Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Skip to open disputes
skip to newest thread
(purge cache)

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
Neith	Resolved	Potymkin (t)	31 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 13 hours
Defense of Sihang Warehouse	Closed	Adachi1939 (t)	12 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 15 hours
New Mexico State University and University of New Mexico	New	Alamo NM (t)	2 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 15 hours
Genesis creation narrative	New	Violoncello10104 (t)	2 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 16 hours	Doug Weller (t)	11 hours
Algeria	New	Lord Ruffy98 (t)	3 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 hours	Kovcszaln6 (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 17:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

1 Spore (2008 video game) (Example case)

– Discussion in progress.

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

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)

Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

There is a months long dispute in this article about the lede. The very short lede, in the opinion of several editors over the months, is deficient in not summarizing the content of the article. Apparently, there are some editors (Glider87 and Fnagaton) who are adamant that nothing remotely religious be in the lede. The problem with that is the article mostly discusses the origins of this holiday, including religious origins. See, Talk:Thanksgiving#Proposed lede and MOS:LEAD dispute resolution for the most recent discussion. Anupam is accused of pushing POV in the opposite direction. Generally, odd policy rationales, threats of dire wiki consequences, obsessive focus on the history of the dispute instead of moving forward, etc. seem to be employed in the service of preventing progress. In addition, recently, Smallbones has suggested that Glider87 and Fnagaton are single issue editors.

Users involved

Who is involved in the 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=Thanksgiving}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Lots of talk on the talk page. There was an RfC by Anupam, where no conclusion was reached. I most recently requested mediation to no avail.

How do you think we can help?

Provide guidance on relevant policy, and help restore reasoned discussion, in the service of making progress on the article.

Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving discussion

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

OK, there's a lot to read through. My initial thoughts after reading the article at present is that there is minimal mention of the religious aspects in the article at present, so it doesn't make sense to me to add that information in the lede of the article. A lead section summarizes the content of the article, it shouldn't add detail that's not already in the article further down. I did come across this version of the article from 2010 which may be suitable, however. It does detail the historic religious aspects of Thanksgiving, which is cited to a few references (and if troubles occur there, you can always be super formal and phrase it along the lines of "X source says that Thanksgiving initially was a religious thing" or something of that structure (X source says Y about Z). Give that a go, see what you can work out. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When you refer to the 2010 article, the second sentence of the body of the article reads: "Typically in Europe, festivals were held before and after the harvest cycles to give thanks to God for a good harvest, to rejoice together after much hard work with the rest of the community." citing, Morill, Ann "Thanksgiving and Other Harvest Festivals" Infobase Publishing, ISBN 1-6041-3096-2 p.28. Apparently, that has been edited in the present article by at some point deleting "to God" but not the citation. The rest of the first paragraph discusses transfering that thanksgiving tradition to the "new world" using the same source. Can we tell when that was done to see if there was any discussion about it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look through the history of the article, you'd be able to find it eventually. I'm at work today, so I unfortunately don't have the time to find the edit myself. If you do find it, poke me and let me know. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there should be an easier way but this is it [1] done by an IP last August without explanation or disussion. Also, btw, another user named User:Kenatipo reinserted it sometime today. I don't recognize the User. At any rate, it seems this edit at the top of body of the article makes explicit what may otherwise be implicit about historical associations of "thanksgiving." Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what Steven said, according to WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarise the article. This means it should cover all of the important facts, but avoid going into too much detail. There is very little mention of the religion origins of the holiday in the article, so it should probably not be in the lead. However, if more information (reliably sourced) about religious origins can be found, there may be scope for its mention in the lead. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had thought there was (still) enough about religiuos tradition in the current article to give brief mention in the lead but perhaps the focus should be to discuss restoring some of the information that was deleted, as Steven suggests above? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the best way forward in this situation. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't made an edit to the actual article until 3 very short edits this week. But I had noticed a very bizarre thing about the article and pretty nasty stuff on the talk page a couple of weeks before Thanksgiving and since. The bizarre thing about the article was that its obvious religious origins were almost completely missing - folks do know that it is named after a religious service, don't they? On the talk page it was all about bullying behavior and an RfC that was used only to confuse matters and bully further. In any case I've included a couple of very reliable sources under further reading and will get around eventually to including the material in the body of the article and then the lede. Please don't be complete sticklers though - sometimes it's a bit easier to organize things by editing the lede then adding material to the body! And just to underline the facts - there is no doubt that the holiday has religious origins. Smallbones (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Smallbones on this issue. A small group of individuals are pushing for the complete removal of the religious origins of the holiday as well as the modern practices associated with the holiday. The World Book Encyclopedia, Volume 7 states that:

