cannot put it in Wikipedia's voice.

In particular, you can never put in Wikipedia's voice any factual claim by any secondary source that is directly contradicted by a primary source. You can only report what the sources say. I can show you a large number of reliable sources[57] that claim that Sigmund Freud wrote the words "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", but that does not allow us to state it as a fact once we find out from a credible (not the same as reliable - we are using it to guide editorial decisions, not citing it) source that he never wrote that. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

(out) This is not the case of a false quote being sourced to a secondary source, rather it is what MalthusCarlyle meant by the "dismal science". Levy concludes that MalthusCarlyle called it dismal because it was opposed to slavery. But the passage cited does not say that. Levy also ignores what MalthusCarlyle says in the previous paragraphs when he simply calls it science.

"Science, however, has a remedy still. Since the demand is so pressing, and the supply so inadequate (equal, in fact, to nothing in some places, as appears), increase the supply; bring more blacks into the labor market, then will the rate fall, says science. Not the least surprising part of our West Indian policy, is this recipe of "immigration;" of keeping down the labor-market in those islands, by importing new Africans to labor and live there. If the Africans that are already there could be made to lay down their pumpkins and labor for a living, there are already Africans enough. If the new Africans, after laboring a little, take to pumpkins like the others, what remedy is there? To bring in new and ever new Africans, say you, till pumpkins themselves grow dear -- till the country is crowded with Africans, and black men there, like white men here, are forced, by hunger, to labor for their living? That will be a consummation. To have "emancipated" the West Indies into a black Ireland -- " free,"' indeed, but an Ireland, and black! The world may yet see prodigies, and reality be stranger than a nightmare dream.

"Our own white or sallow Ireland, sluttishly starving, from age to age, on its act-of-parliament "freedom," was hitherto the flower of mismanagement among the nations; but what will this be to a negro Ireland, with pumpkins themselves fallen scarce like potatoes? Imagination cannot fathom such an object; the belly of chaos never held the like. The human mind, in its wide wanderings, has not dreamt, yet, of such a "freedom" as that will be. Toward that, if Exeter Hall, and science of supply and demand, are to continue our guides in the matter, we are daily traveling, and even struggling, with loans of half a million, and such like, to accelerate ourselves."

The theory that population will increase until famine occurs would be understood by readers as a re-phrasing of Malthus's theories.

Nine years earlier in "Chartism" (1840), Carlyle wrote, "The controversies on Malthus and the ‘Population Principle,’ ‘Preventive Check’ and so forth, with which the public ear has been deafened for a long while, are indeed sufficiently mournful. Dreary, stolid, dismal, without hope for this world or the next, is all that of the preventive check and the denial of the preventive check”.

But it is not up to us to read through Carlyle's essays to determine what he meant. We must accept the interpretation supported by the overwhelming majority of historians and economists who have read and interpreted them.

TFD (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Malthus called it dismal?! —Tamfang (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to proof-read. TFD (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is how Carlyle's essay was interpreted by J.S. Mill in his reply:

"If labor is wanted, it is a very obvious idea to import laborers and if negroes are best suited to the climate, to import negroes. This is a mode of adjusting the balance between work and laborers, quite in accordance with received principles; it is neither before nor behind the existing moralities of the world; and since it would accomplish the object of making the negroes work more, your contributor, at least, it might have been supposed, would have approved of it. On the contrary, this prospect is to him the most dismal of all; for either the new Africans, after laboring a little, will take to pumpkins like the others, or if so many of them come that they will be obliged to work for their living, there will be a black Ireland. The labor market admits of three possible conditions, and not, as this would imply, of only two. Either, first, the laborers can live almost without working, which is said to be the case in Demerara; or, secondly, which is the common case, they can live by working, but must work in order to live; or, thirdly, they cannot by working get a sufficient living, which is the case in Ireland. Your contributor sees only the extreme cases, but no possibility of the medium. If Africans are imported, he thinks there must either be so few of them, that they will not need to work, or so many, that although they work, they will not be able to live." (Mill, J.S. "The Negro Question", 1850, my emphasis.)[58]

Mill does not say that Carlyle considers the ending of slavery dismal, rather the results that he believes the application of the principles of political economy will cause are dismal.

TFD (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've offered the following compromise on the talk page of the article.

"Most modern liberals cite utilitarianism as a rationale for the public policies they recommend. This broke both with conservative "tradition" and Lockean "natural rights", which utilitarians argued were irrational. Although utilitarianism inspired wide-ranging reforms, it was also used as a justification for laissez-faire economics, which entered the public discourse not in the moderate form expressed by classical economists, but in a dogmatic version that cited Thomas Malthus to agrue that population expansion rendered all attempts to help the poor ineffectual. According to this dogmatic version of laissez-faire, the only possible economic approach was for the government to refrain from trying to solve social problems. The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 was defended on "scientific or economic principals" while the authors of the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 were seen as not having had the benefit of reading Malthus.. This view led Thomas Carlyle to write "the Social Science ... which finds the secret of this universe in 'supply-and-demand,' and reduces the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone, is ... a dreary, desolate, and indeed quite abject and distressing one; what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science." Rick Norwood (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Has this been resolved, or is there something else we can do to help? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 5, 2012 at 16:32 (UTC) Reason: Np discussion for four days, appears to be resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Tomás Garrido Canabal

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. Tomás Garrido Canabal (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? Member (Mamalujo) trying to forward his own ideology, his poor editorship, not consulting the talk page but instead edit-warring, trying to claim that Socialism and Fascism are the same (due to his own classical liberal views), adding weasle words. He keeps putting Tomas Garrido Canabal and his Camisas Rojas under the category Fascism and keeps trying to add the Fascism infobox onto both pages. This is not at encyclopedic as he is not officially fascist and thus shouldn't be put under that category. Mamalujo has been asked to provided evidence that Garrido was inspired by Italian Fascism and he has offered no such evidence. On the other hand, people have give a lot of sources concerning Garrido's socialist policies in Mexico and even his home life, in which we found that one of his sons was named Lenin, further indicating that he considered himself a Marxist. Diffs: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom%C3%A1s_Garrido_Canabal&diff=467463986&oldid=467237738 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom%C3%A1s_Garrido_Canabal&diff=494803963&oldid=494766763 Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Mamalujo (talk · contribs) The_Mummy (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Tomás Garrido Canabal}} --~~~~ 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 had commented on the talk page and tried to resolve the dispute. How do you think we can help? Stop the member in question from turning the article into a forum for his personal believes and stop him adding weasle words to try to make the article POV. The Mummy (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Tomás Garrido Canabal discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. 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.

Turkish soccer (sports) match fixing (corruption) scandal

• 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

This page summarizes the nature and events of Match Fixing Scandal in Turkish Soccer. However, the page is unfortunately organized in a way to accuse Fenerbahce Sports Club (as also clearly stated in a funny way the 3rd paragraph). Majority of the information and references provided are actually not the facts but rumors and/or falsified. When I first saw the page, naturally I would like to edit the page. However, faced with accusations of VANDALISM. [59] When freedom of speech become vandalism, I asked myself? So I am opening this dispute following user:MBisanz suggestion. My intentions are constructive. I would like the page to be either deleted or edited in a fair way.

1 Here is an example of how I was accused of vandalism.[60] I was publishing a recent statement (with references), which was immediately deleted by LordoBalsamico. (Please also see the reason for edit which was called a VANDALISM!!!)

2 Here I am publishing a crucial information which was agian deleted immediately. [61] Which clearly shows Galatasaray is also involved in corruption. The former president of Galatasaray is going to be on trial for 7 years !!!!

3 Examples of falsified information with references but actually rumors.

- On 10 May 2012, Michel Platini, President of the UEFA, said "If you do not relegate the teams, you can not be in Europe".

- The scandal potentially stretches back several years, with the prosecutor announcing on 26 September that he had discovered suspicious betting activities on a match between Fenerbahçe and MTK Budapest on 30 July 2008.

