Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	Resolved	Avi8tor (t)	23 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 days, 6 hours
Norse Deity pages	Closed	Dots321 (t)	16 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 8 hours
List of South Korean girl groups	Closed	98Tigerius (t)	15 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 days, 13 hours
Benevolent dictatorship	In Progress	Banedon (t)	15 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 12 hours	LokiTheLiar (t)	14 hours
Talk:Taylor Swift	Closed	Gsgdd (t)	14 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	14 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	14 days, 6 hours
Kylie Minogue	Closed	PHShanghai (t)	12 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 13 hours
African diaspora	Closed	Kyogul (t)	9 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 days, 6 hours
Primavera Capital Group	In Progress	WorldPeace888 (t)	2 days,	Kovcszaln6 (t)	12 hours	WorldPeace888 (t)	31 minutes
Serbia men's national basketball team	Closed	Wikiacc321 (t)	11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 06:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

1 Spore (2008 video game) (Example case)

– Discussion in progress.

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

--Example (talk)

1.1.1 Opening comments by Example2

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

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

1.1.2 Spore (2008 video game) discussion

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

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

Zoellick bio

• Robert Zoellick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Demiurge1000 reverted Currency1's edits. Mediator from Mediation Cabal agreed that independent reliable sources justified Currency1's edits. Demiurge disagreed with mediator. Mediator decided to stop serving as mediator for Mediation Cabal.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Currency1 (talk · contribs)
• Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs)

Currency1 notified Demiurge1000 of this dispute.

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

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Zoellick bio}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussion on Zoellick bio talk page; Mediation Cabal; pasted draft of this DRN submission on talk pages of Demiurge1000 and Oddbodz.

• How do you think we can help?

Either determine that no independent reliable sources support Currency1's edits or revert Currency1's edits deleted by Demiurge1000.

Currency1 (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Zoellick bio discussion

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

• I presume this concerns Robert Zoellick. I went to the BLP noticeboard in a response to Currency 1's request for help, But I found that this editor had been attempting to t negative information about alleged failures in the general operation of the bank, not in the least limited to his period, on every page possible, in such a way that they reflected on him personally. To some extent some it possibly might be appropriate to mention, but not in the extravagant way that it was bering used,a gross violation of BLP, which applies on talk pages also. My statement on the talk p there summarizes my view of the matter. My resolution of it would be to ban currency 1 from any edits regarding him or the back. The editor admits in so many words on the BLPN page there "Robert Zoellick has indicted himself through..." This editors handling of th topic is a disgrace to Wikipedia, which should not be used in this fashion. That the ed. should have carried it hereafter being rejected there indicates a persistence in the use of synthesis, exaggeration, and out of context quotation for what they admit had become a personal quarrel. I have had some off wiki correspondence with the ed, which supports my view that there is no understanding whatsoever about WP not being used as a soapbox. I suppose if we reject her here, she will find yet another place for this. I conclude that I probably initially used my admin role in too restrained a fashion on this--instead of warning, I should have blocked. If any other admin wants to do so, I'll support it. It seems the only way of ending this dispute.

I try to avoid bringing up my political opinions here, but I have no love for any aspect of the world financial system, either in aggregate or in detail, and those who know me will know I am putting this as mildly as possible. But Wikipedia is not the place to bring it down, however much it may deserve it, and personal abuse is not the method. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

These two proposed edits in Italic text hardly bring down the world financial system, and are not abusive, they simply state facts about Robert Zoellick's presidency at the World Bank. The Article is misleading without the added content. There are ten reliable sources that support the proposed additions:

On April 20, 2010 Robert Zoellick declared open access to the international statistics compiled by the World Bank. US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank until Robert Zoellick cooperated with a GAO inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Senators Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy and Evan Bayh.

Even though [Hilary Clinton] previously had expressed the desire to hold no further political office (specifically ruling out another four years as U.S. Secretary of State in a second Obama term), she has been in formal discussions about taking up the post, according to three different anonymous sources. President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended.Currency1 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Having read the entry at the BLP noticeboard from July, I would say that User:Currency1 is on thin ice. If she again restores her proposed material to our article on Robert Zoellick she risks being blocked for violation of WP:BLP. That is, for inserting unsourced negative material. The only way she can make any headway at all (if she insists in working on this article, which may not be a good choice given her COI) is to make a case on the article's talk page which is so persuasive that other editors reach a consensus to support her view. If so, someone else could edit the article to add his material. It is conceivable that appropriate secondary sources on these questions about Zoellick's personal situation may exist, but Currency1 has so far not found any. There is more discussion at Talk:Robert Zoellick#Transparency at the World Bank. I agree with what DGG had to say there. He has read the sources but could not find support for the assertions that Currency1 wanted to add to the article. I suggest that people read Demiurge's comment also. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Zoellick bio closing comments

Closing as stale. Feel free to post back here if there are more problems. Currency1, I also agree with the editors here and at the BLP noticeboard that you should avoid editing the Robert Zoellick article or any other articles relating to the World Bank due to your conflict of interest. If you really wish to contribute to these articles, then the thing to do is to first get some more experience on some unrelated Wikipedia articles first; after you have got a feel for the culture of this site and got a better understanding of the neutral point of view and biographies of living persons policies, you may come back to World Bank-related articles and add suggested edits to the talk page only. It will still be out of bounds for you to edit the articles directly. If you have any questions, then please ask me on my talk page, and I will be happy to answer. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Zoellick bio discussion (reopened)

I have reopened this thread due to a request from Currency1 on my talk page. New discussion should go in this section. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The mediator from Mediation Cabal agreed that the sources justified Currency1's edits to the Zoellick bio:

"If the sources you had added in revision 439152551 are what you mean, then yes. At least two of these are government sources. I think this is enough to justify a reversion... Oddbodz (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)"Currency1 (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, to start with, here's the text that I have been reviewing:

US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank until Robert Zoellick cooperated with a Government Accountability Office inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Senators Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy and Evan Bayh. (The International Financial Institutions: A Call for Change A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, March 10, 2010, at 24 [1][2][3])

and

President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended.(April 24, 2010 Statement of the Joint Ministerial Committee of the Boards of Governors of the Bank and the Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries, [4])

My first thoughts are that most of these sources are primary sources, and so the restrictions outlined at WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY apply. Namely, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"; and "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The one reference used here that looks fairly reliable is the Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, which looks like it has a high standard of scholarship. However, this too, is a government source, and I think allowances must be made for the fact that the government is not a completely neutral party in this affair.

Regarding the first claim, I could not find any evidence in the report that Congress refused a capital increase; I only found that this was suggested as a course of action. It doesn't say that this course of action was actually taken. This might be because I missed it, though, as it's a big document - could you share the page number where this information is found? The second link was broken, so I'm not sure what it says. It would be good if you could find a working link for it, but again be wary of WP:PRIMARY. The third link to Kay Granger's page is, again, a primary source, and also doesn't specifically mention the World Bank. It is also not clear how all of this connects to Zoellick himself, rather than just the World Bank in general. He was the president of the bank during this time, to be sure. However, this is his biography, and so we should only include things that are attributed specifically to him.

