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
Sales data dispute on Chris Brown article	In Progress	Instantwatym (t)	7 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	In Progress	Avi8tor (t)	5 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days,	Avi8tor (t)	15 hours
Arecibo message	Resolved	67.149.172.22 (t)	3 days, 3 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	9 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	9 hours
Killing of Laken Riley	Closed	Jonathan f1 (t)	2 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 1 hours
shakshuka	New	LEvalyn (t)	1 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	12 hours	LEvalyn (t)	10 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 19:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:RealClearPolitics

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

Filed by TParis on 19:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:RealClearPolitics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TParis (talk · contribs)
• goethean (talk · contribs)
• Arzel (talk · contribs)
• Gamaliel (talk · contribs)
• DD2K (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute concerning whether a source supports the statement that the article's subject was founded by conservatives.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page, offering an alternative.

How do you think we can help?

Offering an outside opinion on the relevance of policies like WP:OR and WP:BLP

Summary of dispute by TParis

After seeing User:ThinkEnemies got blocked at WP:ANI, I reviewed this article to understand the background. User:Gamaliel graciously emailed me a electronic copy of the source in question. Gamaliel, DD2K, and goethean argue that the sentence "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." supports the sentence in the article that "The site was founded in 2000 by conservatives." Arzel and I argue that if the source said "We have the same frustration that other conservatives have," then Gamaliel, DD2K, and goethean might be right. But the subject is not identifying himself as a conservative, he's saying he shares a frustration with Conservatives. There is more political diversity than Liberal and Conservatives and even if it were polarized as so, there are some Liberals that share the view that Conservatives arn't treated fairly in the mainstream media. Other sources have called the site Conservative-leaning, but not have defined it as founded by conservatives. I've offered conservative-leaning as an alternative but it was turned down by goethean. I believe the use of this sentence to support saying the site was founded by Conservatives violates WP:OR because it requires us to infer the subject's meaning. It is not clear what the subject means. In addition, it violates WP:BLP because we're attributing a trait to a living person without a clear and unambiguous source.

Summary of dispute by Goethean

It is difficult for me to understand the issue here. The founders are clearly conservative. Before the disputed content was removed through edit-warring, the article cited an interview between the right-wing periodical Human Events and the founders of the RealClearPolitics.

The cited source quotes two high-profile conservatives, Fred Barnes (journalist) and Tony Blankley, on how important the website is to them. Then the interviewee discusses how liberal and awful the US mainstream news media is:

RealClearPolitics offers its own commentary as well. On March 24, it offered this assessment of the mainstream media's coverage of the tiny number of American casualties thus far in the Iraq war: "Did the media really expect no U.S. soldiers would die? That no one would be taken prisoner? That there wouldn't be any civilian casualties? That is exactly what you'd believe if you read the headlines today: 'U.S. Forces Take Heavy Casualties'--Susan Glasser, Washington Post, 'Doubts Raised on Strategy'--Thomas Ricks, Washington Post....

...

"Even worse, on the index pages of the three largest online newspapers in the country there is no mention of the 100-acre chemical plant discovered by U.S. troops yesterday. To most people this would seem like a pretty significant development--after all, isn't discovering WMD facilities one of the main objectives of the invasion?"

"We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."

After that, McIntyre continues to discuss how liberal and awful the U.S. mainstream news media is:

This morning, only the LA Times gives the story any play on its main page.... The New York Times, by contrast, puts the story on its 'National' page and does the most blatant PC whitewash imaginable....

The idea that this author, interviewed by a right-wing periodical, throwing out the usual red meat to the periodical's right-wing audience, is not conservative — which is what User:TParis claims — is completely untenable. McIntyre claims that WMDs were indeed found in Iraq(!), a false claim which was quickly debunked and which no one outside of the conservative news media ever took seriously.

A plain reading of the bolded text indicates that the authors consider themselves to be conservatives.

The context here of course is the right-wing media in the United States. It is extremely important to conservative news outlets that they be seen as "Fair and Balanced", to use the most notorious example. To be seen as partisan cancels the website's raison d'etre. That is why this small, well-cited addition causes such intense fury among conservatives, so much so that one long-standing editor has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia over this dispute. — goethean 23:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Arzel

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

There has been an attempt to WP:LABEL this site as conservative for the better part of 5 years. McIntrye himself has denied the conservative label and the following is in the article.

McIntyre denied having a conservative bent, stating, "We're running a business, We have no interest in screwing around with that for partisan purposes".

This article is a close parallel to 538.com, which was started by Nate Silver, a former editor at the Daily Kos. Some of the same participants which would label RCP as Conservative have actively argued against any such Liberal label for 538.com even though Silver actively supported Obama during the 2008 election. If some feel that the founders of RCP should be labeled as Conservative with what is clear synthesis then they should be equally open to labeling Silver in the 538.com site as a Liberal.

I have argued against such attempts to present this kind of POV on both. WP should not be a place to try and score political points, but if editors insist then it should be balanced on both sides of the isle. Arzel (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gamaliel

I don't believe this is a matter of interpretation or synthesis; if it were, I would be on the opposing side in this matter. I believe the statement is clear and unambiguous unless you parse it determined to discover ambiguity. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: If you read the article Arzel's quote is from, you'll see that it is clear that McIntyre is rebutting charges that his website has a conservative bent, he is not denying that he is a conservative. How do I know this? Because it says exactly that:

Mr. McIntyre denied that his site had conservative leanings. “We’re running a business,” Mr. McIntyre said. “We have no interest in screwing around with that for partisan purposes.”

Gamaliel (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DD2K

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

RealClearPolitics discussion

• Any volunteers yet? We're all reasonable people, there hasn't been any name calling by the parties, this should be an easy case.--v/r - TP 15:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yup, I'll take this one on. I'll need to look over things and comment in the morning. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, did you ever get a change to review this?--v/r - TP 00:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Bumping again so this isn't closed, we still need this addressed.--v/r - TP 00:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, this week was flat out. I'll comment in the morning. Steven Zhang (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• OK. I've had a read of the talk page and think I have a clearer understanding of the situation. Can someone please send me a copy of the source ""Conservative Spotlight: Real Clear Politics". Human Events 59 (11): 16.". Thanks. Steven Zhang (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. — goethean 12:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will read over it and comment tomorrow. Steven Zhang (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

1948 Palestine war

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

Filed by Ykantor on 21:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 1948 Palestine war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ykantor (talk · contribs)
• pluto2012 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Do I have to add to the article a mistaken sentence (in my opinion) in order to balance my other sentence?

There is a disagreement in the talk page between myself and user:pluto2012. I wrote a sentence based on few wp:rs that the Arabs started the war. he opposed this statement. I proposed that each of us will concise his view to 1 sentence only, and add both to the article. (provided that both are well supported).

He does not agree. He ask me to write both opinions, otherwise he claims that my contribution is wp:npov. However, I do not agree to the other opinion and do not have a support for it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

it is discussed in the talk page. As of today, I reminded him in his talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I can not "balance" my sentence with a view which is a mistake (in my opinion). Hence I hope that he will be convinced to write a (well supported) sentence that presents his view, to complement the sentence I wrote (and he deleted):"under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating".

Summary of dispute by pluto2012

To Steven : Ykantor is a problematic editor who is involved in many conflicts and nobody wants to lose time with him any more. All this is a basic NPOV issue. Ykantor claims the right to edit only for what he calls "one side" and not to comply with WP:NPOV.

The topic he opens here was already discussed in length on the article about the 1947-48 civil war in Mandatory Palestine. External contributors who read and commented were against him.

See here the way he answered to Aua

He now has opened the same topic on the 1948 Palestine War article (which covers the same period). I answered him that it had already been discussed but he refuses the result. So he brought the topic on the help desk and there he was not followed again. So he rejected the avdices and come here.

Look at also at this dispute he had with Nishidani (and to which I had added myself.

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

1948 Palestine war discussion

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

• I believe that it was indeed the arabs who started the war, as they were against the creation of Israel, and even today. OccultZone (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• @Pluto2012:, are you able to make some opening comments so we can get started? (Other volunteers, please close this thread in 24hrs if there is no further response). Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Reading user:pluto2012 comments, he is doing his best to avoid the issue, while blaming me personally and trying to complicate the issue which is limited and simple: to write 1 concise and supported sentence which summarize his view. Unfortunately, I can not write it, because in my opinion his view is mistaken.
• This is not a content dispute. My view is well supported and concise. The question is whether he can write his view. Ykantor (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The content is debated on the talk page of 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine.

The policies managing this issue as well as your unappropriate behaviour are discussed on your talk page, on different article talk pages, on this talk page and no later than today here again.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi;

I'm so sorry that this case hasn't been attended to by a volunteer for the past fortnight. This case turns on the interpretation of the "NPOV" policy. To kick off, how would parties respond to the following. PLEASE, these questions are important - they give me material to work on when considering how to resolve this dispute. These questions MUST be answered in full - they are not designed as simple "yes" or "no" questions:

1) If the sentence under dispute were considered authoritative by every source available on the matter, what effect would this have on the dispute?