- Authors persist on involving Fenerbahce Ulker Basketball team, however there is not evidence of match fixing on Fenerbahce Galatasaray basketball game.[62]

- Here authors are completely falsfying the information stating that Fenerbahce fans were protesting not to be relegated. However the truth is that they are protesting because of TFF's decision on banning Fenerbahce from Champions League. My edits are again tretaed as vandalism :) [63] 4 Some examples of unrelevant information:

On 2 May 2012, Galatasaray SK fans protested Turkish Football Federation in front of the UEFA building in Geneva, Switzerland and 13 different country including Turkey.

"As a Turk, I'm very ashamed to say this, but only UEFA can clear us," Yusuf Reha Alp, a member of the Professional Football Disciplinary Board(PFDK) told Kanaltürk television during a popular sports show on Monday night. "Turkish football's future is very dark," he also said.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• LardoBalsamico (talk · contribs)
• 1886kusagi (talk · contribs)
• Lowercase sigmabot (talk · contribs)
• Redliveeee (talk · contribs)
• Kızıl Şaman (talk · contribs)

LardoBalsamico is the main user who keeps accusing me of vandalism and keep reverting my edits.

• 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=Turkish soccer (sports) match fixing (corruption) scandal}} --~~~~ 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. I did post in my talk page and also in LardoBalsamico talk page. [64]

• How do you think we can help?

Either delete the page forever or help me edit the page so it has fair and true information.

Mguvendiren (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Turkish soccer (sports) match fixing (corruption) scandal discussion

It looks like the initiating editor, Mguvendiren, is concerned that unfounded negative material about a particular sports club is being added into this article. It also appears that this sports scandal is widely covered in the news media. This is a fairly straightforward matter to resolve: the article must only contain material that accurately reflects the statements of WP:Reliable sources. If the negative material is not accompanied by a citation (footnote), it can be removed without discussion. If the negative material has a citation, but it does not accurately represent the cited source, the material should be changed to represent the source's statements. That can be done directly, but should usually be discussed on the Talk page first (just present quotations from the source, and discuss how to best paraphrase). If the negative material is out-dated, it should be left alone, but newer sources should be found and incorporated into the article to present the latest, fullest story to the readers (be sure to provide citations for the new material). This can usually be done without prior discussion on the Talk page. If the negative material is not related to the Turkish sports scandal by the source it can generally be removed from the article: editors are generally not permitted to make tenuous connections to the scandal by themselves: the sources must make the connection. In conclusion: editors should present quotes from the sources in the article's Talk page, then discuss how to convey those sources in the article itself. --Noleander (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have moved LardoBalsamico's interspersed comments from the section above to the discussion section. It is against Wikipedia's policies to intersperse your comments with those of the editor you are replying to. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. While this is common practice in mailing lists, where interspersal in a reply is often very good, here on Wikipedia it breaks up the effective primary record of a discussion, making it more difficult to follow who is saying what. It is also unfair; an editor should be allowed to make an argument on WP:DRN without having his argument interrupted every few words.

(start of moved material)

Based on sources. Please check the article' s source.LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It's already been removed. Because it' s not related to 2011 investigation. LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It's based on the sources. Mguvendiren talk page

It's based on sources in the article. Check the sources first please.LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It' s related to the investigation. Because Professional Football Disciplinary Board Member Yusuf Reha Alp is still a member of this board. I already answered other questions. Here: Mguvendiren talk pageLardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You can add it. LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Check the talk page Here: Mguvendiren talk pageLardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it' s not a Fenerbahce Fan Page. This is wikipedia. We use reliable sources. LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I did answer him regarding the issue. LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It' s based on sources not rumors. Please check the sources. LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(end of moved material)

I encourage LardoBalsamico to put together an argument here in the discussion section rather than shotgunning Mguvendiren's arguments. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Ramapough Lenape Nation

• Ramapough Lenape Nation (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 over the words "Noted Scholar" The issue is about Prof Herbert C Kraft, who has written 170 articles on the Lenape, authored many books on the subject and was emeritus professor of anthropology at Seton Hall.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · contribs)
• Old Moonraker (talk · contribs)
• Dougweller (talk · contribs)

I have given references and included URL where it is stated he is a "Noted Scholar". I have included these links, yet they have not read them nor commented on them.

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

I have discussed on my page, the subject page and theirs. They will not discuss.

• How do you think we can help?

I think they are working together and I need an unbiased opinion. Saying Kraft is just an Anthropologist is like saying Steven Hawkins is just an astronomer.

Ramapoughnative (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ramapough Lenape Nation discussion

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

The article is actually called Ramapough Mountain Indians - I'm not clear why the editor prefers the redirect, which doesn't lead to the article's talk page Talk:Ramapough Mountain Indians where you can find that I posted about this at 2:49 pm, Yesterday and his claim that I and another editors are vandals for reverting him. You'll also find my statement that I've taken this to WP:NPOVN]], and on my talk page some discussion which was basically his objection to my removing some obvious original research of his[65] as the sources don't mention how this group might have gotten its name. Understandably the editor as a member of this tribe feels that they are an expert on it, eg "I am a Ramapough and I know the truth", but this is not their article although it is difficult for other editors to make changes this editor doesn't like. As I've said, I've taken this to NPOVN. I think this is argument by authority, I don't disagree that he's a noted scholar as I am aware of his excellent work. The newest revision is hopefully more acceptable - it says "Howard Kraft, a professor of archeology at Seton Hall University who conducted extensive studies of the Lenape, wrote. I've given the editor a 3RR warning and asked him not to call editors vandals on the talk page or in edit summaries when it is simply a content dispute. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to add that of course the editors reverting him are not working together. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "Noted scholar on New Jersey's native people, Herbert C. Kraft" is an obvious violation of the WP:PEA policy and I reverted it as such, advising in the edit summary that this "Has to be *demonstrated*, not just stated". The OP then restored it. He/she then reversed the sentence order[66], but the peacock term remained; I removed it again, adding to the existing reminders about edit warring on that article on the contributor's talk page.

Editors are enjoined to "Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering…" — "Noted scholar" is one such expression.--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Update to my last: The fix provided by User:Fat&Happy, describing Kraft's credentials rather than eulogizing them, is exactly what's required.

--Old Moonraker (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"Has to be *demonstrated*, not just stated". what do you deem acceptable for a demonstration? Working with Lenape scholars to write over 170 articles, winning awards from the state of New Jersey for his research, becoming Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Seton Hall and giving reference to it printed in black and white in various sources. "Kraft's father, Herbert C. Kraft, was a noted northeastern prehistorian and expert on the Lenape. At the time of his death in 2000, Kraft was emeritus professor of anthropology at Seton Hall University and director of the university's Archeological Research Center and Museum, according to anthrosource.net. " http://tri.gmnews.com/news/2007-11-29/front_page/001.html What else is required to be considered to show demonstration? If it walks, quacks and acts like a duck, guess what.. It's a DUCK! Ramapoughnative (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Your "guess what" in the article that the bird under observation is a duck counts for nothing; the guideline requires "the most reputable experts in the respective field" to have assessed its gait and its vocalization, and to have published their findings. The advice for a simpler, acceptable alternative is: "Believe in your subject. Let the facts speak for themselves…if your [pre-historian] is worth the reader's time, it will come out through the facts". This is the approach taken by User:Fat&Happy, and his/her version of the paragraph (at the time of posting) seems to have resolved the issue. Why are you still persisting with this? (Quotes are from WP:BETTER#Avoid peacock and weasel terms, a supplement to the style manual). --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The real problem here is an editor (Ramapoughnative) who drops insults all over the place, after several years here still doesn't understand or accept some of our policies and guidelines, who seems to have a problem with WP:OWN and who doesn't seem willing to accept consensus or that other editors might just be editing in good faith to improve the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And now that I've slept on it, I should add that this editor is undoubtedly trying to make this article what he sees as a fair representation of his people and is in an excellent position to get sources. But he needs to learn to play nicely with other editors and to acknowledge that all significant povs need to be represented in the article, and to accept that other editors may know more about our policy and guidelines (and even how to write a good article) than he does. It would be great to work with him in a spirit of cooperation. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Generally, articles should avoid characterizing the scholars that are mentioned in the article. Calling Kraft a "noted scholar" should be done only in an article devoted to Kraft himself. In this article about the object of study, the opinions and conclusions of the scholars should simply be stated. It is important to use plain, neutral wording that reflects the thoughts and interpretations of the scholars. Editors must avoid the use words that may sway the reader to weigh one scholar over another. However, the WP:UNDUE policy does suggest that the amount of material devoted to the scholars be roughly proportional to their expertise and depth of research (see WP:FRINGE). So if, for example, Kraft is the formost scholar in this field, then it would be appropriate for his thoughts to be represented with more space than other scholars. But the article should not use puffery or flattering words to designate Kraft. --Noleander (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I, like Noleander, am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN, and concur entirely with what he has just said. "Noted scholar" is entirely inappropriate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: June 5, 2012 at 18:27 (UTC) Reason: There appears to be a clear resolution, as noted above, pursuant to policy. —