About the second claim, it is sourced to the IMF website, which, again, is a primary source. Also, this source doesn't mention anything about a "gentlemen's agreement" or "187 countries". These things really need to be contained in the source for us to be able to use it to back up the claims in the article. (And that would go even if it was a secondary source, which it is not.) So, to sum up my position, I don't think we can justify adding this material to the article, unless there is something I missed in the report pdf. Currency1, I also want to reiterate my concerns with your conflict of interest with this article, and urge you to contribute to other areas of the encyclopaedia to get a feel for the kind of neutrality and sourcing that is expected in this project. I'm sorry that this has just added to the list of editors who disagree with your proposed additions, but I hope that you can understand. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The documents I am citing speak for themselves. The statements of the officials which I gave you are sufficient evidence to support the fact that the US Congress has refused to approve the World Bank's capital increase. The only evidence that is missing from the sources I cited is knowledge which parts of the US Congress are responsible for vetting the capital increase and acting on it. Mr. Zoellick himself stated that one of the responsible entities is the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. (See Mr. Zoellick's response to the question from Tom Barkley of Dow Jones: "Senator Kerry on the Foreign Relations Committee, which is the authorizing committee in the Senate, has made similar statements."web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,print:Y~isCURL:Y~contentMDK:22556211~menuPK:34476~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html I trust this interview establishes the connection between Mr. Zoellick's presidency of the World Bank and the capital increase) After hearings in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on accounting irregularities at the World Bank, including cost over-runs on the renovation of the World Bank's headquarters and over-charges to World Bank borrowers, the US Congress required independent arbitration to improve accountability. When the reforms required by Congress in the appropriations legislation did not materialize and the World Bank stonewalled a Government Accountability Office investigation into corruption that this legislation was intended to address, the US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank. The statement of Senator Lugar, ranking member in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, on the end to the Gentlemen's agreement, is a reliable source to support my assertion. There are also other reliable sources on the demise of the Gentlemen's agreement. Please do not continue ad hominem attacks. I am a lawyer who was simply trying to do her job and enforce the law. Currency1 (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if any of my remarks came across as ad hominem - I can assure you that they were not intended to reflect on you personally. I don't really have anything more to add to my previous comment, though, other than to reiterate that it is important to be careful when using primary sources and to avoid any original research or synthesis of sources. As I probably count as an involved user now, I will leave any decisions about the consensus found here and about what to do with this thread to the other clerks. Yours — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for your time spent in reviewing the primary sources. I appreciate your advice that these sources establish that the gentlemen's agreement for the US to appoint the President of the World Bank has ended and that the US Congress refused to approve the World Bank's general capital increase without reform of the World Bank. I understand that where you disagree with Mediation Cabal's previous mediator is that these sources must be used with care, based upon original research and synthesis of sources. Here is a reliable secondary source which synthesizes these two assertions. Bloomberg's Sandrine Rastello states that the US should use its approval of the World Bank's general capital increase as a quid-pro-quo for appointment of an American as World Bank president. This reliable secondary source supports the facts that there is no longer agreement that the US may appoint the World Bank President, that the Gentlemen's Agreement ended, and that the US Congress has not approved the general capital increase for the World Bank. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-06/geithner-may-back-lagarde-to-keep-american-at-world-bank.html These facts, supported in primary sources and synthesized in the Businessweek article, are required to keep Robert Zoellick's bio from misleading Wikipedia's readers. Currency1 (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Star of Bethlehem

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. Star of Bethlehem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? 4 months ago I added references from the Book of Mormon to the Star of Bethlehem, consistent with material both inside the article ("Eastern Orthodoxy") and outside (John the Baptist; Tower of Babel). I wrote it in an admittedly awkward spot simply because I didn't know where it belonged on the page. Shortly afterward, the user Rbreen edited it out with the argument that no "serious" person would ever consider a reliable source. I undid that edit, and he rewrote the section into the bottom of the page. One month later, he came back and removed it completely. During this time, I started a discussion on the talk page to which he replied when he completely removed the section for the last time. I replied to his reply, but the discussion has been dormant ever since. After waiting a month, I went back and added it back under a more relevant section, but about a week later the user at 80.240.225.83 removed it. It is then that I started reviewing the resources available to dispute this. I started a discussion at the 80.240.225.83 talk page, but it has not been responded to in about two weeks, so that is why I am here now. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Danielwellsfloyd (talk · contribs) Rbreen (talk · contribs) 80.240.225.83 (talk · contribs) I am unsure of Rbreen and 80.240.225.83 are the same person. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Star of Bethlehem}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I have discussed it on the article talk page with Rbreen and on the user talk page for 80.240.225.83. How do you think we can help? I have no idea. I'm just exploring my options. This may not be the appropriate place to discuss this. Danielwellsfloyd (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Star of Bethlehem discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Judging by the robtex results, and the fact that the IP hasn't edited again since then, I don't think it's worth taking action on the IP. On the content side, I'd like to know how you think the section fits into the article. — Kudu ~I/O~ 01:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC) The section entitled "Interpretations and explanations" describes what different groups of people believe about the Star of Bethlehem. What we learn from references in the Book of Mormon is that a group of people exists that believes the Star was not a local event or an afterthought created by the author of the Book of Matthew. The Book of Mormon retains the ambiguity of Matthew's account by simply stating that it was a "star" and shows that it was visible in the Western Hemisphere as well (or, more generally, that it was a sign given to the whole world, not just those in the East). The Book of Mormon is also the only text to claim an explicit prophecy about the Star: "And behold, there shall a new star arise, such an one as ye never have beheld; and this also shall be a sign unto you" (Helaman 14:5). It may be actually be more appropriate to include it in the "Fulfillment of prophecy" subsection. Danielwellsfloyd (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC) I am a neutral mediator in this dispute (and am not, let me note, a member of the LDS Church or any similar or related church or belief). This article is about the Star of Bethlehem as both a supernatural and physical event and already includes discussions about how it is regarded in Eastern Orthodoxy and, perhaps more notably, astrology. The article is not, and should not be (at least not at this stage of development) limited to a western-orthodox-Christian view of the subject. Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. With 14 million Mormons in the world (per the Mormons article here), the fact that their holy texts make reference to the star and do so from a historical perspective different than that in mainstream Christianity, is certainly significant enough to warrant a mention in the article. While a reference to a third party source would be preferable, a reference to those texts themselves is a sufficient primary source for the reference. I would note that in this version of the text for the article, the final sentence is inappropriate original research and must either be justified by a citation to a reliable source or be deleted. In terms of positioning and formatting of the text, my opinion is that it most logically fits in the article immediately after the "Eastern Orthodoxy" section and immediately before the "Historical fiction" section with a "3 equal sign" heading of "=== Mormonism ===". Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Driving While Black

• Driving While Black (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Racial profiling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

There seems to be disagreement whether the article Driving While Black should be merged in to the article Racial Profiling or not. The article has been redirected more than once, and restored more than once, and there have been two separate discussions that haven't really gone anywhere.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 76.231.150.69 (talk · contribs)
• 69.15.156.226 (talk · contribs)
• Freechild (talk · contribs)
• Cntras (talk · contribs)
• Mmyers1976 (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Driving While Black}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

discussed on two talk pages. I have suggested to both sides that they may be misinterpreting Wikipedia policy, and that they may be editing too boldly in this case. For full disclosures' sake, I favor redirecting the article, per talk page reasons for merger or redirect.

• How do you think we can help?

Would like additional input from more uninvolved editors on whether or not this article should be merged or redirected, based on sound interpretation od wikipedia policy.

Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Driving While Black discussion

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

Perhaps I'm missing something, but there was a discussion back in march about merging the article into racial profiling. Being that there was no objection, the merge was conducted. Then after the merge/redirect was conducted an editor opposed the change multiple times and registered their opposition that nothing was merged. Having looked at both articles I agree that all the content from the Driving While Black article is covered in the Racial profiling article. Therefore the 2nd step in merging is to redirect. The reasonable period of objection is definiteley over. If you cannot be bothered to respond to a direct issue in over 5 months we shouldn't have to wait. Freechild, please consider reverting your un-redirection as your individual viewpoint does not disrupt the consensus established and that has remained for 5 months. If you disagree. Open a NEW discussion explaining why Driving While Black should be an article and not a redirect Hasteur (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. My gut tells me Freechild won't revert his/her un-redirection so easily just based on your and my opinions, or at all, so I am wondering what the next step should be? Is there a target number of contributors weighing in, or a specific amount of time this discussion should be left open, before doing the redirect (assuming the consensus points towards doing so? Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I wasn't aware of the background discussion when reverting. I should've taken it into account when I came across the article via recent changes. -Cntras (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Cntras, your revert occured back in March during the initial discussion, and you appear to have been doing it thinking an unknowing IP editor was trying destructively edit an article. I'll give this a little more time to see if Freechild wants to respond, but if not I think restoring to the previous consensus is not out of line. Hasteur (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there is definitely a notable topic in here somewhere - the question is deciding exactly what that topic is. As I see it there are two possible topics for a "driving while black" article. The first is about the subject at hand: racial discrimination with respect to traffic searches. The second is about the term: the etymology and use of the phrase "driving while black". If the article is about the subject of racial discrimination then the title may be a problem, as it is not a neutral term, and given that not all racial profiling in traffic searches is directed against blacks, it does not precisely describe the article contents either. (See WP:TITLE for the relevant policy.) If the article is about the term "Driving While Black", then the title is obviously descriptive and appropriate (and still probably notable, although editors would have to take care that sources were about the actual etymology or usage of the term rather than just racial profiling in general).

The problem here seems to be that much of the article is about the term, but at the same time we do not have any other material on the subject, either at racial profiling or at another article. This has been creating tensions between editors wanting to merge and others not wanting to: I think some editors are seeing a biased title and an obvious merge candidate, and some editors are seeing an encyclopaedic article about a perfectly notable term. Rather than arguing about whether to merge or not, why don't we just leave the specific parts about the term in the article, and move all the rest to racial profiling? At the moment it looks like there is enough space at racial profiling for us to do that, but if the section grows too big in the future, we can always split it to a new article with a more neutral title (maybe something like racial profiling in traffic policing). Let me know what you all think of my assessment and my suggestions, and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for your well-considered input. Your suggestion sounds reasonable. My only concern is that if we move all the rest to racial profiling and leave the specific parts about the term in the article, then the Driving While Black article will be reduced to a short definition, which would make the article violate WP:NOT#DICT. I believe the term is notable enough to be discussed in the racial profiling article, but not notable enough to merit a standalone article, so could certainly add more to the racial profiling article, including a short discussion of the term "driving while black" and similar terms used to describe racial profiling. With a redirect for the term itself to that section, I would think that should be satisfactory, unless there is some sort of agenda for making sure the specific term "Driving While Black" has it's own article which I am unaware of. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for your proposal, and for reaching out to me. That was a great thing to do. With regard to the earlier so-called consensus, which it was not since the anon IP acted almost unilaterally, I do not like engaging in conversations with anon editors who cite WP rules and guidelines as easy as the one involved in this case did. They refuse accountability, and as this one's edit history shows, they clearly only use this IP for pushing their POV. I don't say that lightly, as I've been accused of this many, many times. However, I do believe the anonymity represents a distrust and disdain for process. That said... The term "driving while black" clearly legitimate enough to warrant a WP article separate from racial profiling. While I know that it's not a popular meter anymore, there are 2,200 google scholar hits on the term. It is real vernacular that has crossed from popular usage to academic usage, and has clear cultural notability. Mr. Stradivarius, while your title suggestion is interesting, the simple fact of the matter is that the topic of driving while black is a demonstrable cultural phenomenon that has credible, third party sources demonstrating its validity in a variety of ways. I believe we must maintain the integrity of WP by deliberately including terms that we disagree with, if only because they're notable. • Freechildtalk 15:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hold on a second - I didn't say that we couldn't have an article on the term "Driving While Black". About Mmyers1976's concerns about WP:NOT#DICT, that would only be a problem if the resulting article was very short and didn't contain more than a dictionary definition. If the term is notable and there are enough sources on it to create a decent article, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says we can't have an article on it. In fact I have had a little look for sources on the etymology and usage of the term, and I found some very good ones (for example this source). Rather than getting rid of the article altogether, what I suggested was that an article on the wider topic of racial profiling in traffic policing called "Driving While Black" may fall foul of WP:TITLE. Do you think it would be possible to have a more neutral title than "Driving While Black" for a more general article on racial profiling in traffic searches? Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have played around with a draft of what the article might look like if we took out discussion that was just about racial profiling and the sources themselves didn't mention "driving while black" or a variation of. You can look at it here:User:Mmyers1976/Driving_While_Black_Draft Everyone feel free to play around with it. Incidentally, three of the sources are dead links, and the assertion about the term "shopping while black" is unsourced, those should be fixed if the article remains. I personally don't "disagree" with the term, or find it biased or offensive, but looking at the article, even if we keep the article, "Driving While Black" appears to be the wrong title for the article. The article puts most of its weight on variations on the term, so really the article is not about "Driving While Black", the article is about "(insert activity here)-ing while (insert ethnicity here)". Obviously THAT title won't work either ;). I noticed as well when looking at the sources for the variations, none of those sources acknowledges that these are derived from or are variations on the term "driving while black". So, if we are going to keep the article, the way I see it is we have two options: 1. Rename the article so the title is more descriptive and doesn't put too much weight on any one variation. 2. Flesh out the discussion of the term "driving while black" so that it doesn't violate WP:NOT#DICT. For the first option, I can't think of a suggestion. For the second item, I think it would be important to use sources that discuss the usage of the term, not just provide examples of the term being used, or else the article is in danger of becoming a link farm. I think we would also need sources that clearly establish that "driving while black" is the dominant variation, or else the original term from which the other terms sprang. Freechild, you seem to be the one who really feels strongly about keeping the article, how do you envision that we could expand the discussion of the term "driving while black" so that the article isn't a dictionary definition or really a discussion of all the "*-ing while *" terms? Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I found another source, a widely known one (ACLU) on Driving While Black that may or may not be helpful in fleshing out the article: http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways. I would like to note the title, however: "Driving While Black: Racial Profiling on Our Nation's Highways." This pretty much confirms that "Driving While Black" IS racial profiling, which we already have an article on. Therefore, in order for the "Driving While Black" article to stand on its own, it needs to discuss the term, not the concept. First recorded usage, maybe usage in fiction, things like that, NOT examples of it happening or mere examples of the term being used to describe racial profiling. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assertion in the final line of this argument, and would move that we come to consensus on that approach: "First recorded usage, maybe usage in fiction, things like that, NOT examples of it happening or mere examples of the term being used to describe racial profiling." • Freechildtalk 19:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I take it that this means both of you agree to keep things related to the term itself in the current article, and to move the rest to racial profiling? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be half the solution, the other half would be fleshing out the section discussing usage, significance, and etymology of the term, so the article won't violate WP:NOT#DICT (which it would right now), as well as so that it will stop being an article on the variations with a misleading title (which it is right now). Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Femme Fatale Tour