Thanksgiving Day is a day set aside each year for giving thanks to God for blessings received during the year. On this day, people give thanks with feasting and prayer. It is celebrated in the United States and Canada.

Similarly, the Bulletin of the Pan American Union, Volume 37 states:

Thanksgiving Day is the day set apart for special services in the churches for expression of the gratefulness of the people for the benefits bestowed by the Almighty: it is the day, too, of home-comings and family reunions in the genial warmth of the spirit of the season; the day of bountiful feasts graced by turkeys and cranberry sauce and pumpkin pies, in deference to a custom almost as old as the coming of the pilgrim fathers, for it was with them that it originated.

It makes no sense to remove information a critical piece of information from the lede when other reliable sources explicitly mention the religious origins of the holiday. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that incorporating the information from this version of the article into the current version would be the way to go. If really required, do it by attributing the comments to the source, but I don't think that will be necessary here. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steven Zhang, thanks for your suggestion. Many individuals still observe Thanksgiving by saying Thanksgiving grace and attending prayer services and masses. Moreover the official presidential proclamations still pay homage to God. As a result, I think it would be more accurate to state that the holiday involves a mix of religious and secular attitudes and observances; another option would be to remove the third sentence from the introduction you suggested altogether. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arlington Catholic Herald article "Thanksgiving" argues that historically Thanksgiving had religious as well as civil roots.Geremia (talk)