Vassula Ryden

• Vassula Ryden (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 attempting to add an important piece of information regarding Vassula Ryden's dealings with the Vatican to the Vassula Ryden page. A group of editors are blocking my attempts.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Sasanack (talk · contribs)
• Sgerbic (talk · contribs)
• Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs)
• LuckyLouie (talk · contribs)
• IRWolfie- (talk · contribs)

It seems clear that the users have no particular interest in Vassula, or where they have, they are very negative about her. It is unclear why they are so determined to prevent a small but important piece of information to a page about someone for whom they have no particular interest.

• 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=Vassula Ryden}} --~~~~ 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?

Quite a lot of discussion has taken place on the talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

by either persuading the other editors to stop blocking the information I believe is important, or to explain why Wikipedia can not allow its inclusion.

Sasanack (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden discussion

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

Filer has edit warred heavily on the article and has not rebutted any of protocol arguments for exclusion advanced by other editors in question.Curb Chain (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The issue seems to be that an editor wants to add the following material:

Later, from 2001 to 2004, a thorough dialogue took place between Ryden and the CDF. At the conclusion of the dialogue, a letter from Ryden was published supplying useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which had been suggested in the earlier Notification. On 10 July 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to some Episcopal Conferences informing them of this. The letter and its clarifications are available on the internet as well as in the published books of the True Life in God messages.

And the citation is to http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfrydn3.htm. It appears that the material is relevant to the article, but the issue hinges on the source ... does it meet the WP:Reliable source requirement? The source is www.ewtn.com, which is not a rock-solid scholarly source. I would suggest that editors that want to include this material find other, additional sources that cover that letter and other related issues. The thing that is missing from the source is a discussion or analysis of the letter by a commentator or analyst. See WP:SECONDARY. If ewtn.com is the only source on that letter that can be found, that may indicate that the material is not appropriate for the article. --Noleander (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the above contains the item I am trying to insert (although I'm open to a change in wording). The reason this item is important is because in 1995 the Vatican issued a negative document about Vassula. This item is referred to in the Vassula page with EWTN being the reference. But I am being blocked from inserting information about the positive dialogue that took place a few years later, using a similar EWTN reference!.

There is no issue about the existence of the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger about the dialogue, it is available on this site but I am not allowed to reference that. Detailed and accurate information about the entire dialogue is available here but I am also not allowed to use that.

Surely it goes against all the principles of Wikipedia to prevent highly relevant information being made available for no good reason other than (apparently) it is viewed to be propaganda because someone who supports Vassula is inserting the information!--Sasanack (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The primary source and associated text is being inserted to infer that Vassula has more acceptance from the Catholic church and that the 1995 notification is possibly no longer valid, which effectively misleads. there is already a very lengthy discussion here: [67]. I also think editors who have no particular interest in Vassula, such as myself, are perfectly positioned to objectively look at the issues and do not see why that would be an issue. I also note that you have not shown here the particular text you want added and the source. Also, if the material is important then a reliable non-primary source would have highlighted it, but they haven't. I also think the reasons for not including the text have already been mentioned repeatedly on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie's objection that the insertion is designed to "infer" various things, explains why he is objecting to the insertion! Of course the dialogue of 2001-2004 changes the picture of Vassula's stance with the Vatican. That is why it is important and why it is quite wrong to block it from the Wikipedia page. A later letter from Cardinal Levada indeed confirms his view that the 1995 Notification remains valid but that letter also confirms the 2001-2004 dialogue which is being blocked from the Wikipedia page. I should add that most of the discussion on the talk page has been about inserting details of the dialogue from the www.cdf-tlig.org website. Despite this being the most suitable reference, I accept that Wikipedia doesn't like that kind of site, consequently I am using, instead, the EWTN website reference that has been accepted by everyone until now as appropriate for Wikipedia. To respond to IRWolfie's other point that I have not shown here the text I want to insert, I draw his attention to Noleander's 'Comment' which includes the text which, I say again, I am ready to modify if appropriate.--Sasanack (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason why the self published opinions of a Supporter of vassula's should be reported as fact. you appear to be effectively trying to get the opinons of this supporter included indirectly. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• 'Note Another SPA, Arkatakor, who was posting on the same issue has iniated an identical thread at WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

EWTN is not a great secondary source, but their summary of the Vatican CDF's four Ryden-related documents here fails to mention dialogue, positive or otherwise. TLIG.ORG i.e. Ryden's supporters, appear to be the only one that is advancing the idea of "positive dialogue". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

With respect, have you actually read any of these documents? I quote from Cardinal Ratzinger's letter which is the 3rd document on your linked page: Afterwards, and at her request, a thorough dialogue followed. At the conclusion of this dialogue, a letter of Mrs. Ryden dated 4 April 2002 was subsequently published in the latest volume of "True Life in God"--Sasanack (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the article Talk page, there are lots of words and phrases contained in those primary sources. Which ones should Wikipedia emphasize? Which ones should Wikipedia overlook? Depends on your point of view. Which is why Wikipedia editors don't analyze primary sources and selectively emphasize words and phrases from them. Instead, we wait for independent secondary sources to do that for us. Also, there seems to be some confusion on your part about what is a primary source vs. a secondary source. This is EWTN's own summary of the four documents, which if EWTN were reliable and independent, could be considered a secondary source. This is the text of one of the four documents that's been reproduced on EWTN's website, it's still a primary source. All this may seem like mere technicality to you, but the encyclopedia's policies, taken as a whole, are intended to prevent individual analysis and WP:UNDUE emphasis on fringe or non-notable points of view in our articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Whilst you have now succesfully clarified for me the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, I am unclear whether you are saying a primary source is better than a secondary source or vice versa? It all seems a rather academic to me. Cardinal Ratzinger's letter is not very long, maybe you are ok about it being printed on the Wikipedia page and then people can interpret it whatever way they want?--Sasanack (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Re being unclear whether a primary source is better than a secondary source, I believe that WP:PRIMARY will answer all of your questions. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sasanack, I think the Roman Catholic Church's stance on Ryden section of the article needs some cleaning up, but I don't think highlighting one letter out of four would be an improvement, and indeed it would go against WP's undue emphasis guidelines. The mainstream independent sources that have mentioned Ryden's status with the church as of 2005 merely note that the Vatican has issued warnings about Ryden, they don't go into any detail or analysis such as you wish to add. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