• Femme Fatale Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

User:Itsbydesign started removing from the Femme Fatale Tour the setlist of Nicki Minaj on August 19th [5], arguing that "What Minaj performed (or who with) is not notable as Spears is the main subject of the article. Information is more relevant for Minaj's article." I disagreed, since the focus of the article is the tour (not Spears), and Minaj is a big part of it: some critics dedicated several paragraphs of their reviews to Minaj [6][7] and she is even included in the official poster. I reverted his edits and said that he should open a discussion on the article's talk page so we could discuss it with other editors. He refused, and since then he has removed the setlist three more times. [8] [9] [10] Each time I reverted it and asked him to open a discussion. Today, he made a major change in the article in which he made strange prose changes ("howver"), added sources already present in the article to the lead, removed Minaj's setlist again and removed additional notes, among other things. I reverted his edit and placed a notice on his talk page. He responded by explaining all his edits at last on my talk page, saying that "This is the final time I will tolerate you reverting edits with a a clear and reasonable explanation. Next revert will automatically result an in open case with the Administrator's Noticeboard, no questions asked." I opened a discussion here, but other editors encouraged me to open a discussion on the article's talk page. I did, and of course, it didn't work. I even invited another editor and he still reverted all the changes. He's also removing more information from the article that we did not discuss.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Itsbydesign (talk · contribs)
• Xwomanizerx (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Femme Fatale Tour}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I've already told him to open a discussion many times, but he keeps reverting the edits. It's basically the same situation as the previous discussion.

• How do you think we can help?

Itsbydesign should understand that as a Wikipedia editor he should not feel ownership over an article. He should also be open to discussion.

Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Femme Fatale Tour discussion

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

Hi there, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. The question here, I think, is how much weight reliable sources on the tour give to Minaj's performance. If reliable sources gave Minaj's set decent coverage in relation to Britney's set, then I don't see any problem in including her set list. From the two sources that you linked to above, it seems that Minaj's set was fairly well-covered in the press. I found this quote from Itsbydesign on the talk page that looks like it sums up their position on the matter:

This is not a co-headlining tour. This is a concert tour by Britney Spears that features Nicki Minaj. She is not the main focus of the tour. I am sure people are not paying $300 to see Minaj onstage for 30 minutes. All concert reviews will critique the entire show, including the opening act. That is not a determination in notability.

I would like to hear from Itsbydesign how they can reconcile this view with WP:WEIGHT, which says that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". In Wikipedia it really is what the sources say that matters. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-lethal weapon, Allegations of torture

• Non-lethal weapon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Obstructionism, stalling, ignoring the outcome of a previous dispute resolution.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Andering J. REDDSON (talk · contribs)
• Berean Hunter (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• Hh (talk · contribs)

At some point, a highly biased section entitled “Allegation of torture” was created. It cited only an Amnesty International opinion paper as “proof” that the allegations were true.
I objected to the section outright as not neutral. I also allowed that a different source (I suggested a few, most especially an FBI document I’d seen years ago but can not name now) could give the same basis, but be neutral.
Berean Hunter and Binksternet have dug in their heels instead; I eventually took it to a mediation, where [TransporterMan] eventually found that the material should be included, but with a revised title and with BOTH SIDES of the picture included.
After this I started a new discussion on the section in question. Between 13 and 16 September hh and I hashed out a revised section with the exception of inline citations; hh supplied citations, but I don’t understand how to get them in-line.
After waiting a full day, with no revisions or comments on the new text (only on the lack of inline citations), I went ahead and put the revisions on the main page awaiting someone (presumably hh) to include the inline citations.
Berean Hunter immediately removed the revisions as “original research” (despite the fact he’d had at almost a week to object to the text at this point).
At this point, they’ve been told to “fix it” but have flagrantly refused to do so.

EDIT: hh has attempted to work with me on this issue. I am unsure he has any interest in this matter one way or the other at this point.

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

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Non-lethal weapon, Allegations of torture}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Two SEPARATE discussions on the subject, including one request to simply use a different (un-biased) source and a sub-section simply to hash out the final text. Yes, I have tried very hard to work this out beforehand.

• How do you think we can help?

Tell them to:
Stop stalling;
Stop reverting the page.
If they want “inline” citations, they can include them; I’ve already stated I don’t understand how to do this, it’s a trivial matter, and the biased material is still up.

Additionally:
Batons and Caltrops are considered lethal weapons under the laws of all civilized localities. Anarchies do not have laws, but even in those areas people understand that these are an attempt to take life.
The entire tone of the page has a deeply anti-police ‘tone’ to it. I am NOT referring to the talk page; I treat the talk page as a rough draft to be discussed. I am talking about the overall tone of the page itself. If it can be arranged, have someone go over the page and review it for the use of weasel words and dodgy logic.

Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-lethal weapon, Allegations of torture discussion

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

I think we can dismiss the additional caltrops issue as already discussed and closed with consensus. Many secondary reliable sources were brought forward to show that caltrops are considered non-lethal weapons, but Reddson stuck to his one primary document, an arguably irrelevant law from California which determined that an individual's use of caltrops would be prosecuted by California the same as if a felony deadly weapon had been used, but did not define caltrops themselves as a deadly weapon. Very many other highly regarded expert sources call caltrops a non-lethal weapon. Reddson was the sole voice arguing to remove caltrops from the article about non-lethal weapons. Binksternet (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Reddson has not described this dispute very well. He chose to forgo the discussion which may lead to consensus and in the face of the other three editors involved in the thread, he went against Wiki policies with this edit which is original research & synthesis with an attempt to use cite needed tags as placeholders which is unacceptable. He filed a bad faith 3RR report on me which was summarily rejected and Reddson was counseled both there and at this thread at ANI. He continues with a case of I didn't hear that and is now forum shopping. Despite joining Wikipedia in 2008, he claims to not know how to find nor form citations...and apparently doesn't know how to sign his name correctly as it is missing the datestamp. It isn't for a lack of others supplying the links to pages where Reddson may learn how to do those things but rather he doesn't want to. He seems to want to rush under the incorrect perception that he is right and that he prevailed in the MedCab case and accuses others of stalling and having an agenda. He will have to learn that there is no deadline at Wikipedia and that if he plans to contribute at Wikipedia in a meaningful way, he will need to learn our policies & guidelines as well as how to do the functions required of an editor. Otherwise, he isn't going to get very far.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter and Binkersnet choose not to participate in the post-mediation discussion; hh did not, and worked in good faith. Further, Beraean Hunter filed the bad-faith warning, and was told to stop. I requested he be reviewed. (That is for a later date to deal with.) This is a blatant red herring in the hopes that if he stalls long enough I’ll give up and go away.
I have presented a completed and ready to present revised text that meets the requirements of the mediation results. Neither Berean Hunter nor Binkersnet have made any comments to these (as of my last check, which was after this process started). The only complaint they have is that the citations are not “in line.” This is a dodge, intended to “run the clock” (if it stays inactive long enough, it goes stale and the matter is closed by default)- The deadline effect, if you prefer.
As to a signature- It’s never been a “requirement” but I altered my sig once again to use it without generating anger outright. Another Red Herring.
As to the return to MedCab: I asked what to do next. I was instructed to come here. I came here. Red Herring.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