2) Considering that NPOV doesn't mention editors' personal opinions regarding proposed entries anywhere, how should this dispute be reconciled with NPOV?

3) How do the parties define the word "balance", as mentioned in NPOV, considering the aims of wikipedia, and the provisions of NPOV?

4) If it were possible, would parties agree to merely stating "Some people are of the opinion that the Arabs started the war", rather than stating outright "The war was started by the Arabs"? If so, does this - in the honest opinion of the parties and coonsidering the aims and principles of this project and the NPOV policy - meet the requirements of NPOV?

Addendum to questions I've gone back through Wikipedia history, to find anything else on the subject that may be of use. I've found an old Arbitration case from some 5 years ago that decided on user conduct on Arab-Israel articles IN GENERAL, without naming any specific article. By virtue of motion to amend the case adopted unanimously 1 year ago, the following finding of fact is relevant to this dispute: "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.". By my interpretation, this case falls under the "Arab-Israeli Conflict related" heading. As a result, I want to add a question to the list of questions:

5) Considering that arbitration committee determinations are considered as binding precedent, what effect does the quoted determination have on this dispute, and, applying the aforesaid provision, how can this dispute be resolved, without incurring discretionary sanctions per the determination?

I would like your answers ASAP, though by the end of next week at the latest. --The Historian (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

1. @1 If the sentence under dispute were considered authoritative by every source available on the matter than I will accept it. I guess that Pluto would accept it as well.
2. @2 I have received a good help desk advice, to which I fully agree:" It is not your responsibility to make a statement with which you do not agree, but it is your joint responsibility (you and the other person) to make sure that all significant positions taken in reliable published sources are mentioned". However, as it seems now, Pluto's opinion is mainly supported by 1 source, which has yet to be checked for its significance. He states other sources as well, but those are my sources too. This does not make sense, so either he or myself does not understand those sources. Once those are verified, it might set the dispute solution.

#@3 The Wikipedia definition of balance is excellent: when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This is the reason that I proposed to write 2 sentences, one by me and the other one by Pluto. I am not sure if I fully replied, since the question is not so clear for me.

#@4 The question is not clear. It could be mentioned everywhere, but probably, it will not be interesting for other people. Ykantor (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've rephrased the question. I've also put a strikethough through User:Ykantor's answer, since the question has been rephrased and, in all fairness to all parties, I would like User:Ykantor to answer the same question that User:Pluto2012 has to answer. The original answer is also redundant because the question has essentially changed, and the answer provided is no longer relevant. I am NOT discounting opinions just by inserting a strikethough in place of the original answer.

As for question 3, Ykantor, the question is asking how would you yourself define the term "balance". I don't want a regurgitation of the Wiki policy - I can find that myself. You are welcome, however, to use that as your starting point, to be built on. Your answer to question 3 will be replaced by a strikethrough, so you can replace it.

Finally, in question 1, please don't presume answers for other parties - for the sake of fairness, I don't want parties to try and say "I think this party would say X", or anything of the sort. That part of your answer to question 1 will also be replaced by a strikethrough. So, for the questions (or parts thereof), please remove or rewrite the bits that are covered by a strikethrough. I hope I've provided enough clarity. --The Historian (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

1. @1 I have read the question few times, and I could not understand what for I have to reply for what effect would this have on the dispute? rather than what effect would this have on your opinion. It seems that eventually I understood the wrong meaning. Sorry.
2. @3 i AM SORRY, BUT i CAN NOT FIND A BETTER DEFINITION THAN Wikipedia's definition. Anyway, I will try: Wikipedia should be balanced i.e All wp:rs opinions should be represented, in proportion to the significance of the RS. I hope that this is an acceptable reply.
3. @4 Yes, of course, for both questions. Moreover, the helpdesk excellent advice clearly said so. The assumption is that both views are well supported.

• I am sorry if my reply is not comprehensive. If so, please let me know, and I will try to re-write it. Ykantor (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

1) The sentence is not considered authoritative by every source and that is the reason why there is problem with it. If every reliable source would have the same analysis, there would be no problem, of course.

2) As you say, our personal opinions are not assumed to prevent us to complying with NPOV. It is understandable that an Israeli editor doesn't fell at ease with an article about evolution (and vice versa), but it doesn't offer them the opportunonity not to comply with WP:NPOV.

3) Generally speaking, "balancing" just consists in stating that A thinks A* and B thinks B* (at the condition that both A and B are reliable source of equivalent notoriaty on the matter). The due weight of each point of view must also be taken into consideration and may justificaiton the rejection of point A or point B. Note that in the current case, it is a more complex situation. The fact to know who started the '48 war is a very complex matter that cannot be solved in 2 lines and that would certainly deserve several paragraphs. Adding these paragraphs in the article to talk about this would certainly unbalance the global article. I mean that the controversy about the fact to know who would have started the '48 war is unrelelvant and undue weight. That is what was explained in the talk page of the article and supported by all editors who commented.

4) You talk about "parties" as if it was Ykantor vs Pluto2012. There is no reason to start again and again a discussion that reached a conclusion because it is not the conclusion that Ykantor wants. The matter was discussed here and a conclusion achieved. It was endorsed (before) by Nishidani and during the discussion by Visite fortuitement prolongée and LuA. Ykantor opened a DRN. Then he opened the discussion again on another article : 1948 Palestine war where I refered to the former discussion. Now, he comes here and all that was said and written should be forgotten to get some sort of weak consensus ? What about his WP:POINT and what about all that was discussed and endorsed by different contributors ?
To answer to Historian's question : I am not a representative of all parties who gave their mind and cannot decide for them and what you suggest is of course not acceptable for the reason that was debated on the talk page and lead to a consensus.
I confirm to you that this article is under WP:ARBPIA. Ykantor was already warned of this here and also here again whereas he archived some of these warnings and removed them from his talk page.

5) I don't know (but don't think) that this dispute is covered by WP:ARBPIA but it The dispute is covered by Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing and WP:POINT and it could be brought in front of the ArbCom to ask for discretionnary sanctions to solve the issue. Ykantor has launched at least 4 DRN and he is in "so-called" disputes"in different articles with different editors. He never insulted anybody but he refuses to comply with advices that are given to him and always bring the same matters at different places. Several editors already complained about the fact they don't have time for such a game.

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Right. The point of those questions was to get parties thinking, and to see if they agree on anything. Now, there is a principle that states that "he who asserts must prove", so I want Ykantor to provide at minimum five valid sources that support the idea that the disputed sentence SHOULD go into the article, and, conversely, Pluto2012 should provide a minimum of five valid sources that support the idea that the sentence should NOT go into the article. Parties need to provide detail on the specific parts of the sources that support their assertions --The Historian (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Six-Day War#Events: Israel - Syria ; Syria diversion plan

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

Filed by Ykantor on 09:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Six-Day War#Events: Israel - Syria Syria diversion plan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ykantor (talk · contribs)
• dailycare (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

user:dailycare deleted my edit. During weeks of discussion, he raised content objections of all sorts, sometimes returning tp previously discussed issues. I spent a lot of time in order to reply and have the proper RS quotations, but to no avail. Eventually he stopped with the content disputes and return (again) to the editing size issue. I do not like endless discussions. We have to stop and compromise somewhere.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I discussed it in the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

To assist us reaching a compromise

Summary of dispute by dailycare

Hi guys, we've had a three-week discussion on the talkpage during which we've ageed on some changes to the article text. YK seems to persist in wanting to additionally introduce some quite specific material to a summary section in the article, the problem being in the main that the connection to the subject-matter of the article, and to the summary section in particular, is tenuous. Further issues with the proposed texts have been undue weight and selective simplification. In the past few days however a few previously uninvolved editors have weighed in in the discussion, so things seem ok. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Six-Day War#Events: Israel - Syria ; Syria diversion plan discussion

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

Hi there, sorry about the delay. Is our assistance still needed here? Steven Zhang (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I would like to have your assistance. Ykantor (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Armenians in Cyprus

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

Filed by Neo ^ on 11:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Armenians in Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Neo ^ (talk · contribs)
• PantherLeapord (talk · contribs)
• Seric2 (talk · contribs)
• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs)
• Ishdarian (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hello. The article "Armenians in Cyprus" has somehow attracted unwanted attention. A while ago, I was told it was too long, so we decided to create new pages for some sections(Armenian religion in Cyprus, Armenian education in Cyprus and Armenian monuments in Cyprus). Very recently, some users decided on their own that the article should not include much information from the three other pages. So, according to what they wanted, we decided to include only books and published articles in the bibliography, and I added only a paragraph for each of the other items (churches, monuments, schools). You should also know that they used offensive expressions, like "shame on you" and "watch out your tone", while it was their tone that needed attention... I tried speaking to them, but they only cited wikipedia policies and I somehow feel they have made this issue very personal, like a personal crusade. Then, some users (you can see who they are from the history of the page) reverted all the changes, without seeing that I added only the minimum. Without giving any explanation, even though what I added was considerably smaller than the original, they undid what I added and then I reverted it and so on. As a result of that, I have been blocked until tomorrow. The issue, however, remains. I firmly believe that there is nothing wrong with adding the basic minimum information, together with a link to the three other articles. Please help me, I don't know what else to do. Thank you. My only concern is to have correct, accurate and comprehensive information on the article... And I seem to have lost faith in wikipedia now that I realised that it's an oligarchy... Alexander

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Other than trying to contact them, we also discussed this on their and my talk page. One of the users went on to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Neo_.5E_and_Armenians_in_Cyprus just like that...