In which case, are you agreeable to me inserting something like: "Later, from 2001 to 2004, Ryden was in dialogue with the CDF which ended with the Prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger, sending a clarification letter to some Bishop's Conferences" with the EWTN site as reference?--Sasanack (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No because that emphasizes a trivial detail that hasn't been emphasized in a secondary source. However (and other non-SPA editors would need to agree to this) I could see one possible solution might be to rewrite the article's Roman Catholic stance section to summarize EWTN's summary of those four letters (clearly attributing it to EWTN and linking to it as the cited source). That way readers clicking on the source get links to the individual letters, and WP gets a dispassionate. TLIG.ORG-spin-free overview of the RC church's correspondence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a viable option. EWTN is not a relaible source for the interpretation of Vatican documents. They lack credible expertise and do not have a sufficient reputation for fact checking. They're pretty low on the food chain as far as Catholic information sources go, and I would never use them for anything that's controversial, like this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

How can you say that "a thorough dialogue" (as described by Cardinal Ratzinger) between the CDF and Vassula is a trivial detail?? Nevertheless, as a way forward, I am open to a re-writing of the Roman Catholic stance which, as it stands, is highly misleading and inadequate. However, I don't know what Arkatakor's view would be. For the sake of the dispute editors, there seems to be only 2 pro-Vassula editors able to edit the Vassula page as it is currently locked.--Sasanack (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Editors should be editing neutrally, and not pro- anything. That you consider yourself pro-Vassula in your editing and want more for "balance" by gettting more pro-vassula editors to edit is worrying and suggests a WP:BATTLEFIELD type mentality. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is more than a trivial detail then we would have a independent secondary source to make that connection. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Some useful comments have now been added on another noticeboard which are relevant to all this. I think it is fairly clear from the above that a group of editors are blocking a piece of factual information which upsets them and it appears that there is no easy way to stop them. As Fifelfoo says on the other noticeboard about the best source of information about the CDF/Vassula dialogue, "The treatment of Hvidt's work above, and on the article's talk page, is frankly appalling.". Yet Wikipedia seems not to have any way to counteract such behaviour by editors. Nevertheless, I will continue to try to find other WP processes to deal with this problem.--Sasanack (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You may want to declare your conflict of interest as the owner of the tlig.org website. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never hidden the fact that I am a supporter of Vassula and promote the messages wherever I can. I am neither the creator nor administrator of the tlig.org website although I have a responsibility for the domain name. As I have explained before, one would expect supporters of someone like Vassula to be the main contibutors to a page of information about her. It has certainly been exasperating to deal with editors, who clearly knew virtually nothing about her or her mission, deleting material in such a 'gung ho' manner. Again, I repeat that the editors who are blocking information do appear to be irreligious and this appears to be their motivation in involving themselves in the Vassula page.--Sasanack (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a thread related to this at COIN. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Circumscribed_circle

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. Circumscribed circle (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 have added an external link regarding a novel way to compute the circumcenter coordinates for a circumcenter, and someone keeps removing this link. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Obviously, someone either hasn't read the article at the link, or doesn't know enough mathematics to appreciate it. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Circumscribed_circle}} --~~~~ 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 don't know who to contact. Please email me the email of the person or editor who is doing this, and I'll discuss it with him/her. How do you think we can help? 98.108.205.19 (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Circumscribed_circle discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. 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.