As to Binkerstnat’s statements, no, there is NOT consensus. Indeed, I noticed that the bad-faith complaints by Berean Hunter only began AFTER I put something related to his “sources” on my own talk page. As to my source, it was “California Penal Code §245. (a) (1), Assault Deadly Weapon:” http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=240-248 .I have a very hard time understanding how the law can be called “irrelevant” especially as it considered a felony (sadly, just like using a gun). (Please note: I didn’t write the law, I don’t agree with it, but I have no control over it.) SeE also CPC §12355 “Boobytraps.” http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=12001-13000&file=12355. Additionally, other than here, I have never seen batons referred to as anything other than a deadly weap.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the penal code would be the kind of primary source we'd want to avoid, see this from WP:PSTS. From common sense, certainly a baton can be used as a deadly weapon, but I would argue unlike a normal handgun, the primary purpose of a baton is not to kill someone, but rather to force someone to submit to a desired action. But one would need to bring secondary sources to bear on the issue. What secondary sources can you point to that classify a baton or caltrop as a deadly weapon? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Malabar Nasrani

• Syrian Malabar Nasrani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• When I found that the article: Syrian Malabar Nasrani is with a partisan view on the early socio-ethnic and cultural attributes of Syrian Christians in Kerala, I tried to introduce some space for neglected side. But the result is an edit-war. My view is that St.Thomas (or his disciple) could have probably evangelized both local people and Jewish people in the 1st century. I have introduced many reliable sources suggesting my view. Since it is not a scientific theory, the traditional beliefs of the concerned community could be given sufficient space until it is proved wrong. "All are Jews" view is nether acceptable nor proved. I request your good self to clean up the article. I think my view is more inclusive compared to the single race view of Robin Klein. All the Syrian Catholic Churches' official view contradict the idea of "All-Jews".

Users involved

• Ashleypt (talk · contribs)
• Robin klein (talk · contribs)

Ashleypt notified Robin klein of this dispute.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute?

Yes. Informed Robin Klein. He is the only editor in dispute as far as I know.

Resolving the dispute

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

Raised the matter in the Discussion Board of the Article. Since there are more than 4 million Syrian Christian in Kerala and many may refer the article, it would have been appropriate to correct the document as soon as possible. So I modified the page after raising my contentions in the Discussion Page after mentioning sufficient sources on the subject. But it triggered an 'edit-war"

• How do you think we can help?

Kindly intervene to allow an inclusive article on the history of 40 million Syrian Christians in Kerala in Wikipedia.

--Ashleypt (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Malabar Nasrani discussion

I have to say that User:Ashleypt is not accurate when he says that there is only one editor with whom he is involved in a dispute. There are other users as well who have reverted his POV edits. Please see the history of the article [[11]] Other editors involved include User:SpacemanSpiff and a user without an account 117.201.250.33

Ashleypt has been deleting references and adding his own ideas and now incorrectly stating that there is only one editor with whom he is involved in a dispute. He has further stated there is no proof yet about Nasrani descent. However I should state that the latest in research concerning Kerala Malabar Nasrani heritage proves Jewish origin as long hypothesized. For latest research on Nasrani heritage and Jewish descent. Please refer to research by Dr Mini Kariappa, of Department of Anatomy, Jubilee Mission Medical College, Thrissur. Dr Mini Kariappa has done DNA analysis of syrian malabar nasranis and found evidence of Jewish descent amongst the Nasranis. She presented her reserach on september 5th 2011. There was a link of her interview in the malayalam language that was published in a malayalam language newspaper in Kerala. Here is the link http://www.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/malayalamContentView.do?contentId=10033956&programId=1073753770&channelId=-1073751706&BV_ID=@@@&tabId=11

Ashleypt is trying to promote a casteist idea of nationalist supremacy that aspires to assume a 'supposed' superiority of the supposed elite 'Brahmin' hierarchical casteist society by trying to state that the Nasranis are brahmins. I should remind you that the Malabar Nasranis were persecuted in the Portuguese analogue of the Spanish inquisition known as the Portuguese Inquisition with the Portuguese burning hundreds of Syriac documents. Kindly see to it that Wikipedia does not become a platform where people propagate age old casteist ideas. Ashleypt does not give any support for stating the legends of brahmin descent saying that these are long held ideas. Denying and even brushing aside the latest DNA results. The latest DNA result shows the admixture of Jewish diaspora and local keralite society within the Malabar Nasranis. Which has always been stated in the article. In fact he distorts the admixture with local people as admixture with Brahmin, which is incorrect and at the root of the problem. Again to repeat. The article has always maintained that the Syrian Malabar Nasranis are an admixture of local South Indian Malabar people and the Jewish people just as latest DNA results support. However Ashleypt is in the attempt to remove the mention of local admixture and make it seem as brahmin. Ashleypt is not concerned or interested about the admixture of Jewish diaspora with the local keralite society within the Malabar Nasranis. Instead his real interest is the supposed 'Brahmin superiority'. Robin klein (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ashleypt and Robin, and thank you both for commenting at this noticeboard! It is always a good idea to get outside input when edits get reverted and discussion starts getting heated. Now that you've brought this dispute here, it's time to sit down, relax, and think things over with a clear head. Now, I have some thoughts on the issues here, and to start with I have a comment for Ashleypt. Wikipedia is interested in facts. Now, of course, there are lots of opinions in Wikipedia articles too, but because we have to write articles from a neutral point of view, we always attribute points of view to whoever made them. You have been trying to add the text "the Syrian Malabar Nasranis are the descendants of the local people who could have been baptized by St. Thomas or one of his disciples" (my italics). This isn't really a fact, because it doesn't tell you anything. My mother could be Marilyn Monroe, but that doesn't really tell you anything. To turn your statement into a fact, we need to attribute it to someone. For example: "[INSERT GROUP HERE] believe that the Syrian Malabar Nasranis are the descendants of the local people who were baptized by St. Thomas or one of his disciples". Now this makes it into a fact, and you can now include it into the article.

However, there's more. In Wikipedia, we have to avoid giving undue weight to a particular viewpoint. The text you are wishing to add is in the introduction to the article, right at the top. This is a very prominent place to put this viewpoint, and it would be giving it more weight than other viewpoints. Now the undue weight policy says that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." So, if your claim was the most prominent viewpoint, then we could include it in the introduction. That doesn't look like the case here, though. I think a better solution would be to put this claim in the body of the article, and make sure that you give it an appropriate amount of coverage according to its prominence in reliable sources. (What exactly this prominence is is something you will have to work out with the other editors of the article.)