How do you think we can help?

I received comments regarding that it's not right to repeat what is in other articles, which I completely understand, so I tried to add the minimum that should be added, so that - on the one hand - the three sections are not just 2-4 lines long and - on the other hand - they only contain the basic information. However, these users refused to even selectively edit, only to delete. Some of what I added must stay, I believe.

Summary of dispute by PantherLeapord

Firstly to give credit where it is due: Thanks to Neo for not resuming their reverting. After they continued trying to insert the already rejected material I withdraw that statement.

I saw Neo's continued edit warring after the ANI thread and decided to stay out of it until this revert which to me demonstrated a continuing WP:IDHT problem that ultimately led to Neo's 24 hour block and will lead to more blocks unless they stop edit warring. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Seric2

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Darkness Shines

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Kintetsubuffalo

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Neo just keeps bloating the article and inserting his own POV, and what now six other editors say about it be damned, he's going to get his way because the rest of us are somehow not as smart as he is. I would support a complete topic ban of Neo until he cleans up his act.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Neo's edits here and on Commons, ownership issues aside, it looks like there is a real feeling of persecution for him. Nobody really is, but to shoehorn him into compliance is going to take a lot of work, and be very painful for him. I just had a look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Armenians_in_Cyprus and just with renames and the fact that most images are clearly not his work (though they may well be in his collection), this is going to be a long process.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ishdarian

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Armenians in Cyprus discussion

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

I sincerely believe that instead of just 2-3 lines regarding the monuments, the churches and the schools, the basic minimum (a small paragraph for each) should be there. Anyone who is interested for more, can go to the main articles. However, some users disagree. Neo ^ (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I added a small clarification and a small expansion on another section (none of which are disputed) and immediately one user (PantherLeapord) reverted my changes, stating "STOP trying to put in your POV edits that were rejected already!". He didn't even bother to see what they were about and, as I repeat, they have nothing to do with the disputed sections. I think this is harassment, plainly telling me "no more editing the article"... Neo ^ (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems that even factual corrections are not liked by certain users, such as PantherLeapord. THis has become ridiculous. Please someone fix it. Neo ^ (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Novi Sad

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

Filed by Iadrian yu on 07:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Novi Sad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Iadrian yu (talk · contribs)
• No such user (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is either to remove or to include the pushpin map of the Vojvodina at the article of Novi Sad.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried 3rd opinion on the talk page, but no success.

How do you think we can help?

Since this is a "yes" or "no" problem I don`t know how. The current version of the article (without the pushpin map) is unacceptable to me but I am willing to accept the solution provided by an uninvolved party, whatever that might be.

Summary of dispute by No such user

The issue is not just on Novi Sad article, but on any article of Category:Municipalities and cities of Vojvodina, where Adrian was bold to add {{Location map Vojvodina}}, created by himself. Take, as an extreme example, article Ada, Serbia: the infobox starts with a tall image, then pushpin map of Serbia, then pushpin map of Vojvodina, then come the contents. This is contrary to any usability guideline; imagine a poor reader on a mobile device who opened the article just to examine basic data (the purpose of infobox), and ended up scrolling four screens down. Not any piece of information on the topic is worth including, and particularly not if it is already presented in a slightly different manner. We are currently having an arbitration case on infoboxes, due to the dispute where some editors tried to impose infoboxes into articles whose primary authors didn't want them. I don't reject the infobox, I only reject two near-identical maps in it, which just produce visual clutter, and I particularly reject the arguments that it's needed because "everyone does it". I haven't seen, like any other editor but Adrian at Talk:Novi Sad#Vojvodina pushpin map, any added value in that template, and I have a strong sense that Adrian pushes that template recklessly into articles just because it is a creation of his. Thanks, I believe in your good intentions, but it is superfluous.No such user (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Novi Sad discussion

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

Please bare in mind that users opening wikipedia by a mobile device open a specially optimized version of the wikipedia that is optimized for phones, tablets...etc.... so this argument doesn`t really apply in this case. Adrian (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Water fluoridation#IQ_citations

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

Filed by Campoftheamericas on 07:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Water fluoridation#IQ citations (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Campoftheamericas (talk · contribs)
• TippyGoomba (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement on addition of systematic review showing that fluoridated water causes decreased IQ in children. No clarity is given as to why. All I can see, is that TippyGoomba avoids talking about the issue, and will undo any change I make to the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Third Opinion sought, on other related topics in the talk page, but for this particular topic, there are three editors (although Noformation has left the scene, as far as I know... he did not respond to my request on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noformation#IQ_citation). Because there are three editors, third opinion request was removed, and i came here to dispute resolution

How do you think we can help?

Generally by promoting the use of logic in deriving an outcome

Summary of dispute by TippyGoomba

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Water fluoridation#IQ_citations discussion

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

List of current world boxing champions

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

Filed by Mac Dreamstate on 17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of current world boxing champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mac Dreamstate (talk · contribs)
• Claudevsq (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Over the past year, one user has continuously reverted my edits without explanation. There are numerous inconsistencies within the article which I have attemped to correct at least seven times, but he always reverts them and refuses to provide edit summaries. Furthermore, he never responds on either his own or the article's talk pages.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have tried to engage in discussion on his talk page many times, with no response. Nine months ago I requested the opinion of other users via the article's talk page, but no other editors came forward.

How do you think we can help?

By asking him to engage in actual discussion about the issues I have regarding the article's inconsistencies, rather than reverting my edits outright or providing half-hearted and nonsensical explanations via edit summeries.

Summary of dispute by Claudevsq

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

List of current world boxing champions discussion

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

It looks like there has been a little bit of discussion between you over the past few days. Please let me know how things are going - I'll pop in to their talk page and encourage them to comment here tomorrow. Steven Zhang (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately "a little bit of discussion" is barely the case. There has been no discussion whatsoever—1, 2—but rather a whole lot of reverts sans edits summaries, including reverting the edits of another user who tried to help out. As it stands, User:Claudevsq's edition of the article remains rife with inconsistencies and pointless redirects. Sergio Martínez is not widely known as Sergio Gabriel Martínez (neither mainstream boxing press nor the article title itself uses his middle name), nor has Oscar De La Hoya ever been referred to as Óscar De La Hoya (with an accent). The way User:Claudevsq insists on labelling them is flat out inaccurate, and refusing to discuss it is unconstructive. Furthermore, having both international flagicons—{{DEU}} rather than {{GER}}—and English language flagicons—{{GBR}}—together in the same article creates needless syntax inconsistencies. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As the other editor hasn't come and commented them, I've sent them a reminder. Let's see if we can get this going. Steven Zhang (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon

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

Filed by Z07x10 on 20:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Eurofighter Typhoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Z07x10 (talk · contribs)
• McSly (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Eurofighter maximum speed was originally released as 'over Mach 2' (which was listed in various places as Mach 2+, Mach 2.0+, Mach 2 and Mach 2.0). However more current information became available.

This link from the Austrian Airforce very specifically states '2,495km/h (1550mph) at 10,975m http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml. By simple calculation this was found to be Mach 2.35. Furthermore BAE SYSTEMS (manufacturer) states '1521mph' http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon, which also calculates as over Mach 2.3. EADS (other manufacturer) states 'Mach 2.0+' http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.html. Furthermore Airpower Austria shows the speed to be over Mach 2 from 28,000-55,000ft http://eurofighter.airpower.at/technik-daten.htm.

All these sources are roughly consistent with a maximum speed of Mach 2.35 as agreed by consensus earlier on English wiki and still agreed, by entirely independent consensus (without my involvement) on German wiki https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon.

Another user's position is that some sources still say Mach 2.0 and various magazines from ages ago and 'Haynes manual' said Mach 2.0, so the figure should be Mach 2.0.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy conversation on Talk page. Pointed out facts and German wiki agreement. It was ignored. Dispute unreolved.

How do you think we can help?

I was kind of hoping that you would know the answer to this one.

Summary of dispute by McSly

We have a variety of primary sources providing the top speed at high altitude for the Typhoon, essentially air force and airplane manufacturer websites. Some sources show the information in both Mach and km/h, some have only the Mach number, just one (the Austrian Air force) has only the km/h.The values provided by those sources are inconsistent, sometimes within the same source.