It seems to me that some form of religious roots are all but implicit in the name itself. I have never encountered anything in reliable sources to the effect that the Puritans were being "thankful" to the Indians for their help. That being the case, and the rather obviously religious nature of the Plymouth colony itself, it strikes me as being an all but unarguable reference to their being "thankful" to their god. I grant that, over time, the religious element has to some degree been downplayed, and perhaps, given the secular nature of modern society, rightly so, but that is a different matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Anupam and John. To eliminate the historical religious origin and present day religious context of Thanksgiving does a tremendous disservice to the reader. Is this more Wiki-correctness or just foolishmess? The sources substantiating the religious nature of the holiday are plentiful. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your follow up comments User:Geremia, User:John Carter, and User:Lionelt. It seems like we have agreement here on the issue at hand. How would it sound if we used User:Johnlumea's sentence: "Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and non-religious attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday."? I look forward to all of your comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might tweak the sentence a little, saying something to the effect of a variety of traditions and activities have developed, both secular and religious, but think the idea in general is a good one. John Carter (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Ditto. I stress the importance to not only update the lede, but the body of the article as well. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:John Carter, your suggestion sounds fine to me. Would you mind proposing the exact sentence you had in mind below? I look forward to your comments. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree with John and Steven and I would consider keeping the present first sentence of the lede and inserting "secular" before holiday. Then summarizing the history sections in the lede like a variation on Johnlumea, including religious, and then go to present day observance, but as of right now there is relatively little in the body of article about the present day that is reliably sourced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alanscottwalker, since the word "secular" is mentioned in the sentence that User:John Carter proposed, I might suggest we use the adjective "civil." I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would not recommend the word being used twice. But the problem I see is the article still does not much discuss the present. So, the focus for the lead would still generally have to be on the history, after the introduction of it as an at present officially secular holiday. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments User:Alanscottwalker. Exactly, if we use the adjective "secular" as an adjective before holiday, then the word will be used twice as it will already be used in the sentence that User:John Carter suggested. This is why I recommended the word "civil." What User:John Cater, User:Lionelt, User:Geremia, and I seemed to agree upon is that the holiday in its present form incorporates both religious and secular traditions. The article about Thanksgiving in the United States includes a section on the religious practice of "Giving Thanks" as is practiced today. Moreover, all the official presidential proclamations to date acknowledge "Almighty God" (see reference). As such, we must not christen the holiday as being "officially religious" or "officially secular." In actuality, the holiday incorporates both aspects for many people (Thanksgiving grace, worship services, family reunions, parades, etc.). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been saying all along. The holiday is BOTH religious and secular. Moreover it originated as a religious holiday. WP:DUE requires that this be represented in the article. I think Anupam's proposal is reasonable. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm afraid the same kind of miscommunication plagued the talk page. Again, I'm not suggesting it be used twice, only once. The holiday is legally secular in both the United States and Canada because that's what their laws require. No government official in those countries is going to tell anyone they have to pray or otherwise observe the holiday in any particular manner. Anupam then refers to another article and other things that are not in this article, but because they are not in this article they cannot be in the lead of this article. Is that clear? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why we are not labeling this a secular or religious holiday, but rather, a civil one. The holiday incorporates both religious and secular customs as I demonstrated above and therefore, as User:Lionelt and User:John Carter suggested, the sentence will state something to the effect of "Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and secular attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday." (Yes, the word, secular is included). On a side note, were you aware that the United States has a government holiday called the National Day of Prayer? Is that secular or religious? This example illustrates why the word "civil" might be a better adjective to use before the word "holiday." I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you ask about the National Day of Prayer. That has nothing to do with Thanksgiving (let alone, Thanksgiving in the United States and Canada) and it's also secular in that its not requiring anyone to pray or do anything at all. It's also not a legally secular holiday because its not a holiday. Finally, where are "approaches, practices and responses," discussed in depth in the article? The article discusses origins and history in depth but little else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, when you say "civil" and then go on to discuss "religion," it confusingly sounds like civil religion, but that's not what this article is about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you comments Alan, but I do not perceive an objection to Anupam's proposal. On that note, we should go ahead with the change we have heretofore discussed. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as edit warring doesn't break out as is currently the case, for which I primarily blame Anupam for reverting and not raising the issue on the talk page, after doing so. Reasoned compromise is what is really needed here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my edit summary, it stated: "please take part in the dispute resolution and wait until consensus is reached & administrative closure before making contentious changes." However, User:Glider87 did not make any comment here regarding the modification of the lede. Instead, he chose to edit war and was correctly reverted by User:Lionelt. User:Glider87 did not offer even one comment here despite the fact that he was notified of the DR discussion on 28 January 2011. Who should be chastised for reverting? I've been discussing the introduction here for days, and User:Glider87 has not made even one comment to try to compromise or reach consensus at DR and so he's now allowed to freely modify the lede to suit his own wishes? If that's the case what's the point of even having a Dispute Resolution? I'm sorry, but that's not the way things work. I hope this clears things up. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to talk on the article talk page not here because it keeps involved editors aware of the situation. Anupam you did blanket revert some better changes instead of talking about it. You quickly reverted twice then Lionelt quickly appeared and also reverted twice. Your reverts and Lionelt's were then correctly reverted by someone else with the comment "rv religious POV pushing per talk page -- this is getting ridiculous people, I thought you guys would have given up this nonsense by now". I'm not the only one who sees religious POV pushing, per the talk page many people do. Anupam you started a RfC pushing a religious point of view and were correctly told that it was against policy. Even now after many weeks you are still pushing the same religious point of view here and that is not in line with policy about neutrality. Consensus does not have to wait for people who always push the same point of view in an article. This is not a forum for anyone to push a religious point of view and get their own way. If you want to talk about productive changes that are within the scope of Wikipedia policies then I think talking on the article talk page is best. You can find me there. I agree with Alanscottwalker about inserting "secular" before holiday and also agree with Alanscottwalker that using the word "civil" instead would be confusing to the reader. The modern holiday is secular so the lede should definitely contain that word. Glider87 (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think to get some productivity out of this discussion, and to allow the editors affected to go back to editing Wikipedia positively—I will hold a straw poll below where you can vote your opinion on key topics. Whenaxis talk · contribs 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Sorry, I'm going to be a bit extreme here, but I don't think a straw poll is the way to go here (hence why I have removed it). All significant points of view should be proportionately represented in an article, as covered by reliable sources. The article does detail the history of Thanksgiving, which according to the reliable sources presented both in the article and here indeed had religious aspects. It's therefore my opinion that this information shouldn't be cut out of the article, just because some don't like it. Detail that it originally had religious aspects, but has become more of a secular holiday, but I think it would be unwise, and indeed inaccurate, to state that it's always been just a secular holiday. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Anupam won't agree to the lede detailing Thanksgiving "has become more of a secular holiday". He objects to anything that correctly points out this fact. He only wants to add religious history to the lede in a way that implies the holiday is still religious when it isn't, clearly against neutrality. For examples of this look at the option 1 he proposed in the RfC which was correctly called out as being far too pointy. Glider87 (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're incorrect. I proposed a sentence here that points out both aspects of the holiday, fulfilling WP:NPOV: "Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and secular attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday." Thus far, User:John Carter, User:Lionelt, and User:Geremia have agreed with this statement. I look forward to the comments of others on this matter. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The version you proposed did not use the wording "has become more of a secular holiday" and it failed to give due weight to the modern majority secular nature of the modern holiday and by doing so gave undue bias to the religious aspect. Your version reads like this "Societies over time developed a mixture of beliefs that the Earth is flat or round" without giving the reader the correct due weight about the current situation. As said before to push the religious point over and above the modern majority secular position is not neutral. To make your proposal begin to follow the policy about neutrality would have to read more like this "Modern Thanksgiving is more of a secular holiday, however in the past societies that celebrate Thanksgiving developed a mix of religious and secular attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday". That version begins to give due weight where it is due. Glider87 (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you remind you all to keep things focused on the dispute, rather than the editors involved. I stand by my recommendation, to use a variant such as "While Thanksgiving originally had underlying religious elements in the original celebration, today is primarily identified as a secular holiday." or something similar. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A point, not all countries that celebrate Thanksgiving had religious origins, some give thanks for labor and production, some give thanks for liberation of their country etc. To reflect that it would have to be something like "While Thanksgiving in some countries originally had underlying religious elements in the original celebration, today it is primarily identified as a secular holiday". Glider87 (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could work, yes. But you could incorporate the rest in as well. Say, something like "The origins of Thanksgiving had various underlying elements and purposes, providing thanks to religious deities, a prosperous harvest or to commemorate their countries independence. Today, it is primarily identified as a secular holiday." I'd also advise against removal of aspects relating to the religious elements in the history section of the article. How does that work? (Might need a bit of a c/e though) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Glider87 (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steven Zhang, I can accept most of your sentence. "Religious deities" seems like a nonsensical term to me; why not just say "God"? Therefore the sentence would read "The origins of Thanksgiving had various underlying elements and purposes, providing thanks to God, a prosperous harvest or to commemorate their countries independence. Today, it is primarily identified as a secular holiday." If you accept this, you can add it in the lede of the Thanksgiving article and then make a note on the talk page saying that this dispute was resolved at DR. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that quite gets to it, Steve. So, to "ce" (ie. total rewrite), I would rather suggest keeping the current lead and adding to it: :::::::