Now, Robin, I saw that you called some of Ashleypt's edits "vandalism". I can appreciate that you might be frustrated at having your edits reverted by them, but you have to understand that on Wikipedia we have quite a strict definition of vandalism - I recommend having a careful read of WP:VANDAL and only using the word "vandalism" in its strictest sense. Calling well-meaning edits "vandalism" is often considered "biting the newbies" and is discouraged on Wikipedia. Also, regarding your statement above saying "the latest in research concerning Kerala Malabar Nasrani heritage proves Jewish origin as long hypothesized", this would also need to be attributed in the article, I think. For there to be a true scientific consensus Dr. Kariappa's research would have to be verified by other research teams and published in a scientific review or in a respected textbook. Until then it is probably best to say something like "a study by Dr. Mini Kariappa found evidence of Jewish descent amongst the Nasranis", and not make the claim any stronger than this, as it could yet be refuted by subsequent research. This has been a long reply, and I hope it is helpful. Let me know if you have any questions. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Dear Mr.Stradivarius, Thank you for your guidance on editing an article in Wikipedia. I appreciate your views and would try to modify the article as you directed. --Ashleypt (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Dear Mr. Stradivarius thank you very much for the feedback. I also want to say that the dispute was brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard by Ashleypt and I did not make any changes to the article until I heard from you. However Ashleypt reverted edit before the matter was brought on the dispute resolution board. thanks Robin klein (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Dear Mr.Stradivarius,

Dear Mr.Stradivarius, I'm quite happy to inform you that I and Mr. Robin have reached a consensus on the above mentioned sentence in the article and both agreed on it as "The Syrian Malabar Nasranis are the descendants of the local people and Jewish diaspora in Kerala who were evangelized by St. Thomas in the Malabar Coast in the earliest days of Christianity." This modification is the only one I have done after posting the dispute here {(cur | prev) 09:38, 26 September 2011 Ashleypt (talk | contribs) (55,116 bytes) (undo).} Mr. Robin Klein agreed to it in a discussion on the page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Cleanup.

Now Mr. Robin Klein's major contention is the inclusion of the following sentence:".It could be drawn from the early history of Kerala that in the 1st century after Christ a multilingual and multi-cultural society was existent in Musiris in which the elite Dravidians, clergy-class Aryan-Brahmins, Migrated/Converted Jains as well as some migrated Jews and Arabs lived a harmonious life under the rule of Cheran Kings." He presumes that this sentence implicate the conversion of brahmins by St.Thomas. Even though the tradition suggests the conversion of some brahmins by the apostle, I refrained from directly mentioning anything about it to avoid any more controversy. It's not bold,but I think, it's up to the readers who could draw an opinion depending on their point of view. With Regards, --Ashleypt (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Now Mr. Robin Klein has edited the document and replaced the part "elite Dravidians, clergy-class Aryan-Brahmins, Migrated/Converted Jains" with "local people". But I think a brief description about the ethnic groups in native people who were evangelized by St.Thomas is not against wikipedia policy or standards. Dravidian or Aryan is just an ethnic group as Semitic.Mr. Robin prefers to specify Semitic and opposes specifying Aryan/Dravidian. Similarly Jew is a sub group in Semitic Race and Brahmin is a sub group in Aryan race. I think, it would give undue preference to Jews over other ethinic sub-groups and hence partisan. Anyway, I'm waiting for a neutral opinion on it.

--Ashleypt (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The information provided by Ashleypt is not complete. He is not presenting the entire statement which was modified. The text was "It could be drawn from the early history of Kerala that in the 1st century after Christ a multilingual and multi-cultural society was existent in Musiris in which the elite Dravidians, clergy-class Aryan-Brahmins, Migrated/Converted Jains as well as some migrated Jews and Arabs lived a harmonious life under the rule of Cheran Kings." This was rewritten and made neutral in description as "Around the early days of Christianity a multilingual and multi-cultural society was existent in Muziris in which local people as well as migrated West Asian Semitic people lived a harmonious life under the rule of Cheran Kings." I have changed Aryan-Brahmin, Dravidian, Jains etc as local people and Jews and Arabs as West Asian semitic. I have not mentioned any particular community. I have used broad terms that encompasses these peoples. I have not been partisan. The accusation is fallacious. thanks Robin klein (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• The word, Jew or Jewish has been used 43 times in the document and many times in controversial way. I have't tried to modify any of those disputable contents, but anybody who flick through the article could easily understand the undue preference given to Jewish section of the early Christians in Kerala.

--218.248.72.195 (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sonny Bill Williams

• Sonny Bill Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

The main disagreement is over whether this sentence can be added to the article: "He is also the only athlete to simultaneously pursue careers in both professional boxing and international rugby." The source [12] says "He [Williams] might be the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks and the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers" The disagreement is over whether the "might be" in the sentence applies to the "only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers". One editor is argueing that it does not therefore we can say that he is the only sportsmen to do so, while myself and another editor are argueing that it means he might be the only sportsmen and therefore should not be added using this source. So far no other sources have been provided that cleary state that he is and no other editors have left an opinion.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Suid-Afrikaanse (talk · contribs)
• BiggerAristotle (talk · contribs)
• Aircorn (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Sonny Bill Williams}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

There are two threads on the talk page discussing this Talk:Sonny Bill Williams#Nine cites in the lead for one sentence and Talk:Sonny Bill Williams#Regarding boxing-ruby status and send off. These also contain other disagreements, but the sentence mentioned in the overview seems to be the most contentious.

• How do you think we can help?

Currently consensus is weak so it would be good to get some other editors involved to assess whether the citation can be used to justify saying Williams is the only athlete to simultaneously pursue careers in both professional boxing and international rugby.

AIRcorn (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sonny Bill Williams discussion

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

I would just like to say that i support keeping the wording that SBW is the only boxer-international rugby player for a few reasons. 1. Most importantly the wording from a reputable source states he is in fact as is mentioned on the Wikipedia article. 2. I asked for and did not recieve an answer to my request that if he is not the only boxer-international player, then could i please have the names of any other boxer-international rugby players? The fact that a name could not be produced backs-up my interpretation of the sentence from the reference. 3. There has been an unnecessary edit war over a detail that is proven from the source material and reality. This edit war did not start until BiggerAristotle started editing the article not too long ago. That is to say the detail of boxer-international rugby player has been in the article for many months without any objections or challenges until very recently. I hope this is solved soon. Thankyou.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The source says no such thing and this reflects S-A's fundamental misunderstanding of English. If he can't understand the sentence in the source correctly, I would question if he is competent to edit English Wikipedia.

2. The lack of a suggested alternative rugby player-boxer proves nothing. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of evidence and proof. Instead, could S-A please list every single current international rugby player and cite a reliable source for each which states that they are not also pursuing a career in boxing?

3. The 'edit war' did not start until Suid-Afrikaanse started edit warring. He appears to have issues of ownership around the article. BiggerAristotle (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(Uninvolved editor's passing comment.) Strictly speaking, this seems a content dispute. We need only consult the single source whose sense is in dispute. Its author speculates: "He [Williams] might be the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks and the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers." A source which said "might be the first man in history to be courted by the All Blacks and is the only sportsmen to be simultaneously pursuing boxing and international rugby careers," would support Suid-Afrikaanse's assertion. But that's not what this source says: the speculative "might be" applies to the entire sentence, which cannot be used to draw further conclusions (see WP:OR). BiggerAristotle's source interpretation is therefore correct. Haploidavey (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to BA questioning my ability to edit English Wikipedia other than to say it is a suggestion that lacks good faith. I have shown with a mass of examples that i am more than capable to edit in English. On the other hand i actually could prove that there is no other professional boxer-international rugby player. This can easily be done by looking at the world rankings of a few of the higher weight divisions to see whether their are any such players in that list. Perhaps BA would also like to check for himself on boxrec. My point is you will not find one because this is in keeping with what was initially stated in the reference. Once again i say the "might" applies only to his being courted because his being courted is the issue of contention depending upon ones own definitions eg. is Dan Carter's agreed sabbaticals considered courting as compared to the NZRU's initial attempts to lure SBW to NZ? This is what the author was unsure of. Perhaps he could of been more grammatically clear about it so this unnecessary debate would never have needed to start in the first place, but it should be quite clear by now to any person of serious SBW knowledge that the source means he is the only pro boxer-intl rugby player.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Suid-Afrikaanse, you evidently have a thorough personal knowledge of this topic but we can't generate encyclopedic "facts" from personal knowledge or informed surmise. Nor can we use logical arguments to justify our reasoning and conclusions, then present these as facts. We rely solely on conclusions drawn by reliable sources, not editors' personal opinion, no matter how well informed. It really is that simple. I'm afraid the process you've outlined immediately above amounts to synthesis, editorialising and original research. Haploidavey (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As i said before: i added the boxer-rugby detail only because of what i read from the reference. I am just saying all the other evidences back-up this reference. I am not saying i added this source because of my previous reasoning. That is all. Thankyou.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Kainaw posting personal attacks against User:Whoop whoop pull up despite repeated requests to stop