Armenian Genocide

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. Armenian Genocide (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 have been subjected to a forgery of my editorial history in which changes which I did not make are shown on the diff page as composed by me; and the actual changes I made are not shown. Meantime, a comparison of the main article before and after my editing today will show the minor revision I made to a paragraph (2.1) entirely removed from the location of the edit charged against me by Gazificator and which he/she falsely produced a counterfeit diff text to support . There is 'assume good faith', "it's not about winning or losing" etc. But is there also an admonition to never engage in dirty tricks against those we differ with and use one's technical skills to neutralize another editor with whom we have clashed on an issue? Please see following exchange: Hi. As you know Armenian Genocide is under AA2 sanctions but you're still editing it without seeking consensus and compromise. Please read WP:SPA and WP:Disrupt. Gazifikator (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC) GAZIFICATOR: As I indicated on your Talk page and on the main article Talk page, you are way off base: With your post today at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=495790789&oldid=495787044 you have made a grave mistake. You posted a forgery of an edit that I did not do on the date and at the time indicated. My edit today was on section 2.1 "The Young Turk Revolution of 1908", the last paragraph. This reflects very badly on your judgement and constitutes an unethical attempt to impeach my credentials as an editor. I did not touch line 37 in my last edit. Please take note. Your activity goes well beyond disruption. Diranakir (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Here is the diff where you deleted the translation of Medz Yeghern [1]. Gazifikator (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC) TO GAZIFICATOR: You are only presenting the same forgery a second time. I did not touch the term Medz Yeghern on the date indicated or any of the section in which it is mentioned. Please explain how you can attribute changes to me which I did not make and thereby falsify the history of the article. The revision I made on this date was to section 2.1 "The Young Turk Revolution of 1908" . It is reflected in the current version and can easily be compared to the immediately preceding version. Are you going to falsify that history too? Diranakir (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Diranakir (talk · contribs) Gazificator (talk · contribs) I can't believe such a dirty trick at Wikipedia. Is it just the average? Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Armenian Genocide}} --~~~~ 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? When it has come to such blatant dishonesty, I don't think we can foresee a resolution. How do you think we can help? You can help by reining Gazipitator in, blocking him, whatever. How can I or anyone else contribute their best when the record of our contributions can at any moment be falsified by an editor motivated solely by partisan advantage in an ongoing dispute? Diranakir (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Armenian Genocide discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Exactly what is the dispute here; Has your account been compromised?Curb Chain (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC) @Diranakir: Maybe you can break this into two pieces: (1) It sounds like you want to add some material into that article; and (2) Your edits have been altered. For issue (1), I suggest you engage in discussions on the article's Talk page, and get input from other editors. Be sure to include quotes from the WP:Reliable sources you are using. For issue (2), as Curb Chain indicates above, maybe you should change the password on your account. Also, what does your own edit history show? Click "My contributions" at the top of the screen: does it show an accurate list of your edits? If not, change your password and see if the problem happens again. --Noleander (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC) It boils down to this: the diff page displayed at the link below is totally fraudulent; a forgery. With the page divided left to right, the revision on the left is attributed to me. I never made such a revision. My identity was stolen.The revision I made today was on a totally different section of the article (2.1). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=495790789&oldid=495787044 My revision today was the following 2 sentences: "One of the numerous factions within the Young Turk movement was a secret revolutionary organization called The Committee of Union and Progress. It drew its proliferating membership from disaffected army officers based in Salonika and was behind a wave of mutinies against the central government." In place of (on 1 June 2012): "Among the numerous factions of the Young Turks also included the political organization Committee of Union and Progress (CUP). Originally a secret society made up of army officers based in Salonika, the CUP proliferated among military circles as more army mutinies took place throughout the empire." Curb Chain, I need you to tell me if what I have described is indeed a sign my account has been compromised. And if my account has been compromised, immediately followed by Gazificator issuing me a warning to back off edits to the article, is Gazificator allowed to steal my name and falsify my editing history with impunity and, at the same time, put my editing practices under a cloud and possibly have me blocked? Yes, we have a serious disagreement over one point in the content of the article but forgery and identity theft is no way to deal with it. I expect some form of honesty and redress out of this matter. Noleander: I'm not going back to square one. Either you understand or you don't. Thanks for trying. I can't break it down any other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Diranakir, please try this experiment. First, look at the diff you posted before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=495790789&oldid=495787044 Diranakir on the left, Gazifikator on the right, correct? Now look at the diff before that (you move back and forth with the "previous edit" and "next edit" links). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=next&oldid=495393920 SassoBot on the left, Diranakir on the right, correct? Make a note about what is in the left column under the SassoBot name. A caption and a date. Which, by an amazing coincidence are the exact things you changed in your edit... Click on "previous edit" one more time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=495393920 Thehelpfulbot on the left, SassoBot on the right, correct? But wait! Sassobot never changed the caption or the date! So your post must have been "totally fraudulent" and "a forgery"! So tell me, why should you, Diranakir, be allowed to "steal Sassobot's name" and "falsify it's editing history with impunity"? (Note that the words "steal", "falsify" and "impunity" are from your statement above.) Diranakir, you shouldn't be stealing Sassobot's identity like that. SassoBot is just a defenseless bot who adds and corrects interwiki links. But wait, there is still more! It turns out that most edits on Wikipedia show the same thing!! We are ALL guilty of forgery and identity theft!!! Go ahead. Pick any two consecutive edits on any page and see for yourself. Or could it be that there is another explanation? Could it be that the SassoBot --> Diranakir Diff doesn't show SassoBot's last edit and that you, Diranakir, are not guilty of forgery and identity theft? Could it be that on the right it shows what you changed and on the left it shows the same parts of the page before you changed them? Could it be that the column on the left is not what SassoBot changed in its previous edit? If so, then the same rules apply to the Diranakir --> Gazifikator edit, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Guy Macon: In reference to diff page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=495393920 I find the name Sassobot at the top (followed by arabic script). I do not find the caption or date under that name that you are referring to and furthermore do not see what--if I saw them-- they would have to do with what I put into the article or took out of it. My revision on June 3 was only at line 90. I did not touch line 37. Your response does not demonstrate to me that I did something I did not do. Guy Macon: I will restate my case another way. The first paragraph as you see it at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&direction=prev&oldid=495790789 and in contrast to the previous version is not the product of my editing and falsely attributes the wording of that paragraph to me (once again, in terms of the difference from the previous version). I would hope Wikipedia has some way of correcting the record. If not, then Wikipedia is not what I thought it was and shows itself vulnerable to partisan manipulation and distortion. Diranakir (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.127.31 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Re: "In reference to diff page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=495393920 I find the name Sassobot at the top (followed by arabic script). I do not find the caption or date under that name that you are referring to", of course you didn't. What part of "Sassobot never changed the caption or the date" are you having trouble understanding? Go through my argument again. I am using the exact same argument that you used to "prove" that Gazifikator changed your edit to "prove" that you changed SassoBot's edit. Either both are true (and you are guilty) or both are false (and Gazifikator is innocent). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I, like Guy Macon and Noleander, am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. Let me see if I can simplify this just a bit. Diranakir, I think that you are merely misinterpreting what is shown in the diff screen. The caption at the top of the left hand column shows who made the last previous edit and when, but the article text below that caption does not show the content of that edit. Instead, it merely shows the chunk of the article text, without any necessary relationship to the edit shown at the top of the left hand column, as it existed before the edit in the right hand column was made. It's there only so it's easier to identify what was changed in the edit in the right-hand column. To see the contents of the edit indicated at the top of the left-hand column you must click the "Previous edit" link below the caption at the top of the left-hand column. As an example, look at this diff of your last edit here at DRN. The right hand column shows what you did. The left-hand column shows, at the bottom, the text of DRN before you did that edit, but it bears no connection with what is shown in the caption at the top of the left hand column which shows that ClueBot III archived one discussion from the active DRN page to the DRN archive (that is, it deleted that discussion from the active DRN page for the purpose of copying it to the most recent DRN archive). You can see that removal by ClueBot III if you click the "Previous edit" link. There is no forgery in the diff you've given unless you are contending that the edit in the right-hand column of this diff is not your work. If that is, indeed, what you are trying to say, then you need to know that it is not possible for even an administrator to forge an edit or change an edit record in the way you are suggesting and the only way it could have been done by one of your opponents is if one of them guessed or otherwise hacked your password, logged in as you, and made the edit. If that is the case, the best way to address it is, first, to change your password to something unguessable, and, second, ask for the edit to be removed using the revision deletion process set out here. It appears to me that what you are mainly concerned about is intentional action by another editor, but if your concern is instead that you feel that the way Wikipedia routinely does diffs mischaracterizes your edits then that is a programming matter that should be raised at the technical section of the Village Pump, not here. Finally, that should take care of your forgery concerns, which are not really a proper subject for this noticeboard. If you wish to bring up an issue about the content of the article, please feel free to do so, but if you have not done so by this time tomorrow, I will close this thread as a conduct, not content, matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC) TransporterMan: Thank you. You have pointed out what I hope will be the solution to my dilemma, i. e., edit deletion. Yes, I am definitely contending--and in fact know with absolute certainty--that the edit shown in the right-hand column at line 37 is not my work. At the same time my edit shown at line 89 in the same column is definitely my own work and is the only edit I made on that day. 67.169.127.31 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC) You "in fact know with absolute certainty" several things that are not true. Sorry to be be so blunt, but those are the facts. Everything shown in the right hand column of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=495787044 is an exact copy of what was on your edit screen when you clicked on the "save page" button. Everything shown on the left is an exact copy of what was in the article before you edited it. Every place where the two are different shows a place where you - not someone else - edited the article. It is, in other words, a true and accurate record of your edit in "before/after" format. Your claim the "my edit shown at line 89 in the same column is definitely my own work and is the only edit I made on that day" is wrong. I don't think you are lying about what you changed, but I do believe that you are mistaken. For example, on line 14 you changed the dash in "1915–1923" to a hyphen and two spaces, making it "1915 - 1923". On line 50 you changed "15th and 16th" to "fifteenth and sixteenth". On line 61 you -- not someone else -- changed "mid-19th century" to "mid-nineteenth century". Then you correctly labeled all of these "19th" to "nineteenth" changes in your edit summary: "To correct grammar and improve wording" You made those changes. Nobody else. Your claim that ""my edit shown at line 89 ... is the only edit I made on that day" is just plain wrong. I also double checked to make sure you weren't looking at the wrong diff. Your edit made at 15:50 (UTC) on 3 June 2012‎ was the only edit you made that day. You have not made an edit since then, and your previous edit was on 19 May 2012‎. You made all the edits shown in diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=495787044 . Nobody else editing that page has the ability to change the history of diffs that shows your edit. No administrator can change the history of diffs that shows your edit (they can change the visibility if someone posts private information, but they cannot erase or change the diff.) Jimmy Wales cannot change it. Someone with sophisticated programming skills and physical access to Wikipedia's severs might be able to pull it off, but it would change the "last modified" time stamps, show up in the logs and raise all sorts of alarms. That's not what happened. You are wrong. What you claim happened did not, in fact happen. You have no evidence that it actually occurred, because it didn't, and couldn't have. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Guy Macon: I most certainly did not make the edits you attribute to me except the one at line 89. I don't know how the edits falsely attributed to me were produced, but I am absolutely certain I did not make them. Diranakir (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC) To Guy Macon again: TransporterMan offers the only answer possible: "There is no forgery in the diff you've given unless you are contending that the edit in the right-hand column of this diff is not your work. If that is, indeed, what you are trying to say, then you need to know that it is not possible for even an administrator to forge an edit or change an edit record in the way you are suggesting and the only way it could have been done by one of your opponents is if one of them guessed or otherwise hacked your password, logged in as you, and made the edit." I am not just contending but flat-out stating that the edit in the right-hand column is not my work. This kind of vandalism shows why Wikipedia advises choosing a difficult password. Diranakir (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2012 (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.

Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012

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. Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012 (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 DIFF:I added an election prediction market snapshot (Intrade) for the Gubernatorial Election Wiki page happening in my home state. The purpose was to supplement traditional polling data with prediction market data, since there was alot of coverage about these things in the media, and after some research found that these prediction markets have been around for over 20 years and generated academic interest as well. After a named and an anonymous user deleted my entry for no reason, another user deleted my entry on the basis that "This is not on other Wiki election pages, so it doesn't belong here." This didn't make sense so I reverted the deletion and asked to discuss on the talk page. Another user added 5 sources of recent articles about election prediction markets. The user that deleted my entries then made personal attacks on the talk page and was going to gather others to show me "that this does not belong, and teach you what an edit war is." There was some productive discussion, (after an admin declared WP:0RR), consensus was reached that "A lack of Intrade articles elsewhere does not preclude its use here" and other questions were posed, and I, (being the original contributor) provided academic and news articles, with examples to other users requesting more info and clarifications. Then two additional users disagreed with the consensus and claimed 'A lack of Intrade articles elsewhere" means this information should be deleted. One of these users reverted my entry 3 times after the admin WP:0RR, made another personal attack, and claimed my WP:TALK was "combativeness." I responded with talking this issue with dispute resolution, and the latter user wrote another personal attack. Note - There have been additional contributions from other users on the Wiki page in question that relate to this issue, and on the talk page after this notice was published. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Patriot1010 (talk · contribs) America69 (talk · contribs) Rxguy (talk · contribs) Incitatus13 (talk · contribs) If there is something to discuss beyond ad hominem of a Wiki contributor that counters the "properly referenced material" on the talk page, let's have it! 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=Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012}} --~~~~ 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 made a contribution, followed Wiki guidelines edit guidelines, asked for discussion on the talk page, did not reciprocate personal attacks directed at me on the talk page, followed admin guidance when one was called in, presented a case with properly referenced material, and provided additional responses with concerns from other editors. After receiving additional personal attacks and violations of an admin's guidance from other users, and since it involved more than one user, I generated this dispute resolution. How do you think we can help? The main theme of the issues some users have with my contribution to this article is that they feel this contribution "does not belong here." versus my contribution providing "a supplement to poll data of an election." If we can answer that question - does it belong here" I think everyone will agree (whether it does in fact "belong" here or not), that the sources and information I provided on the talk page supports that my contribution of the Intrade snapshots does indeed provide "a supplement to poll data of an election." and was relevant to this election. Patriot1010 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, 2012 discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Could you point me to the place where this "admin declared WP:0RR"? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I interpreted this comment that way - is this not the case? "I am an Administrator, and as such I have been asked to intervene to stop an edit war. Please do not revert other people edits so frequently just to prove a point. You need to seek consensus on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Edit warring—GoldRingChip 22:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)" (not trying to be difficult - just how I interpreted it). Patriot1010 (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I, like Guy Macon, am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. I took a stroll back looking for prior decisions or discussions about Insight or similar issues. I discovered nothing specifically about Insight, but I did find this deletion discussion from August, 2010 involving a very similar issue in which the community decided to merge, rather than delete, an article (last version here) consisting of nothing but predictions about the 2010 US House of Representatives election into a section of the United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 article. While Intrade was not among those predictions (it was mentioned by one editor in the deletion discussion), the principle of whether or not predictions should be included in political articles would seem to me to be much the same. If a content issue is not controlled by policy or guidelines, consensus for the content of each article must stand or fall on its own, of course, so that deletion discussion does not create any precedent or policy, but may give some insight as to the opinion of the Wikipedia community on this issue. Under this section of the consensus policy, since the inclusion of the Insight predictions has been properly and timely challenged then they cannot be included in the article unless the proponents establish consensus for their inclusion. Such is clearly not the case at this point in time, so if the proponents wish to continue to pursue the matter, I would suggest filing a request for comments to bring the matter to the attention of the entire community. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I will do a request for comments, thanks, and more editors (proponents) have chimed in. It looks like another user (proponent) expanded the section in dispute, and another user engaged in WP:NOBLANKING...Some claim "consensus has been reached" by vote, or because "they have been there longer" ... I know what WP:CONSENSUS says but it seems some editors have a different view of what consensus is than what is at WP:CONSENSUS for this issue. Patriot1010 (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2012 (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.

Bernhard Goetz

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. Bernhard Goetz (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? Goetz is apparently the author or source for some of this biographical story. In it he claims to be a squirrel rehabilitator. In fact, experienced and state-licensed rehabilitator, familiar with his activities in this capacity, have found it appropriate to complain to the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation (the regulatory agency in this instance) about Goetz's treatment of squirrels. Attempts to add this element in a relatively neutral way have been edited out by Goetz. He has added personality attacks against those licensed rehabilitators to the article talk-page. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? R. Rassendyll (talk · contribs) Bernhard Goetz (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Bernhard Goetz}} --~~~~ 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? RFC posted. How do you think we can help? The problem is objectivity. Is it possible to block Goetz from editing out content with which he disagrees? djenner (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Bernhard Goetz discussion One or two editors are attempting to add the material shown in diff [68]. The WP:Reliable source requirement does not permit material which is sourced to "Private communication"s. Therefore, the editors that are removing that material are correct to do so. Material critical of Goetz's animal treatments can only be included if a source, such as a major newspaper, or a TV show like CNN, reports on it. --Noleander (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I, like Noleander, am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. I fully concur with him on this matter but would add that as an inadequately sourced negative statement about a living person, the statement is subject to immediate removal from article space in accordance with this section of the biographies of living persons policy and replacing it may subject an editor to possible sanctions. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Please close Looks like another case of forum shopping; I don't see the filer listing editors that he has been in a dispute with.Curb Chain (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2012 (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.

Marshall Strabala

• Marshall Strabala (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?

Looking at just Marshall Strabala#Gensler

The issue or conflict is whether the job position and title of Marshall Strabala is both relevant and important during a) his hiring with Gensler and b) his position at Gensler when the Shanghai Tower was designed. I have provided reliable sources both statistics and cites which indicate that he held the position of "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead" specifically during his employment with while he worked on the Shanghai Tower while he lived in China.

Dispute detail

For the full thread see TALK at Talk:Marshall Strabala#Late May 2012 update, below I recap the relevant points.

Firms like Gensler are normally the "architect of record" people are interested in who designed the tallest buildings or what employee provided the creative input. Examples, see Adrian Smith (architect) and Burj Khalifa - search for "Adrian Smith" and even search for "Strabala".

I think that articles on the web such as a news feed "Construction Starts on China’s Tallest Building, Designed by Houston Architect" [[69]] and also an organizational chart, made by Gensler itself "Shanghai Tower Gensler Team Organization" Appendix A of MOTION by Defendant Jay Marshall Strabala for sanctions (docket #71, Appendix A, Page 13 of docket #71) U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois] PACERin Gensler v. Strabala (1:11-cv-03945) https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/ (-or- a non-citable copy of same, page 13, that I have made public here - https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4KiE8753Bbab1lQN0dyVGhnYTQ ) are highly relevant due to the existance of a contrary opinion that is being cited.

The contrary opinion stems from the fact that Gensler sued Strabala issued soem news feeds (or a court reportign service picked up on the case). Eventually Gensler lost (note, they has just filed an appeal) as per this ruling http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2011cv03945/256636/47/0.pdf?ts=1329913307 - pagse 1-2 sets forth the facts of the case (which was dismissed in this opinion) as seen by the Judge:

Facts

From March 2006 to February 2010, Gensler employed Strabala as Design Director, i.e., an architect. (Compl. ¶ 9.) While working for Gensler, Strabala worked on and participated in the design of several buildings, including the Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Houston Ballet Center, Three Eldridge Place in West Houston, Texas and Tesoro Corporation’s headquarters. (Id. ¶¶ 10-14.)

Upon leaving the employ of Gensler, Strabala began doing business as an architect under the business name 2DEFINE Architecture, with offices in Chicago, Illinois, Shanghai, China and Seoul, South Korea. (Id. ¶ 15.) Strabala promotes his architecture business through a personal website, www.define-arch.com, and a Flickr website. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 20.) On the personal website, Strabala claims to have designed the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates; the Nanjing Greenland Financial Center in Nanjing, China; and the Shanghai Tower in Shanghai, China. (Id. ¶ 21.) On the Flickr website, Strabala professes to have designed architectural works such as the Houston Ballet Center for Dance, Three Eldridge Place, Hess Tower, and the headquarters of the Tesoro Corporation. (Id. ¶ 22.) Gensler has sued Strabala to prevent him from maintaining that he is the origin of design of said architectural works. (Id. ¶ 50.)