"Thanksgiving has roots in religious traditions of thanksgiving. Today, it has been adopted as a secular holiday, so celebrants have added to or discarded these traditions, which now include a diverse array of observances."

This proposal embodies the major thrust of the current article,and applies in major parts to all countries mentioned. The focus and almost ALL of the article, as it currently stands is Canada and the US and their history of "thanksgiving" celebrations. There are a small group of other countries, with tiny entries. Liberia, a majority Christian nation, (and by its article account, it is still very religious legally and culturally) was a U.S. colony and was run by emigrants from the United States; Japan, (which has practically no entry currently) has its roots in Shinto/Buddhist/Emperor worship religious harvest festival and was in present form, "Labor Thanksgiving," adopted during the occupation by the United States, after WWII. Even, the almost uniformly Christian majority nation of Grenada (whose entry is very short sentence or two) adopted its holiday in response to a US invasion. There is also a church worship service in the Netherlands, commemorating the history of the U.S. thanksgiving. That's basically it. Thoughts Steve? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism

Libertarianism (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 regarding the inclusion in the lead of a definition of libertarianism that states: "It is the political philosophy that holds individuals own themselves and thus have property rights in external things, or any political philosophy which approximates this view."

The definition comes from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [2] which states: "Libertarianism, in the strict sense, is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. In a looser sense, libertarianism is any view that approximates the strict view."

This information, in my opinion, respects all Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. As the publication it is in is a well renowned academic, peer-reviewed publication usually considered (not only in Wikipedia articles) as one of the most reliable sources.

I do not argue that the definition that is currently in the lead of the article should be removed (although it is unreferenced), only that the second definition not be forcefully discarded.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

User Fifelfoo has removed the definition entirely twice, in [3] and [4], but left the reference and the source of the of the definition intact, thus misquoting it. The third time User Fifelfoo solved the problem of misquoting the source by completely removing the definition along with its reference, in [5].

User Fifelfoo has removed the definition by claiming it is a copyright violation and also reported the use of the words "own themselves and have" and "property rights in external things", as being a copyright infringement ([6]). This claim was dismissed.

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.

North8000 (talk · contribs) (notified at their talk page)

Fifelfoo (talk · contribs) (notified at their talk page)

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

Resolving the dispute

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

This issue has been discussed on the Libertarianism talk page at [7].

How do you think we can help?

A Wikipedia admin more knowledgeable about inclusion rules should decide one of three possible solutions:

1. Only keep the current unreferenced definition in the lead.

2. Only keep the referenced definition in the lead.

3. Keep both definitions and state it is variously defined as I proposed here [8]. This solution has the advantage of pleaing all points of view, however I wonder whether it is appropriate (according to Wikipedia guidelines) to force an unreferenced definition into a lead.

I cannot suggest any solution as I am a party to this dispute. However, in my opinion, discarding the referenced definition entirely to the expense of the unreferenced one is an even more inappropriate solution than keeping in both.

Fsol (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism discussion

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

My angle/emphasis in this dispute is 80% about process and 20% about content. The "process" side is that fsol is basically warring their particular content into the lead against consensus. I've been active at the article for I think almost two years, starting when it was in open warfare. My main goal has been to bring civility and civilization to the process there. And so I am against warring this in against consensus. The "20% about content" is that FSOL is basicaly trying to state property rights as a central tenet of libertarianism in the lead. Libertarians don't even agree on this, much less make it a central tenet. Fsol's only argument for warring this into the lead is that it is sourced....basically to a particular source that states that particular viewpoint. Fifelfoo has copy vio concerns about the material. My gut feel on the way to resolve this is to first resolve the copy vio concerns one way or the other and then to put the material that fsol wants to insert into the body of the article rather than the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cue First, I would like to mention that this noticeboard is not actually a place where admins make/enforce decisions. Anyone can comment on these disputes; this is just a place to get opinions from uninvolved editors who may know a little more about the wiki processes. If you need action from an admin, you should probably go to the admin noticeboard, though I think this can probably be resolved without going that far. First, North8000, let me point out something that could be problematic in your approach; you took the right step by taking the problem to the discussion board and here instead of edit warring, but you should not revert edits just because they "go against consensus". Since we have a content dispute, we obviously don't have a consensus; ergo, consensus-related reverts are malapropos. Because the copyvio concerns are being addressed on the admin noticeboard, we can't really tackle them here.