For the Mach value, they range from Mach 1.8[1] to Mach 2.0[2] [3][4] to Mach 2.0+[5] to Mach 2+. No source says Mach 2.35. For the km/h, we have essentially 2 values (with some rounding here and there): 2,125 km/h (1,320 mph) and 2,495km/h (1550mph). The first is consistent with Mach 2.0, the second with Mach 2.35. As an example of problem within a source, the BAE SYSTEMS source[6] that Z07x10 provided for his calculation actually contains both mph and Mach value (Mach 2.0 - 1521mph). Those 2 numbers do not add up. In that case Z07x10 takes the 1521mph value and says that we can calculate Mach 2.3 from it. But obviously doing the opposite would be just as equally valid, we take Mach 2.0 and then calculate 1320mph from it.

I see no indication that any of those sources is any better or worse than the others (we have 4 air forces and 3 manufacturers websites). I also see no indication than any of those values are newer or older than the others. In case of conflicting primary sources, it is not our job to separate the wheat from the chaff, we must rely on secondary sources to provide the information. In this case we have Jane's All the World's Aircraft. That source is highly regarded publication widely used on WP and actually already used in the article [7]. That source states that the speed is Mach 2.0 at high altitude so we can just use it. Z07x10 on the other hand feels that we should use the primary sources to back calculate the Mach value even when we already have secondary sources providing that information. --McSly (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon discussion

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

Hi, I'm Howicus, a volunteer here, and I'll be taking this case now that all parties have made opening statements. I'm going to read over the talk page and the article, but one question comes to mind, first. How complicated is the calculation to convert km/h to mach? Divide speed by speed of sound, right? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the sources linked by McSly, it seems to me that 2.0 is the best supported figure, with the Italian airforce, the German air force, Eurofighter's website, baesystems and Jane's all listing mach 2.0 as the maximum speed. None of the other numbers have anywhere near as many source. Compared with rough calculations, I'd be inclined to go with 2.0. Z07x10, do you have more sources that say mach 2.35? Note that these are just my initial thoughts, very much subject to change. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The calculation is: 2495 / (sqrt(1.405*287.05*216.65)*3.6), where 216.65 K is the SI-Standard Temperature in the Stratosphere as used in aviation, 287.05 is R and 1.405 is kappa. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 06:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I contacted Eurofighter Communications regarding the question, this is the answer I recieved:

Dear Mr. Herzog,

Thank you for your interest in the Eurofighter Typhoon. Regarding your question:

There should be no contradiction – we quote Mach 2.0+ which is correct – the Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics) – which is why we quote Mach 2.0+. In terms of others stating Mach 2.0 – this is a ‘rounded’ figure and our official statement on maximum speed is Mach 2.0+.

Kind Regards

EUROFIGHTER COMMUNICATIONS

Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH

The statement that Mach 2.0 is a rounded number is a clear indication for me that it is not the best number to use. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 08:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree Julian. It is also an old number that propagated since the legacy release of information and most of the sources stating it are now out-of-date. An encyclopedia should be open to change when new information becomes available. Furthermore sources from manufacturers who are in receipt of the actual figures are clearly better than sources from magazines/publications who are not and have conducted no independent testing. Aircraft speed is also relative to altitude and the fact the Austrian Airforce (and Airpower Austria) specify altitude makes them a better source. If one were to resort to independent analysis, which I know is discouraged, it should be noted that the Eurofighter has ramped intakes to improve efficiency at high Mach (unlike F-16/Rafale) and has the highest thrust-to-weight ratio of any operational fighter (1.15 loaded), so a speed significantly over Mach 2 is likely. Furthermore it is commonplace for manufacturers to simply state 'over Mach 2' or 'Mach 2 class' officially even when the maximum speed is significantly above that http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html. It should also be noted that originally wiki never said 'Mach 2' anyway. It said 'Mach 2+ (2,495kph at 10,975m)' and this can be verified I'm sure.Z07x10 (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note. As regards the speed of sound and altitude issue, information about this is available on wiki in an independent article here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg

From the graph above, at 11km, speed of sound is ~295m/s, which is 1062kph ([295/1000] * 3600 = 1062). 2495/1062 = Mach 2.35.Z07x10 (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So the Eurofighter primary source says Mach 2.0+, so why can't Z07x10 just accept that number rather than insisting on Mach 2.35? Mztourist (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Eurofighter primary source says Mach 2.0+, but Eurofighter as a company confirms the correctness of the Mach 2.35 value, which is otherwise only confirmed by one source. I think that sums up the facts. Clearly, the maximum speed varies from configuration to configuration, so I think we could even include 2.0+ as a main value and 2.35 as an additional value to give an example for what "+" can mean. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 07:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Z07x10, is your number based off of only one source, or do multiple sources list the same speed (after calculations)? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 06:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The BAE SYSTEMS source also states 1521mph. Whilst it also states Mach 2, this is based on the speed class of the aircraft, just as my Lockheed F-22 source above states 'Mach 2 class'. 1521mph is clearly more specific than Mach 2 and is not a calculating error based on the speed of sound at sea level, which is 765mph at ISA.

I don't think that this should merely be about counting sources. I've explained in my original post that the figure of '2/2+' has come from legacy information that has been subject to the mechanics of data propagation over time, so naturally many sources have copied that information, hence why there are more of them but they are not necessarily independent in the true meaning. When you examine McSly's sources it isn't hard to see flaws. For example the German Airforce state 'Mach 2.00', how likely is it that a plane tops out at 2.00 to 2dp exactly? Operating limits and speed classes should not be confused for genuine top speeds. E.g. wikipedia states the F-14D's top speed is 'Mach 2.34' and it is under optimal conditions but the official operating flight manuals show nothing above 2.0 (see page 4-6 configuration 1A - no stores):

http://info.publicintelligence.net/F14AAD-1.pdf

Another source McSly uses ' Eurofighter.com' have already clarified their position on the matter in Julian H's post above and importantly don't refute the claim of the Austrian Airforce. So far nobody has presented a reason as to why the Austrian Airforce source is unreliable or flawed. The fact that other sources say something different is not a good reason for ignoring it. E.g. you can't ignore the results of a scientific test just because other results say something different (especially if there's reason to believe the other tests are wrong), you have to find a flaw, like Geneva physicists had to when a neutrino appeared to break the speed of light. The Austrian Airforce is a respectable source and specifically states '2495kph at 10,975m'. That only calculates as Mach 2 if the temperature is about 26degC (at over 36,000ft). 26degC is not a standardised atmospheric temperature in any region at any altitude. If someone physically took the plane out and tested it, would that still be dismissed as just one source? As regards using secondary sources (like magazines and publications) for a matter like this, I honestly just sigh. Where have secondary sources like magazines got their information from? A true secondary source has to have seen the actual primary sources, which are the classified manuals. None of these so-called 'secondary sources' actually have, meaning that they are in fact tertiary sources, which conveniently/inconveniently aren't accessible online and therefore can't be verified/appraised by the majority of users. This could be relevant as the sources in question may specify certain conditions which are non-optimal. As you'll see in the F-14D flight manual top speed and what people quote is very dependent on fuel loading and store configuration, hence reasons why absolute limits are hard to come by. See other flight manuals for yourself. E.g.:

F-18E/F (wiki says Mach 1.8, flight manual shows nothing over 1.6 with 60% fuel load and minimal AAM load) Page XI-10-15 http://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-200.pdf

Furthermore, as regards calculations, McSly has now used a Mach number to back calculate a kph/mph speed at altitude on the article page, which isn't supported anywhere. Essentially exactly what I did, except the other way round using the legacy information. He is also calculating the kph/mph speed based on the altitude specified in the Austrian Airforce source that he's chosen to ignore wrt the speed. This kind of pseudo mathematics has no place. My calculation comes from a single but coherent source with a TAS (True Air Speed) backed up by the BAE SYSTEMS source - 2495kph = 1552mph, BAE say 1521mph. Spanish wikipedia also quote this speed (1522mph) and a BAE source, Italian wikipedia also quote >2450kph and German wikipedia quote Mach 2.35 using the Austrian Airforce source.Z07x10 (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

An interpretation should be able to explain all the figures provided by reliable sources and not simply ignore those that don't fit with a pre-conceived idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z07x10 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

McSly is also quoting the following source on the article page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#cite_note-273 "Loveless, Antony (1994). RAF Typhoon Manual. Haynes."