Adding Strabala's positions "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead" which he held while at Gensler during the design of the Shanghai Tower supported via cites (especially the organization chart made by Gensler itself during Strabala's employment) provides a much more balanced article, considering that the paragraph in question contains the contrary claim via the text in the current Wikipedia Article e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Strabala#Gensler Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower.

The current Article reads as follows:

Gensler

After leaving SOM, Strabala joined the Houston, Texas, office of the architectural firm Gensler in 2006.[2][4] Strabala has been reported to have led the design of the 128-story Shanghai Tower while at Gensler and to have completed the "bulk of the design work".[4] Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower."[9]

Strabala also has been credited for leading Gensler's efforts in designing Hess Tower (Houston, 2010) and the Houston Ballet Center for Dance (2011).[10][11][12] However, Gensler has claimed that "'Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing Hess Tower'", and that Strabala was but "'one of many members of that Gensler team'" that designed the Houston Ballet Center for Dance.[13]

Strabala left Gensler in 2010.[4]

My proposed and reverted update ([70]) reads as follows:

Gensler

After leaving SOM, Strabala joined the Houston, Texas, office of Gensler global architectural firm as the firm's South Central Region Director of Design in 2006.[2][4] Strabala led the design of the 128-story Shanghai Tower, moved to Shanghai to focus on the project, and is reported to have completed the "bulk of the design work" as both "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead."[4][9][10][11] Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower."[12]

Strabala also has been credited for leading Gensler's efforts in designing Hess Tower (Houston, 2010) and the Houston Ballet Center for Dance (2011).[13][14][15] However, Gensler has claimed that "'Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing Hess Tower'", and that Strabala was but "'one of many members of that Gensler team'" that designed the Houston Ballet Center for Dance.[16]

Strabala left Gensler in 2010.[4]

Oddly enough Novaseminary himself wrote the first sentence above "verbatim" back in May of 2011 he is now trying to change it in the last five days by dropping "as the firm's South Central Region Director of Design" - this I find remarkable as it is the same time I start citing his title during the design and construction of the Shanghai Tower via declarations and org charts and other web articles - with the reasoning that the 'importance of the title' is not cited.

Note, I am 108.75.223.67 or Jon Strabala - I always sign with - consider me a potential WP:COI

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 108.75.223.67 (talk · contribs)
• Novaseminary (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=Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Strabala}} --~~~~ 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've discussed that issue in the article for about 5 days essentially my initial, revised, and latest update have all been reverted (even afer he agreed with me in one instance), yet I believe provided proper citations to make a stronger case and provide a more balance nuetral article and that I only quoted the cites themselves. The reasons for the reverts don't seem very 'clear' or 'consistent' to first two pillars of wikipedia Wikipedia:Five pillars . I have tried diligently to discuss the problems with Novaseminary's reverts to my edits via the Talk page.

There specific Talk section in update Talk:Marshall Strabala#Late May 2012 update it is quite lengthy, and I tried to provide more and more citations (and lengthy discussions) to support the proposed updates I made. At know time did I put an "opinion" or "original research" on the main article.

In my most recent edit I provided a what I considered a balanced verifiable perspective, I didn't claim he was Gensler's sole "Director of Design" and did not include any original research ( 16:36, 4 June 2012‎ ) [71] , however this was immediately reverted.

Maybe I am the one confused here, but Marshall Strabala, unlke Gensler doesn't release news feed items about law suits, the progress and/or conclusion of any lawsuit and the dismissal are enough to "speak" and provide neutral, verifiable, and reliable sources that can be cited (from the legal record either pacer or RFC express) to counter claim and internet posts at the onset of the case like Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower.

I agree with Nova, this isn't a marketing piece but the fact that Marshall Strabala held both positions "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead." while he worked on the Shanghai Tower is important, newsworthy and relevant. It is even more newsworthy and relevant considering Gensler has made the claim Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower..

• How do you think we can help?

By giving outside input on the dispute I believe it can be resolved via one or more third parties chiming in.

I am trying to avoid an edit war here which I fear might happen without third party input. I think that Novaseminary and myself are kind of far apart on things here and a tie breaker so to speak would (regardless of the outcome) would most likely be honored by both of us. Normally we (Nova and myself) can work things out and come to a concessional agreement, but reading the "tea leaves" I don't think it is possible here.

Once again note, I am 108.75.223.67 or Jon Strabala - I always sign with - consider me a potential WP:COI

108.75.223.67 (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Marshall Strabala discussion

There is a dispute, according to the sources, about who designed this important building. Neither of the two proposals presented above is ideal: one claims that MS designed it; and the other says "he is reported to have designed it". When the sources conflict, it is best for the article to plainly state the two or more viewpoints. Something like "Strabala claims that he is the primary designer of the building, but Gensler disputes this, and says that Stabala was only one member of a team. The dispute led to a lawsuit after Strabala left Gensler ... The suit was dismissed ..." Presenting both sides plainly should resolve the matter. --Noleander (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Noleander, I have no problem with "he is reported to have designed it" I fully understand your reasoning - I actually like a lot of your text (above - short simple no hype and says the basic facts - users can dig for details via cites if interested).

However my conflict question hinges more on the inclusion of the phrase as both "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead." which were his actual titles (or job posistions) while he worked on the Shanghai Tower as per a Jan 1, 2009 Gensler org chart (part of the litigation record and accessible via Pacer and also RFC express) and other citations. I guess my point is that if pre-litigation he held those titles in a Gensler document there shouldn't be much of a dispute of this "fact" so are these titles both relevant and important to the Wiki Article (Novaseminary is saying no I am saying yes)? 108.75.223.67 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

I hear what you are saying, but the specific job titles a person has are generally too detailed to go into a WP article. The WP article should strive for a top-level, encyclopedic tone. Job titles tend to be irrelevant, and can often be misleading or ambiguous. In this particular article, the job title should be avoided because it is a piece of evidence that could be used to buttress one side of a dispute. So, I recommend omitting the job titles from the article, and instead focus on what he did. If there is a dispute (was he the only architect? the lead architect? the lead of the team? a member of a team?) describe both sides of the dispute in plain english. --Noleander (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

 Thor (film)

• Thor (film) (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?

 

In articles about superheroes a standard issue to address is the source of the powers of the superhero.  In the case of the superhero film "Thor", there is some dispute over the origin of Thor's powers and, in general, of the nature of Thor and the other Asgardians. That is, the dispute is over whether the Asgardians are gods in that their powers are derived from magic and are supernatural, or if they are actually beings from an advanced civilization using incredibly advanced technology, who were perceived to be supernatural and then worshipped as gods by primitive humans.

The article originally simply stated that they were "gods", without further explanation. I have argued that this is incorrect, and that even if they are referenced in the article as "gods" because they were worshipped as such, additional explanation is needed because of the many references in the film and elsewhere that they are in fact actually advanced beings. My edits were reverted by two editors who apparently have been involved in this article since it was created, and who have strong feelings on the matter. They have not made any offers of compromise.

My sources include the following:

• a blog post for Discover Magazine, by Sean Carroll, science advisor for the film. He states "the Asgardians from Thor are really technologically-advanced aliens that seemed godlike to our ancestors."