As far as the process is concerned, the main problems seem to be centered around the fact that we have essentially two or three editors, each with non-neutral points of view. (Let's face it; for a topic like "libertarianism" it's not possible for any one editor to be completely objective because every editor will have at least some opinion of the subject. The key here is to keep the article as neutral as possible.) The reason this is causing problems is because all of the involved editors are insistent on getting their own points of view in the article - this is a problem because of WP's neutrality policy. The objective here is not to provide balance by giving equal weight to two non-neutral points of view - the objective is to keep everything neutral. More to the point, the reason the process seems to have stalled is because (as far as I can tell from a quick look at the discussion on the talk page) the editors have resorted to making accusations instead of moving the discussion forward. All of you need to be more focused on discussing the content instead of discussing the editors. Instead of pointing out problems, suggest solutions. North8000, since (I'm assuming) you're the one who framed this dispute here, I'm going to suggest that you start by proposing how you think the content in question should be presented. All the other editors involved, if you don't agree with North8000's proposal, don't point out what's wrong with it but rather present a counter-proposal, explain it, and explain how it is different (not how it is "better") than the previous proposal. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, as a proprietarian libertarian, my "POV" in general is the same one that fsol is pushing. But I don't think that such is agreed upon by libertarians much less being a central tenet of it, so I think it would be incorrect to state it as such in the lead. And my duty there is article accuracy/quality, even if against my preferences as is the case here. My proposal is to (once copy vio concerns at wp:AN are resolved which I am not involved in) have fsol put the material in exactly as they prefer except in the body of the article, possibly in the "overview" section. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sleddog116: Libertarianism has 3 years of argued consensus over the issue of whether bourgeois property is essential to the WEIGHTed scholarly opinions regarding Libertarianism. The correct place to reargue that consensus is the talk page. "One editor does not make a rebuttal" particularly when their argument consists of edit-warring. The article enforced Talk: page sanctions over disruptions to the article by editors continuously revisiting the scope and weight. So Fsol's edits are deeply problematic in this way. Prior to Fsol's edits, we had a use of Vallentyne that summarised his entire article, that was relevant to our article, and that represented the WEIGHT and body of the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As normal with a dispute, the lodger presents an incomplete picture (though this should not be held against them, by the time a dispute has occurred, it is impossible to do so for less than a bodhisattva). As such I will present a fuller version:
- One editor insists on using wikipedia's voice to express the first line of Vallentyne's article.
  - There is a clear copyright issue with this presentation (see WP:AN), so far one editor commented on the copyright issue externally, and used poor reasoning; the matter is outstanding. As this matter is being discussed elsewhere, we do not need to discuss that here.
- Vallentyne is a partisan, who fails to conduct an adequate field review. He conducts a philosophical review, of limited merit, dismissing political philosophy and political history. His definition poorly, if at all, represents the WEIGHT of multiple scholarly tertiaries. In particular Fsol is using it to edit war an unWEIGHTable assertion regarding property into the lede, and if Vallentyne is read in full, an assertion which misuses Vallentyne's term-of-art in philosophy "property" as the common understanding of bourgeois private property.
- Mis-WEIGHTing the property issue over political field reviews, such as Woodcock's field review to 1963, or Long's systematic theoretical review to 1998 is highly problematic. Both Long and Woodcock identify that property is a contested element within Libertarianism; both Long and Woodcock identify libertarianism as a political social engagement, not as a from first principles moral philosophy.
- Vallentyne is being:
  - Mis-used to misrepresent his major conclusions, in particular by using a term-of-art as a common word
  - Mis-used to summarise the article's contents per LEDE
  - Mis-used as an out of discipline field review, when it is a partisan contribution to scholarly debate
  - Quoted (without proper encyclopaedic attribution) for a single sentence, rather than summarised for the contribution's findings
- In particular Fsol needs to stop edit warring property as an essential part of the definition into the lede per
  - LEDE
  - Years, years of densely argued consensus over what scope Libertarianism has. I suggest editors peruse the archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could go into a lot of details about the source, what he actually means (as if he doesn't mean what he says) about the quality of the peer-review mechanism, etc. About what one's POV is, whether it is the same or different than that of others, etc. All these are interesting discussions but irrelevant ones for determining inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The only question that should be answered is: does this definition respect the guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia? The guide line does not request consensus (although it is preferable). The guidelines request: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. As this definition appears in a well known peer reviewed academic publication it respects all three. And should thus be in the article and shouldn't be removed in favour of unreferenced content. -- Fsol (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ORB survey of Iraq War casualties