This document is clearly not current and almost pre-dates the in-service date by 10 years. It should be removed. I can't, for the life of me, think why he would consider it more relevant than a figure published by an active airforce user.Z07x10 (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick update Eurofighter.com now list '2.0+' inline with Julian H's reply from them, and not '2.0' as previously stated by McSly. http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofighter-typhoon/technicaldata.html

To summarise 3 official sources now state '2.0+' (EADS, Airpower Austria and Eurofighter.com) and 2 sources state mph/kph speeds inline with Mach 2.3+ (BAE SYSTEMS and Austrian Airforce). Eurofighter.com have also officially stated that '2.0+' is the official figure AND that the Austrian Airforce's figure is for a specific configuration and fuel load. Z07x10 (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note for the drn-volunteer I have protected the Eurofighter Typhoon article pending a consensus as users have continued to edit war while talk page and drn disucussion are ongoing, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

We have a reliable set of sources which confirm "2.0+" to be acceptable, has anybody considered adding in a note alongside the references to state that "Mach 2.35" or "higher speeds" are capable depending on height, air pressure and payload considerations as we have a suitable reference for this and confirmation via Eurofighter that 2.35 is possible depending on configuration etc.

The RAF Typhoon Manual was actually published in 2013, not 1994, whoever added that reference needs a whack over the head with the aforementioned manual. http://www.amazon.co.uk/RAF-Typhoon-Manual-Owners-Workshop/dp/0857330756/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380049476&sr=8-1&keywords=RAF+Typhoon+Manual but it gets a pretty scathing set of reviews, so it might not be the best of resources anyway. Nick (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

MilborneOne, that note is a very good idea. So as a proposal, we could state:

"Mach 2+ (Mach 2.35 - 2,495kph at 10,975m - is possible depending on configuration) [Austrian Airforce source][EADS source][Eurofighter.com source]"Z07x10 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick, you are right on its quality as a source. Haynes do not produce official Typhoon Maintenance Manuals, that book is a novelty item and nothing more, as stated on your link, "An insight into owning, flying and maintaining the world's most advanced multi-role fast jet." Definitely not a reliable source. I'm sure if I wrote "the world's most advanced multi-role fighter" on the article page and listed Haynes as a source, it would be followed by a gigantic sht storm.Z07x10 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a few things to unpack here but I'll focus on 2:

Precision of measure: Z07x10 insists that the value '2495kph at 10,975m' is very precise and specific and that's why we should use it. By doing so, he's making the basic mistake of confusing precision with accurancy. Being precise is no indication of being correct. If I say that the distance between Paris and New York is specifically 2,495km, I would be precise, but wrong. If I say it's about 6,000km, that's a lot less precise but more accurate. I'd like also to point out that when he's talking about the Mach value, suddenly being precise doesn't seem to matter anymore. Mach 2.0 is just formatting or "Mach 2 class" and anything with the plus sign is consistant with Mach 2.35. Well, that's not correct, for example, Mach 2.0+ means less than Mach 2.1, because there is a zero there. If it was more than Mach 2.1, it would read Mach 2.1+

Quality of source: Z07x10 also insists that the Austrian air force site is a good source for the value, but I don't see any indication that that's the case. We have 4 official air force websites here Italy, Germany, Austria and UK. All with different values for the top speed. They all look like 4 generic PR site for the respective air forces with basic information about units, equipment and so on. The Austrian page for the Typhoon is actually pretty bare (it doesn't even list the weight for example). In any event, nothing warranting any special treatment.

So like I said before, we have a bunch of primary sources with different, incompatible values and no way to really evaluate which source is better (4 official air forces sites for example). Now in order to move this thing along. For the Mach value, any mention of Mach 2.35 is out of the question. I would much prefer to have Mach 2.0 since that's what our best source (JANE's) says but since we have a good primary source saying 2.0+ (Eurofighter), I'm Ok with Mach 2.0+. For the km/h conversion, since we have contradictory values and no good secondary source, I'm all for removing that value altogether.--McSly (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

3 Comments from my side:

• Mach 2.0+ doesn't mean that the value is below 2.1 - ist just means that it is above Mach 2.0. Even the manufacturer of the aircraft confirmed that (see above). Why would the "+" be limited?
• Precision is of course not the same as accurancy, I don't think anyone confuses the two. But assuming, again, that the manufacturer of the aircraft is correct, all values except for the ones stating "Mach 2.0" are accurate, and with this knowledge, shouldn't our focus be on using - among the accurate sources - the most precise one?
• Generally: Why do you ignore the official response by Eurofighter GmbH?

— Julian H.^✈(talk) 06:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Julian, If we want this discussion to get anywhere, we need to actually read what the others say. From my comment above, I specifically wrote "since we have a good primary source saying 2.0+ (Eurofighter), I'm Ok with Mach 2.0+" What part of that was not clear? Please reply to this comment to acknowledge that it is indeed what I said. Thank you. --McSly (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course I read what you wrote, and what I wrote reflects that. I referred to your statements describing numbers as inaccurate and the mentioning of Mach 2.35 as "out of the question" despite the official confirmation of that value.

I don't understand why it's not possible (and the best solution) to mention "Mach 2.0+" as the general value and, for example in brackets, add Mach 2.35 as an example for a specific configuration to give the reader an idea of what the "+" can mean. I just think that this would give the reader the most and most precise information, and I think that this should be our aim.

If we can't find consensus towards that, then I guess "Mach 2.0+" will have to do. — Julian H.^✈(talk) 14:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• I also do not think that 'less than Mach 2.1' is the correct interpretation. We have two sources (BAE and Austrian Airforce) that state kph/mph figures not consistent with this theory and one of them (BAE) quote '1521mph' together with 'Mach 2.0' showing that '<2.1' is not the correct interpretation of '2.0+' or 'Mach 2 class'. Eurofighter.com have also confirmed this to be the case. Furthermore the initial release of information for the SR-71 stated Mach 3.2+ but there are now several sources stating >3.3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird#cite_note-92) and this book written by ex-pilots suggests >3.5 http://www.amazon.com/SR-71-Blackbird-Stories-Tales-Legends/dp/0760311420. Mach 3.2 turned out to be the recommended operational cruising speed.
• It has already been explained by Julian, myself and Eurofighter.com why some sources list '2.0' and that top speed will depend on fuel, store configuration and operating guidelines relevant to maintenance planning (MTBOs etc.).
• The precision vs accuracy argument is null and void in this instance, since the precise figure in question has come from an Airforce operating the aircraft and Eurofighter.com have indicated that this speed is for a specific set of conditions (fuel, stores etc.).
• I do not subscribe to the notion that Jane's is the ultimate and best source of evidence for everything pertaining to aircraft. If Jane's had access to the official specifications for the Eurofighter, the specs would also be on the internet, and it's not as if Jane's have independently speed-tested a Eurofighter. Therefore the logical conclusion is that their information has also been derived from official PR releases saying '2.0+' that they have then 'rounded' as stated by Eurofighter.com.

Z07x10 (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a big problem with a lot of these sources is that speed can vary a lot with altitude (which I think is why so many of the sources say 2.0+). If we could find two or more good sources that indicate the same speed at the same altitude, that would be a number I'd be willing to accept. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's always nice to be able to find extra sources but for something like this it's very difficult. We have another source saying '1521mph' but without an altitude. However, fundamentally it's aerodynamically more difficult for a plane to achieve 1521mph below the troposhere (11km) than at or above it. The air is denser (more drag) and the ambient temperature is higher so the jet engines don't work as efficiently in terms of both the compressor efficiency and the amount of heat that can be added during combustion, because TET (Turbine Entry temperature) is a limiting factor and incoming air is hotter. Hence why top speed at sea level is usually only around Mach 1.2 for modern fighter jets.

At present we have:

http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml - 2,495kph at 10,975m (Austrian Airforce)

http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon - 1521mph (BAE SYSTEMS)

http://eurofighter.airpower.at/technik-daten.htm - Mach 2+ from 28,000-55,000ft (Airpower Austria)

We also have a response from Eurofighter.com indicating that the Austrian Airforce figures are possible depending on fuel, stores etc. "the Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics)"

And we have several sources stating a Mach 1.5 supercruise without afterburners making Mach 2.35 with afterburner seem plausible: http://www.eurofighter.aero/eurofighter/switzerland/de/eurofighter/einsatzrollen/airpolice.html

It's also worth pointing out that only one source is used on other pages for such matters. The other problem is that if we did find another source saying the exact same thing, it would likely only be copied from the aforementioned source, as is the case with many other sources. Unless we can find flaw with a source we shouldn't discount it IMHO.

In light of the above, what about an edit saying:

"Mach 2+ (Mach 2.35 - 2,495kph at 10,975m - is possible depending on configuration) [Austrian Airforce source][EADS source][Eurofighter.com Note**]"

-**Note reads " 'The Austrian figure is specific to a height and no doubt payload (fuel/weapons etc/atmospherics)' - Eurofighter.com".

Z07x10 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office

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

Filed by Farolif on 13:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Farolif (talk · contribs)
• Zoltan Bukovszky (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A user (Zoltan Bukovszky) insists that the personal titles of various people be included in lists of state leaders. I have contended that this information constitutes biographical information which is beyond the scope of the articles, as well as being confusing and making some parts of the list difficult to read. Other user ignores my points and continues belligerent reverts of my edits.