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/05/04/avengers-assemble/

• a prior blog post for Discover Magazine by Sean Carroll, where he describes the film's producer Kevin Feige's view of the technological basis for the film: 'Kevin Feige, president of production at Marvel Studios, is a huge proponent of having the world of these films ultimately “make sense.” ...The thinking here is very much based on Arthur C. Clarke’s “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” '

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/04/the-mighty-thor/

• in the film, there is a lengthy exchange in which one character, Dr. Selvig, challenges that Thor's claims could be possible, to which another character retorts "Well magic’s just science that we don’t understand yet --Arthur C. Clarke." and "Well if there is an Einstein-Rosen bridge then there is something on the other side, and advanced beings could have crossed it." The point being that the filmakers would not have bothered including this exchange unless they were communicating to the audience that the fantastic things happening do have a technological basis, which is clearly the case.

• there is also Thor's quote from the film and trailer: "Your Ancestors called it magic, but you call it science. I come from a land where they are one and the same." There really is no alternative explanation to this quote except that what the humans are perceiving as magic, is in fact just advanced technology. Again, if Thor's powers were based on magic, the filmakers would have had no reason to include this line.

The editors who are preventing edits to the article claim that the Asgardians are "clearly" using magic, and (I'm paraphrasing here) that even if they were, because they are seen and worshipped as gods by some humans, they can be referred to as gods in the article without further explanation.

Unfortunately, despite my best attempts at discussion, these have not addressed many of the points I raise above, and have not countered with other sources. Yet they insist that no changes to the article can be made. Frustratingly, they have claimed that it is up to me to come up with even more sources to prove my points, despite not having citing any counter-sources themselves.

I'd also like to add that, as someone who is new to wikipedia, this has not been a pleasant experience. After making good faith attempts to correct an inaccuracy and cite a credible, verifiable source, my edits were reverted with a flippant comment by an editor who admitted he had not even bothered to read my source. This editor, DarkwarriorBlake, also continued to revert edits while ignoring the talk page for the article, refusing to enter into a discussion on the matter until I engaged him several times. Then despite my good faith effort to engage in a lengthy discussion with DarkwarriorBlake and TriiipleThreat (the creator of the article), they have not been open to any compromise whatsoever.  It has been incredibly frustrating.

 

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Cardonculous
• Darkwarriorblake
• TriiipleThreat

 

 

• 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.

Resolving the dispute

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

I initiated a discussion on a talk page, and it was discussed at length. No compromise was offered by the two editors who are preventing edits to the article.

 

• How do you think we can help?

I am new to wikipedia, so this isn't clear. But hopefully someone who has not been involved in the article previously could facilitate a compromise.

It would be nice to also have some confirmation that if I make an edit to an article that is backed up by a verifiable source, then that edit should stand unless someone can provide a counter-source. For editors who seem to have some attachment to the way an article is written to flippantly dismiss my edits, without any sources of their own, is very frustrating. Why would I bother editing other articles in the future if this practice is accepted?

 

Cardonculous (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Cardonculous 67.188.3.9 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

 Thor discussion

IP: The sources you list above are not very strong. They are two blogs, and some quotes from the movie/trailer itself. Generally, the WP:Reliable sources policy requires more concrete sources: mainstream magazines, reviews in newspapers, books, etc. Blogs are rarely used for WP articles, and only if the author is a very notable journalist or figure. Unless you can come up with some more solid sources, the additional details about the source of their powers may have to be omitted from the article. --Noleander (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense to me. My sources may not be very strong (although I don't know how the movie itself isn't a good source for its own article), but they have no sources at all to back up their text in the article simply stating Thor is a god. There is no citation. They just happened to write it that way when the article was first created, which was before the movie came out, and since no one has questioned it it has stood ever since, despite having no source. Sorry, but my not-very-strong sources should trump their no-sources-at-all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardonculous (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware that the "god" material was entirely unsourced. WP:BURDEN says that the editors that want to include the statement that "Thor is a god" are responsible for providing sources; otherwise the material can be removed (after a reasonable warning period). As far as your sources: it is generally a bad idea to use the movie itself as a source for anything other than the plot synopsis. So, within the plot section, it is okay, but outside that, I would look for stronger sources. --Noleander (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, one compromise solution is to change the article to say something like: "The character of Thor and the other residents of [that place] are based on gods from nordic mythology. However, it has been suggested that the creators of the movie considered the characters to be extraterrestrial aliens." Or something like that: that way the canonical view (gods) is presented, along with the alternative viewpoint. --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone has proposed a compromise edit that side-steps the issue, so there at least is forward progress towards reaching a resolution. Let's say for a second the filmakers were intentionally ambiguous on this point, to allow for different interpretations (and in this case, to avoid angering die-hard comic book fans). I'd be interested to know how those different viewpoints would be included in an article. Afterall, differing interpretations should be a fairly standard thing when it comes to works of art. Cardonculous (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Cardonculous

Yes, it is a common situation in WP. The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy has some guidance on that: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view.… Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." That policy page has other detail that may be useful for this situation. --Noleander (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

IP: Also, you write "I'd also like to add that, as someone who is new to wikipedia, this has not been a pleasant experience." I'm sorry to hear that. I think many of us have had encounters that seem unpleasant, and that problem has plagued WP for a long time. It is a known issue, and many brainstorming efforts are underway to figure out how to improve the situation. Sometimes it is not that they other editor is a jerk, but merely that they are brusque, or impatient. My advice is to hang in there: things get better the more you edit. Maybe try editing some other articles that are less contentious for awhile. WP needs editors. --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. While as I said I'm quite new here, just based on my own experience I'd humbly like to add the following ideas to the brainstorm:

• If new text has been added to an article with a new citation, then anyone clicking "undo" or replacing that text with other text that has no citation could receive a warning notice. The notice could provide them a link to the cited source that they are about to delete, so they will at a minimum feel obligated to actually read the source before undoing someone else's hard work.
• Editors could have the ability to apply a tag that relates a section on the talk page to new text they are adding on that subject. Then, if a different editor deletes that text or reverts edits that have been so tagged, they receive a notice that they should first check (or even respond to) the discussion on the talk page before they are allowed to delete the new text.

I can't emphasize enough how demoralizing it is to put in the hard work to both a) find and cite sources and b) also create a section on the talk page where I explain my edits, only to have some editor undo all of my hard work with a single click. Especially if that editor offers no explanation or comments to the talk page, and/or reveals he didn't even bother to read the source. I think the two ideas above could reduce the occurrences of that happening. Cardonculous (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Cardonculous

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardonculous (talk • contribs) 06:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Good Olfactory, User:Alan Liefting

Dispute overview

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

User:Good Olfactory and I disagree ion the implementation of guidelines for categorisation of images. I want a third part to determine who is "right" or "wrong". There are huge numbers of images in question and a lot of time is being wasted in restore/revert edits. There is a relevant thread on my talk page at User_talk:Alan_Liefting#Removing_images_from_categories.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Good Olfactory (talk · contribs)
• Alan Liefting (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=User:Good Olfactory, User:Alan Liefting}} --~~~~ 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?

User talk page discussions.

• How do you think we can help?

Need to clarify file categorisation guideline implementation

-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Good Olfactory, User:Alan Liefting discussion

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

• Comment. In the discussion, four other editors have already commented on the issue. I'm all for resolving disputes, but this begins to look like someone searching for the answer he wants to hear when he doesn't get it the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth times ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - After reading the Talk page discussion, I think that images/files in WP categories should be left in the "old" categories until the appropriate long-term solution (e.g. either moving the image/file to Commons, or creating new "Image of ...." categories) is implemented. Recommend that Liefting drop this DNR and continue to work it out in the existing Talk page discussion. --Noleander (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• This isn't the first time Liefting has inappropriately removed articles from categories, he did the same thing here, fighting it here and leaving an unacted upon cleanup tag here. Yeah, I reacted badly and deflected the entire issue from Liefing's inappropriate removals and the ANI focused upon me instead of this issue, but you can see - his inappropriate removals are ongoing. Dreadstar ☥ 18:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• And yet another category dispute with Liefting, this editor needs to be banned from removing articles from categories. I'm sure there are more inappropriate actions by this editor, including crap like this. Dreadstar ☥ 19:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)