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. Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? User:Kainaw has been repeatedly posting personal attacks against me, first on my own talk page where a civil discussion was winding down [13] and [14], then on his own talk page, first at a section started by a third party as a request to stop the personal attacks [15], and finally at a section with my own request for him to stop [16] and [17]. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Whoop whoop pull up (talk · contribs) Kainaw (talk · contribs) Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) Cncplayer (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=User:Kainaw posting personal attacks against User:Whoop whoop pull up despite repeated requests to stop}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Discussed it in the section where he first posted the first personal attack, then a third party created a new section on his own talk page to discuss this, and finally I tried to resolve it in a new section of his talk page which I created. How do you think we can help? By helping Kainaw to cool down and by stopping the stream of personal attacks against me (Whoop whoop pull up). Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 20:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC) User:Kainaw posting personal attacks against User:Whoop whoop pull up despite repeated requests to stop discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The personal attacks were uncalled for. Seems like he was warned about this by Beeblebrox already. The questions whoop whoop have been asking may have been frivolous though. I am willing to assume good faith but this may have happened numerous times already, not sure. Still, calling someone retarded isn't the way to handle this. ScienceApe (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC) He was warned. Otherwise I would be warning him right now instead of putting it here. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 23:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC) I am not a big part of this dispute and do not wish to participate in the discussion. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 01:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC) I am an uninvolved editor in this dispute, looking at the issues here for the first time. I will second Beeblebrox's advice - although some of the questions posted at the reference desk could have been answered by just reading the articles involved, there is no place in Wikipedia for personal attacks, and these ([18][19]) definitely count as personal attacks. Probably the best thing for you both to do is to just stop interacting with each other for a while. There's no need for any more drastic measures just yet in my opinion, but if trouble persists it may become necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC) OK. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 10:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kerala_Iyers

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. Kerala Iyers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? The dispute is about how the community is to be viewed. Whether the actions/opinions of other communities about this community should be given prominence Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Vythiri (talk · contribs) Chektomate (talk · contribs) 218.186.16.225 (talk · contribs) Kuttappayi (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) "Yes". N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Kerala_Iyers}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? I have been discussing these in the talk page from 2007. I had also expanded the article to include certain points raised by the users. But the users insist of the retention of irrelevant and derogatory sentences. How do you think we can help? The community pages in Wikipedia is basically about the community. It is not about how others view the community or their views. Caste conflicts have been part of Indian history. But it is not part of Wikipedia. Emphasizing on the (now illegal) obnoxious and inhuman practice of untouchability to prove the so called superiority of one caste over the other is not a Neutral Point of View. I need independent opinions. Sankarrukku (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Kerala_Iyers discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The issues are 1. The practice of Shudam (untouchabilty) by the Namboodiris. This practice of the Namboothiri community has no relevance in an article about Kerala Iyers. I do not find any mention of this in the article on Nairs or Ezhavas or any other community from Kerala. As I had posted earlier this article is about Kerala Iyers and not their relationship with other communities. BTW the Namboodiris very rarely got an opportunity to practice this untouchability because the Kerala Iyers were neither the tenants or farm laborers with whom the land owners came into contact. The reference is also from the site of the Namboothiri community. I had expanded the article to show the caste hierarchy in Kerala as under. <<Though they were classified as the highest cate in Tamil Nadu, Kerala Iyers (Tamil Brahmins) were ranked below the Namboothiris in the caste system of Kerala. But they were accorded a higher status than the Nairs who were considered shudras.>> 2. The community not becoming priests in Kerala temples. I had expanded the article to show why Tamil Brahmins did not become temple priests in Kerala as under. <<The Tamil Brahmins did not take up the profession of priesthood in Kerala temples as 1. They were Vaidika Brahmins. Vaidika Brahmins could not take up priesthood either in Tamil Nadu or in Kerala because the temple worship in Tamil Nadu is according to Agamas and the worship in Kerala is according to Kerala Tantras. 2. The sub castes which were in Kerala did not include Gurukkal brahmins who are the traditional priests in temples of Tamil Nadu. However they officiated as priests in temples erected by themselves in their agraharams.>> The other users want to show as if it is a punishment. I had mentioned in the discussions page Again a mention is made about Tamil Brahmins being not allowed to be priests of the local temples. The Tamil Brahmin sects who form the majority of the Kerala Iyers are not allowed to be priests even in the temples of Tamil Nadu. The Gurukkal caste are the only people allowed to be priests in the prominent temples. Temple priesthood was not considered a good profession by the Tamil Brahmins. They never went for that. This is in contrast to the Namboothiris who considered it a noble profession. 3. Kerala_Iyers being cooks. It is sought of be projected that the community was a army of cooks. I had expanded the article as under <<The Kerala Iyers were well known for their culinary skills. Most of the temples employed them as cooks. They started eateries called Brahmin Mess or Brahmin Hotel all over Kerala. Initially they catered to only the community because of the restrictions in taking food from outside. However later they served all the communities and became popular. They developed the local cuisine by introducing flavours of Tamil food.>> They did not become cooks in Namboodiri or Nair households because of caste considerations. They were preferred as cooks in temples because their being Brahmins all other communities took the food cooked by them. Subtle changes in sentences to bring down a very small linguistic community who are different because they speak Tamil and have their own Tamil culture. Sankarrukku (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC) I don't edit the article.I am also a not a moderator.But if I have the right to comment about this.Then please consider my opinion. I don't find anything derogatory .I just represents the facts from history.Moreover I wonder how someone can be of the conviction that cooking is a mean job! when there are people from many castes across India who have been forced to do the work of scavenger for more than a millennium.Iyers really cook good and many people love to eat in mess run by Iyers(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)) Good that you decided to utilize dispute resolution process rather than doing reverts. You editing style is overtoning the article. If Namboothiris were practising untouchability on Iyers, it should be mentioned in the article. You cannot remove that cited sentence. The caste system section you created is not having any citations. Please do not remove the tags (peacock and refimprove), as lot of sentences in the article is not cited. --Chektomate (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC) I am not disputing facts. I am only asking whether it is Neutral Point of View to write about how one community viewed another. This is not done on community pages in Wikipedia. Please check other pages. Plese see this page Vishwakarma_(caste) They call themselves Vishwa Brahmin. They are classified as other backward castes by the Government. Do the other castes view them as Brahmins? No one questions the name of the caste. Again I do not find any mention a about their position in the hierarchy of castes. In fact this statement about the position in the hierarchy of castes is not mentioned in most of the community pages. I can quote a number of community pages where exaggerated claims have been made about a particular caste. This is basic etiquette and also because it is not relevant. Again after opening this discussion I find that the following tags have been placed in the article. {{peacock|date=September 2011}} {{refimprove|date=September 2011}} Unfortunately even the opening of the article which talks about migration can not be proved. There is no historical evidence about the migration of Tamil Brahmins to Travancore. The history books do not talk about any such migration. Being a very small, non-political, non-Controversial community there is hardly any historical reference to this community. Web resources reflect only a point of view and are not facts. That is why the article is still Stub Class. Of course I can live with the tags which could be applied to most of the community pages.Sankarrukku (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Dear user Sankarrukku, you are not getting the point. If you want to improve an article, you should not compare with a poor article. There is no sense in doing that. In wikipedia, if there are no valid citations, those claims/sentences will be removed. "being a small community with hardly any historical reference" is not an excuse. Please understand that you should not try to own the article. Your last statement "Of course I can live with the tags which could be applied to most of the community pages" also proves that you believes that the article belongs to you. Please read WP:OWN And finally, please stop the reverts in the article. --Vythiri (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC) You have not answered any of the points raised by me. It is not the Wikipedia policy to write an article about one community which reflects the views of other communities. Allowing this would open a flood agate of disputes. A community web site represents its own version and view of the world. A citation from such a web site only reflects the view of the community. The question is does Neutral Point of view means Namboothiri Point of View? being temple priests is not the chosen profession of Iyers. you have chosen to portray the denail of priesthood as a great drawback and the reason for iyers becoming cooks. this is the Namboothiri point of view because they consider the profession of Priests to be nobe. I had explained this in my expansion of the article. You started the edit wars. Even the reference here has not ended the attempts of people form trying to impose their point of view. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#My_edits_keep_getting_reverted._What_should_I_do.3F Sankarrukku (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC) A new user name has been created today for carrying on reversion in the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kuttappayi Sankarrukku (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Sankarukku, you are again not getting the point. Please be neutral and allow all kind of information (if it is cited and related to the article) to stay. Do not blindly revert. Please go through the discussion again and come up with valid points. --Chektomate (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC) I am a neutral mediator in regard to this matter. If this edit defines the controversy here, then the resolution is simple. None of the material which was added or deleted in that edit should be included in the article. That is not because it is true or false but because it has been challenged and is not sourced. Wikipedia policy says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." For the material to be included in Wikipedia it must all, once challenged, be supported by reliable sources (and the term "reliable sources" has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia, click that link to get a start on understanding it). The issue of POV is irrelevant if the material cannot be properly sourced. Since the material is obviously controversial please be sure to use inline citations to support it, rather than just listing references at the end of the article, so that the source for each individual item of information can be checked by authors who question it. Please remember that when citing sources English sources are preferred, especially for assertions which may be challenged. Until all that is done, there is nothing to discuss because we cannot evaluate whether or not the information is verifiable and including it based upon individual editors' personal knowledge or beliefs is prohibited original research. Finally, most of the editors in this dispute appear to be newcomers or relative newcomers and I would suggest that all the editors take the time to read my Advice to New Users essay being sure to click through and read all the links. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Exactly. The uncited claims can be removed. Only cited claims should be retained. Thanks, --Chektomate (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Dear Chektomate, I'm here for some other dispute resolution, but since I have good relation with both the communities, I request you to avoid that derogatory remark on Iyers from their article. It's a fact, but please don't force them to bear that tag anymore. You could include it in an article on caste system or Namboodiri. --Ashleypt (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC) I had stated It is not the Wikipedia policy to write an article about one community which reflects the views of other communities. I did not know how wrong I was. Any one can do it if they have muscle (number of users) power. For all this trouble I have been rewarded with a block. They trapped me by the creation of a new user which I have pointed out. A remark was made about my being a new editor. Yes I am though I have been editing since 2007. I have not yet learnt to play the game. So there ends my association with Wikipedia. Best of luck to my two friends in their valiant efforts to destroy articles. You will progress in Wikipedia. Sankarrukku (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jared Leto