Issue has carried over into "List of current heads of state and government" and more recently flared up again in "List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Personal titles
Recent edits on List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence
User talk:Farolif#Sir, Dame and Sheikh Forgot abt this discussion, too - in which Zoltan admitted that the personal titles are unnecessary as well ("...they are prime minister or emir nevertheless...").
This is a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding, at the very least) of what I said there, as the point I was making was that the inclusion of titles creates no confusion - contrary to your claim. ZBukov (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

Explain scope and stay on topic to other user.

Summary of dispute by Zoltan Bukovszky

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Farolif came up with the idea that the inclusion of 'Sir', 'Dame' and 'Sheikh' in front of people's names is 'irrelevant', 'confusing', 'out of scope' or 'biographical information' and mass-deleted them from the article. He is ignoring the fact that this is how those people are routinely mentioned in the UN list of heads of state and government (http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf), the countries' government webpages and most Google searches for their names. And he keeps mass reverting it whenever I restore them. If that is the way those people are called than - in my opinion - it cannot be regarded either as irrelevant or out of scope, it isn't confusing since the names are links to the articles about them, and as for the 'biographical information' argument since these titles are used as part of the names, it's completely dissimilar to their date of birth being being put put next to the name, for instance. Therefore to me Farolif's staunch determination to to delete them constitue an unreasonable loss of valid and relevant encyclopedic content. ZBukov (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office discussion

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

Nobody is asking to see the UN protocol list or the respective leaders' government websites. ZBukov seems to be mixing up "names" with *forms of address*, the latter of which includes titles, while "names" do not. Also, every instance of a personal title used on these pages requires a separate Wikilink to direct someone to the article about the person (ex. - Sir Frederick Ballantyne|Frederick Ballantyne) - which is not the same thing as Zbukov's claim that "the names are links to the articles about them". Farolif (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"Nobody is asking to see"? What kind of argument is this? :) If the Governor-General of Saint Lucia is Dame Pearlette Louisy (as evidenced by the above and many other sources like www.rulers.org, www.worldstatesmen.org, the London Gazette (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/56198/notices/1002/all=pearlette+louisy), Archontology (http://www.archontology.org/nations/st_lucia/00_1979_td_gg.php) rendering the fact undisputed) then why would your unacknowledged personal dislike or some unexplained, nonexistent confusion be relevant enough to say otherwise (only wishing to see Pearlette Louisy)? And what is this argument about requiring a separate Wikilink? They were there, before you started painstakingly deleting them! ZBukov (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think I was deleting the Wikilinks; they've been intact through this whole ordeal. The name of the GG of St. Lucia is Pearlette Louisy, who is also styled as 'Dame'. The rest of your diatribe is sheer speculation and assumption that these various external sources apply to the issue at hand. Farolif (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to have to diappoint you, but 'Dame' and the other words in question are not styles, in the Dame Pearlette's case her style is 'Her Excellency' which no-one wants to put into these articles - but that's merely a side-note. So to stick to the Saint Lucia case, all of the following sources name the Governor-General of Saint Lucia as 'Dame Pearlette Louisy': the Government of Saint Lucia (http://www.stlucia.gov.lc/profile/her-excellency-dame-pearlette-louisy), the United Nations, http://www.rulers.org/ruls1.html#saint_lucia, http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Saint_Lucia.htmlhttp://www.archontology.org/nations/st_lucia/00_1979_td_gg.php, to name the most evident ones. So you are saying that all this is irrelevant, right? And you have still failed to explain the confusion which you think this might cause. Would you please be so kind as to finally expound? ZBukov (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, in the case of the List of current heads of state and government, a person could read the office as "Governor-General Dame" if you leave her title dangling on. And her 'Dame' title is shown on her WP article, which does not require same title to link to it - Pearlette Louisy - therefore nullifying all of your myriad sources as being critical to the issue at hand. Farolif (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

If this is the confusion you fear than please rename the Prime Minister of Bangladesh to prevent people from thinking that "Prime Minister Sheikh" is a title... It doesn't seem reasonable to hide facts to make up for a lack of minimal intelligence and/or knowledge about the topic one is reading about: moving the mouse over the link reveals in an instant that 'Governor-General' and 'Dame Pearlette Louisy' are links to two separate Wikipedia articles and the boundary between them is not between the words 'Dame' and 'Pearlette'... And anyway this argument is only applicable to one of the two articles from which you keep mass-deleting information, as the names and positions aren't right next to each other in the List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office article. I'm relieved to note that you appear to have stopped deleting information from this latter article. ZBukov (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So now you suggest a task (changing another person's name) that is not only unnecessary here, but totally beyond the control of a WP editor. Brilliant; or, to borrow one of your phrases - "What kind of argument is this?" Wouldn't it be simpler to remove the titles so that a reader's mind is not required to be constantly flipping between "title", "not a title", "title", "not a title", etc? And you're also assuming that everyone who reads a Wikipedia article actually has a mouse to "mouse over" a line and read the preview bar (which they also might not have on whatever device they're using). Though I'm glad to hear I've given some respite to your life by my self-imposed moratorium on editing the List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office page - on which, by the way, you are so far the singular minority in favor of keeping the titles. Farolif (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The rhetorical device I used in calling on you to rename Sheikh Hasina is called irony. The two people possibly in point, your sole ammunition for the 'confusion' claim, are Sheikh Hasina and Prince Johnson (I can't think of any other off the top of my head). Sheikh and prince are universally known words as titles, and I believe an incomparably smaller percentage of humanity will be erudite enough to be aware of these as being names in some cultures. Therefore even with the titles omitted from the article, most people will perceive them to be a person named Hasina and titled Sheikh, and one called Johnson of royal heritage. So you will hardly be able to prevent the 'constant flipping' of their minds... And as I said, if the reader is interested, they can always visit the relevant article for more information. As for the talk page and the question of minority, there was a single other person contributing to the debate between yourself and me, and he opined in favour of keeping the titles but deleting the Sirs and Dames, so that was a 'yes' and a 'no' to both of us. Interpreting that as supporting your side sounds like desperate cherry-picking. But your self-imposed moratorium is laudable regardless whether it resulted from seeing the untenability of the 'confusion' claim in light of the article's format, or from fatigue. ZBukov (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No, that still wasn't irony. Irony would have been if through some great feat I successfully changed Sheikh Hasina's name, and the new name still caused confusion to people, or did not achieve the initial goal of satisfying the person who charged me with such a task. You are also ignoring the opposite problem caused by recognizing "Sheikh" and "Prince" as names - including them as titles can confuse some people to think that Khalifa's first name is "Prince", or Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani's first name is "Sheikh". True, there's no way to phrase a foreign name so that every single person will read it as only a name 100% of the time and not interpret part of it as a title. I suppose we should be thankful no state leaders are named "Don" or "Duke", although we do have currently have a "Baron" :o. But I would say it drastically reduces the chances of such confusion when we don't mix the two by having "Sheikh"s as person's titles in the same list as people with the name "Sheikh".

The only desperation here is from the person dredging up UN protocol lists time and time again along with multiple external sources without explaining how any of it helps the article or resolve the issue at hand, the person trying to explain how a reader can avoid confusion by using technical means they might not have at their disposal, the person trying to discredit their opponent by pointing out alternate definitions of their opponent's word-choice. And the only fatigue I feel comes from dealing with a person who persistently proves themselves incapable of thinking critically about a problem. Farolif (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right, the President of Nauru is also a case in point. It's worrisome if you have no idea how or why sources are relevant here. Anyway. Would anyone else care to give an opinion? ZBukov (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please, if anyone could explain why a reader would expect to see the personal titles of leaders on these pages in question, I'd appreciate their insight. Farolif (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with DRN but I have strong doubts this is what is meant by 'Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary' or 'Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. - this is not the article talk page' . I would note despite this lengthy discussion, there is still no opening statement by Farolif. If this was intended to be such it was presented wrongly, which of course probably isn't a good reason to have a long discussion involving only extant editors. Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

List of species rumored/believed to still be alive

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Keeby101 on 18:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species rumored/believed to still be alive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved User:Keeby101 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview I have ben planning to recreate my first articles originally titled: List of species rumored/believed to still be alive for a while now, the very same article that was almost voted to be redirected to another article and deleted by Administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise. 3 weeks later, I talked to Administrator Dougweller (Didn't want to put him as one of the users involved in the dispute because he essentially isn't. Also, I do not want to make him angry by doing so) about reviving my article under a different name and he told me that go to the deleting Administrator about it and if that did not work, I should go here to WP:DRN. I later proceeded to confront Future Perfect at Sunrise in a very polite manner on his talk page and I apologized for what happened in the past as we were and possible still are not on good terms with one another and explained that if he were to give my list article another chance, not only would it be under a different name, but I would most certainly cite proper, accurate and reliable sources as well. Rather than using websites that are deemed by most editors as dubious, I would use real books as sources and cite them properly. I posted on his talk page about this specifically 4 days ago and he has not responded since then, but he has responded to ALMOST everyone else who has posted on his talk page after me so there is no doubt that I am most likely being ignored. Have you tried to resolve this previously? As I said in the overview, I proceeded to confront the deleting Admin and he did not respond and as such I proceeded to do what Admin Dougweller told me to do and go to WP:DRN. How do you think we can help? With all that I have typed above being said, I have decided to take this matter to WP:DR on regards to reviving my first article titled List of Species Rumored/Believed to still be alive since confronting the deleting Wikipedia Admin did not work.. Summary of dispute by Future Perfect at Sunrise Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of species rumored/believed to still be alive discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. This may take some extra time, because the case was filed with a nonexistent name listed. In the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC) For future reference, here is a list of previous interactions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&oldid=572168878#Hello_from_Keeby.21 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&oldid=572471517#I_have_a_question.21 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&oldid=570134061#Would_you_be_interested_in_addressing_this.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#My_list_article_that_you_deleted_a_month_back. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keeby101#My_final_attempt_at_reviving_an_article_before_I_officially_move_on_to_others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keeby101#Diving_into_the_paleontology_articles_soon_and_thinking_of_reviving_my_first_article_under_a_different_name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keeby101#Your_list_article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keeby101#My_final_attempt_at_reviving_an_article_before_I_officially_move_on_to_others. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC) It has been 24 hours, so I am opening this up for discussion with whoever is here. It is possible to resolve a dispute without everyone involved participating. Keeby101, I have a homework assignment for you. Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species rumored/believed to still be alive and write up answers to the following questions: How many editors thought it should be kept? How many editors thought it should be deleted? What was the best argument for retaining it? What was the best argument for deleting it? What, exactly, would List of species rumored/believed to still be alive do for our readers that List of cryptids isn't already doing? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC) Is anyone still participating, or should I close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC) I'm still here! Sorry if it's been a while. I haven't had time to respond to anyone lately because I have been really busy. Allow me to give you the information that I have gathered: 12 editors voted to delete it. 3 voted to keep it. Best argument for deleting it was from IRWolfie and Kansas Bear when they said "Pure rumour mill and of no encyclopedic value. Sources are rubbish." and "Besides being an obvious POV fork, this is just another "list" article made up of personal blogs[1][2], opinions(ie. deadlinks) or no sources at all(ie. Glaucous Macaw). No, this is not how you create an article!" Best argument for keeping it was from JOJ Hutton and jbignell when they said "To add this list under List of Cryptids would take away the science behind the intent of this article. I do think it needs a new title and a focus description of what this list is and the goal of the article." and "This is a very interesting and long needed topic. Its cited. And describing rumors that are cited is not taboo on Wikipedia. Seems to work on other articles, why not this one?" What jbignell and JOJ Hutton said was exactly what List of species rumored/believed to still be alive would do for readers that List of cryptids is not already doing. List of Cryptids has mythological creatures as well as creatures such as the Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp. List of species rumored/believed to still be alive takes a much more realistic tone and focuses solely on animals that have actually existed at a certain point in time and lists those very species that could very well still exist today. As I said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species rumored/believed to still be alive: No one take cryptids seriously! Besides, this article is leaning toward articles like this: List_of_critically_endangered_species like how it is supposed so. Basically, once I am finished creating my article, it will fit be part of this Conservation_status. The article itself is meant to be an offshoot of those articles within that template. Most likely an offshoot of the Data_Deficient and/or the Not Evaluated lists. So there you have it! Keeby101 (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC) I am not sure if this is something the dispute resolution noticeboard can help with - the deleting admin doesn't take sides on things like this, just evaluates the consensus of editors. I would recommend asking if they will undelete the page and move it your userspace so you can work on it a bit more. Steven Zhang (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2013 (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.

Aam Aadmi Party

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

Filed by Rushikesh.tilak on 06:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Aam Aadmi Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rushikesh.tilak (talk · contribs)
• Sitush (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• Qwyrxian (talk · contribs)
• Rayabhari (talk · contribs)
• RouLong (talk · contribs)
• Ashwin147 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Which version of the protests conducted by Aam Aadmi Party, can be included in the article:

Version A:

"The AAP has supported various regulatory complaints raised by rickshaw operators in Delhi." with two citations (one for the ads, one for the e-rickshaw stuff). Or some equivalent one liner.

Version B:

In June 2013, Aam Aadmi Party protested Delhi Government's ban on putting ads on rickshaws & contested the issue in court which resulted in Delhi High Court ordering stay on this ban. In September 2013, Aam Aadmi Party supported demands of e-rickshaw drivers to have a clear guidelines/policy on e-rickshaws & also suggested a subsidy on the purchase of e-rickshaws due to e-rickshaws environment friendly nature.

There is no dispute over sources/citations.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed the issue extensively but it appears that out of 7 parties the opinion is split & consensus can not be reached.

How do you think we can help?

Request expert opinion on different claims made & assistance in suggesting the version that could go into the article.

Summary of dispute by Sitush

Placeholder: apologies but I did not get notified of this thread & have only just spotted the notification on another contributor's talk page. I'll replace this placeholder with a comment tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving my note above in situ because it is apparent to me that the notification bot is not working properly, eg: I was named in a recent report for Narendra Modi which was closed as "stale" when it got no responses at all. Like here, I got no notification.

Regarding this case, I agree with the comments made by Qwyrxian. I further note in relation to Ashwin's opinion that we do not record things that might become significant and then remove them if it turns out not to be in a couple of months' time. For fairly obvious reasons - people's movement, new political party, elections in a couple of months - the article is at present subject to a lot of almost-messianic and usually policy-naive promotional contributions. The party has four main agenda items per its own website and those are covered, along with brief mentions of some of the many other protest pies that it is involved with. If we begin expanding on one particular campaign then we'll have to expand on all the others to avoid imbalance: that is unfeasible and will ultimately mostly be trivial, bearing in mind that the party intends to publish 70 separate constituency manifestos in the coming weeks.

If an issue becomes a part of the post-election psephological analysis then we can include it at that time; until then, we need to be careful not to become a soapbox, especially for an organisation that seems basically to be trying to stand on as many diverse soapboxes as this. Finally, it should be noted that protests and legal applications are two-a-penny in India: most are vociferous, most get some headline-type impact initially and most ultimately fizzle out or are overturned/bogged down in a notoriously slow appeals process. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Binskternet

Like Qwyrxian, I believe that the conservative path is the best for this article. If and when the election results are analyzed such that the erickshaw issue is seen as having been important, we can tell this to the reader. Before the election it is too soon to know. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Qwyrxian

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

In policy terms, the dispute revolves around WP:UNDUE. Myself and others hold that this protest in question is of a limited duration, and no lasting effects from the protest on either India or the political party in question have been (yet) demonstrated. It is certainly possible that this event will have a lasting effect, but our long-term, encyclopedic approach (encapsulated in WP:NPOV and WP:NOT) is that we need to know first that the event is of lasting significance to give more than passing coverage in the article. Should there turn out to be long term significance (say if a political scientist dubs AAP's connection to the protest a major factor in their polling results, whatever those are), then we would definitely expand the coverage. But until that happens, I (and others) want to take the conservative route, and believe that is what our policies ask of us. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rayabhari

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Considering the encyclopedic nature of any article in WP, I prefer option A, which may give brief details of protest activities of the party. As observed elsewhere in talk page by some editors, giving lengthy details of each and every protest and mass appeal activities by the party may result in distorting the article.Rayabhari (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by RouLong

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Ashwin147

I would go with version B, but better phrased and slightly shortened. In the next couple of months as Delhi goes to the polls, the rickshaw issue could have an impact and I assume people looking at the article in the meanwhile would like greater details on AAP and its stance than a couple of one liners about these. In the longer run, as the article evolves if the detailing seems unnecessary, it should get edited out.

Aam Aadmi Party discussion

These are not at all election issues. Election issues are those for which parties put forth their action plan/intentions if they come to power/win elections.

Issue related to ban on Advertisement (June 2013) on auto rickshaws was protested & contested in Delhi High Court by Aam Aadmi Party. Based on the argument, Delhi High Court put a stay on the ban & government has not appealed against High Court order. So In short, this issue was taken to logical conclusion by Aam Aadmi Party.

Issue related to battery operated rickshaws (September 2013) was supported by Aam Aadmi Party. They not only asked government to draft a proper policy but also asked government to give subsidy on its purchase. Till this moment, government was hostile towards e-rickshaws & also banned sale of e-rickshaws in capital(Delhi) a month ago. However post these protests, Delhi Chief Minister constituted the committee to review the situation & asked it to come up with guidelines. So again, Aam Aadmi Party was a catalyst in bringing change in Government's attitude.