• Jared Leto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is removing sourced material which is significant in the context of the subject's overall life and career. With his version there are things that seem trivial (not sure why they are in the article). There is also a consensus at the peer review to keep that content and he is still removing it, ignoring that this version represents consensus among editors.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Earthh (talk · contribs)
• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs)

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

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Jared Leto}} --~~~~ on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Talk:Jared Leto, Wikipedia:Peer review/Jared Leto/archive1 and User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

• How do you think we can help?

To judge whether that material can remain in the article.

Earthh (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Jared Leto discussion

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

Speedy close, and trout-slap the initiating editor for misuse of this process. As should be evident from review of the article and its talk page, several experienced editors have raised objections to the tone and excessively favorable POV in Earthh's previously undiscussed revamp/expansion of the Jared Leto article. Since the objections were raised, no editors have supported Earthh's position. Rather than respecting the on-article consensus, Earthh insists that the vaguely/generally favorable comments by a single editor at a prior peer review entitles him to reinstate the dubious material, and does so on a (roughly) weekly basis. Note also that Earthh did not notify User:Nymf and User:John, the other editors who've actively been involved in trying to prune tghge article (which still needs to be cleaned up further), but did canvass the peer-reviewing editor, who hasn't been involved in the actual editing dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you are not improving this article. Give an explanation of your removal otherwise I will revert one more time.--Earthh (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

WARNING making that kind of statement is almost always immediate grounds for blocking as you are threatining to disrupt Wikipedia for "The Truth" does it hurt to discuss it for a few days? Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

DRN Co-ordinator's comment: Hullaballoo if anything the trout slap belongs to you. As a long time editor I would have expected you to engage the wheels of DR again rather than be dismissive of the other editor in the situation. Earthh, part of this board's purpose is to be used after discussion has come to a stand still on the article page. Based on the fact that there was only generic information on the Peer Review and no assertions that the Fancruft-ish content could stay regardless of citations, I strongly suggest you open a discussion, 3rd Opinion request, or RfC on the article's talk page to discuss the content you and Hullaballoo are warring over. Don't expect to have many people interested in supporting your side as the content is really on that edge of puffery and indiscriminate content that most editors are not very tollerant of. Hasteur (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Several of us have been going through this, on the article talk page, for about a month now. See Talk:Jared_Leto#Relationships, Talk:Jared_Leto#Continuing_removal_of_sourced_content, Talk:Jared_Leto#Jared_Leto, and the warnings posted at User_talk:Earthh#August_2011, not to mention several sections on my talk page, . As the comments made by Earth today in response to Nymf here User_talk:Ruhrfisch#Jared_Leto show, this is a user who just denies what should be apparent. We're dealing with an inexperienced user who's willing to work hard on articles, so I've been reluctant to possibly drive them away by filing an edit warring complaint or other formal process, but we've been discussing with them for a month now, and the responses are still little better than "You're wrong, I'm reverting again." I've been hoping we'd get through to them before they managed to attract a block or block warning, but there's really no difference what's going on today and what was going on a month ago (see my comment here [20]). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment as the peer reviewer in question, I basically said that I thought the removals of POV and peacock language had improved the article, but that it seemed like the removed material on Mr. Leto's assorted paramours might be included, provided it was properly referenced to reliable sources, and that it followed the model of FAs on similar figures (prominent actors or rock musicians). Please do not bicker about this on my talk page, thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)