So in my opinion these two protests show 1) Work Done by Aam Aadmi Party & 2) views of Aam Aadmi Party & hence warrant inclusion in this article.--ratastro (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi all, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Qwyrxian has hit it right on the head; undue weight is the issue here, and upholding neutral point of view is critical. If the impact of the protests is shown later down the road, then it can potentially be expanded, but for now, keep things as brief as possible, so I'd recommend to go with option one. Steven Zhang (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• • @ Steven Zhang: Thanks for taking this issue up as volunteer. I do not think that Option Two will make it WP:UNDUE. Aam Aadmi Party has conducted many protests. But only few of which have been contested at High Court. And only above two cases, party was instrumental in taking issues at its logical conclusion. Moreover no other party assisted Aam Aadmi Party in this. So how can this issue be WP:UNDUE? Also the article we are discussing is Aam Aadmi Party so how is not including these two protests in the article justified?--ratastro (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkish people

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

Filed by Cavann on 19:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Cavann (talk · contribs)
• Yalens (talk · contribs)
• Proudbolsahye (talk · contribs)
• Athenean (talk · contribs)
• TU-nor (talk · contribs)
• Jingiby (talk · contribs)
• Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

2 issues. First is the wording of a sentence in the lead. Second is about adding or removing information in the "Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages" section. Based on journal articles [8] (5 of em here) and other ones like [9], and on secondary sources [10] (very reliable [11]), I have suggested a compromise wording here [12]. However, other editors suggested adding UNSOURCED statements not backed by any of studies [13]. So, the first issue is what this sentence in the lead should be: "Various people including Ancient Anatolian civilizations and Thracian peoples have inhabited the area now called Turkey since prehistoric times.j[›][71][72][73] Modern Turkish people primarily descend from these indigenous groups,[68]k[›][74][75][76] but their ancestry includes neighboring peoples and Turkic peoples." Second issue is adding these relevant reliably sourced material (or similar wording) in "Prehistory, Ancient era and Early Middle Ages" section. [14]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talks here: Talk:Turkish people. Most recent discussion is here: Talk:Turkish_people#So_what.27s_the_reason.3F

How do you think we can help?

Offer us an opinion with respect to Wiki policies, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:OR

Summary of dispute by Yalens

First of all I’d say the key to this for me is sources. At the moment right now the side in favor of mentioning Turkish people primarily descend from natives that the invaders assimilated has a host sources on its side. However, various editors, as some have openly stated on the talk page, disagree with the theory and at least one thinks it is a nationalist concoction (I don’t buy this: Turkish nationalism actually prefers descent from Central Asians- exactly what is being refuted by this study- and not only are the sources varied but the author of one of the studies is Armenian, thus for obvious reasons unlikely to be trying to support that ideology, but whatever).

It’s been claimed that the sources are “controversial”. For the most part, they are actually quite usable academic sources and I have yet to see sources criticizing any of them with regards to this topic. They have also brought up two sources that supposedly “tell a different story”, but neither actually counters the theory. Furthermore, it has been claimed that the studies are “cherrypicked”. I don’t buy this either, as genetic studies are not (yet) huge in number, and the bulk of studies on Turks that cover this topic are already included. They still haven’t produced a paper refuting the elite dominance-cultural assimilation theory.

With all that having been said, some of the complaints are actually legitimate in my mind. For example, the mass inclusion of heavily cited material in the lead. I think compromise is possible, and most editors from both sides have made attempts at this. But the discussion often gets caught up in logistics and attempts to negotiate the whole page at once. There’s also a tendency to argue about things that both sides actually agree on. I personally support compromises such as this one ([[15]]. --Yalens (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Proudbolsahye

First off, the way this dispute was filed through this DRN is unacceptable on the grounds that alternative propositions are nowhere to be found in the Dispute overview. I don't feel that the dispute in its entirety is properly addressed and the nomination in itself promotes one side of the argument. If this is how this issue is attempted to be "resolved" and if the Dispute overview is worded in this manner, I highly doubt the resolution board will reach any plausible conclusion. In addition to this, you claim without any sort of context, that I proposed leaving the sentence unsourced, which I felt as a sort of attack against me with the caps locks. On the other hand, I specifically pointed out that WP:WHYCITE suggests that sources in the lead are often discouraged, which leaves us to do some explaining in regards to individual genetic studies and their conclusions in another part of the article. Regardless of that fact, I am not going to contribute to such a noticeboard until ALL viewpoints and propositions are properly addressed in the Dispute overview. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Athenean

Rather than a problem of "sources vs. no sources", as Cavann puts it, the issue here is that sources are being misused and misinterpreted, as well as WP:UNDUE. Many of the sources provided by Cavann do not actually back the very strongly nativist wording that he suggests [16] (see the last sentence of the removed part). Another problem is the repetition of the same material throughout the article for effect, for example a sentence that is clearly about genetics in the history section (see previous diff). Some sources, such as Antonio Arnaiz-Villena are controversial, yet they are inserted multiple times throughout the article, including the lede. Cavann insists on a very strong wording, that the modern Turkish population are the direct, lineal descendants of Bronze Ages populations, even though the literature is in agreement that the demographic and genetic history of the Anatolian landbridge is extraordinarily complex and the situation is not that clear and simple. There is a lot of WP:IDHT in the talkpage, which makes this issue very hard to resolve. Athenean (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TU-nor

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Jingiby

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Antidiskriminator

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I don't think the dispute has been presented in an objective and neutral manner by editor who filed it here. Its not about well sourced compromise vs. unsourced position of other editors. It would be against WP:NPOV to give undue weight to some controversial genetic studies by presenting them in the lede. This edit (diff) explains why. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

In the above link I pointed to 2008 work written by Pamela Kyle Crossley which explains why it is (still) impossible to support extraordinary claims about the past of the modern social constructions like nations with genetic studies of the past:

• Genetic studies of the past are controversial ("Critics of Cavalli-Sforza's work have increased in recent years, and critics of new gene studies of the past have always been active...")
• Genetic studies of the past have circular reasoning issue because they contradict themselves.
  • They first emphasized that there is no scientific basis for the concept of the nationality (races...) and that genetic differences between people within the same nationality are bigger than between different nationalities.
  • Then they used "social constructions" like nations to make conclusions beyond what anthropologists and cultural historians have already surmised.

It is obvious that compromise proposal has not been accepted so the "Thracian Turks" hypothesis should not be presented in the lede of this article but in its genetics section and (if it is really important and notable) in separate article about Genetic Studies on Turkish People like in case of genetic studies of Arabs, Jews, Serbs, Sinhalese or Sri Lankan Tamils.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Yerevanci

Antidiskriminator makes a very good point. I'd like to add that Cavann does not provide the alternative arguments or proposals that Athenean and Proudbolsahye put forth. This looks like another attempt by him to push his POV. All the sources that he gives to back up the theory that modern Turks primarily descend from Ancient Anatolians are problematic (e.g. that author of a few sources has been involved in several controversies). That theory is only supported by selective articles, which we generally call WP:CHERRYPICKING. Athenean's proposal is much more balanced and better reflects the situation without favoring one conclusion of the study of another. More importantly, this discussion will get us nowhere with such a dispute overview as this one. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua

I've tried to make a number of specific proposals concerning several sections of the article. What's disruptive in this case and I've noticed that very soon, is the extreme wp:own activity by Cavann. Endlessly reverting various edits by other users, even ones that finally accepts as reasonable (like the Hittite map case in Prehistory section, although after a couple of rvs). In general I agree with Athenean's proposal, since the present form of the article suffers from wp:synth and wp:or, especially the introductory parts need to be fixed in order to get rid of conclusions that are not based on reliable material.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkish people discussion

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

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am neither taking nor opening this filing for discussion at this time, but want to comment about the objections that this is not properly filed. If you feel that the issues were not properly presented by the listing editor, you have (at least) two choices: (1) If you feel that dispute resolution would be helpful you can set out what you feel the proper issues should be and a volunteer will consider expanding the listing or (2) you can simply decline to participate here (participation in dispute resolution is never mandatory). Merely objecting to the way the listing editor presented the matter will be taken to be #2 unless you do #1, and if significant participants in the dispute decline to participate then this request will probably be closed. Remember that DRN isn't a courtroom that will make a binding judgment, but is only a forum for assistance with negotiation and/or neutral third party nonbinding evaluation, nothing more. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Steamtown, U.S.A.

– New discussion.

Filed by Ishtar456 on 18:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Steamtown, U.S.A. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ishtar456 (talk · contribs)
• Technical 13 (talk · contribs)
• Pinkbeast (talk · contribs)
• Begoon (talk · contribs)
• Oanabay04 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor feels that an article is too long and that it should be broken up. This editor has begun to brake the article up. The Article has been through and passed GA and FA review and discussion concluded that it should stay as is, but the editor thinks there was another conclusion. I asked for help using the "help me" template to find out how to get help, and the editor reversed the template twice. I would like some experienced intervention to settle the dispute as I do not want to participate in an edit war.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page

How do you think we can help?

mediation to settle the dispute: does the article really need to be broken up or can we let the FA review stand?

Summary of dispute by Technical 13

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Steamtown, U.S.A. discussion

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