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.

ORB survey of Iraq War casualties (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?

Last month, I edited one sentence in the article to remove weasel wording and promote accuracy. One peer-reviewed study exists, and was written by affiliates of a rival project. A couple of days ago, the user Eric4223 reverted my edits and has done so on at least one other occasion. I'd rather not get into a protracted revert war but I don't feel his reasons are valid, and this has been discussed on the article's talk page. I also have issues with the wording of information which exists in the Criticism section, but have not taken action. To keep this brief, it would be better to refer to my comments on the article's talk and history pages for the full picture.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

G E Enn (talk · contribs)
Eric4223 (talk · contribs)

The article has been reverted twice by Eric4223. I have reason to believe that he may be in some way invested in the subject; I cannot understand why else one would choose to conceal the information found in my edit, if not to further some sort of agenda.

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=ORB survey of Iraq War casualties}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

We've discussed it on the talk page, but I feel as though we've been at loggerheads from the outset with little room for compromise.

How do you think we can help?

I'd like a consensus on the inclusion of the aforementioned information. I'd also like to know why Eric is so adamant about maintaining the removal of this information, and why he would lie about it already being included in the article.

G E Enn (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ORB survey of Iraq War casualties discussion

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

Clerk's note: Please refrain from speculating about the identity of any Wikipedia user. If you believe that an editor is using multiple logons or IP addresses to avoid Wikipedia rules, make a report at Sockpuppet investigations but not otherwise. (See WP:AGF and, to a lesser extent, WP:PRIVACY.) Such matters are conduct issues not within the scope of this noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC) PS: I have removed those allegations from this listing; if you have made them at any place other than at WP:SPI I would strongly recommend that you remove them there as well. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to direct me to WP:SPI, but I wasn't sure if I should go ahead with it because of two things: the Ronald0224 account hasn't been in use since 2010. If a person is unable to access their account and chooses to create a new one, surely it's not considered sockpuppetry? An investigation would be pointless. Secondly, this would have been a good opportunity for Eric to say whether he was or was not the last person who reverted my edit as an IP editor (for example he may have forgotten to login, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that wouldn't be grounds to go ahead with an investigation either). In this case and after checking again, Eric's edits and the anon's were just over 24-hours apart, so even the three-revert rule wouldn't apply. I also disagree with the removal of the line, "and once by a mysterious IP editor." That's a statement of fact - an anonymous editor was the last person to revert my edit in the same way Eric4223 had done. Remove the "mysterious" part if you wish, but in such a case, surely this editor's revision must be documented here as part of the argument for dispute resolution. Again, I wasn't sure if I should have included the IP editor in the list of users involved. If I ought to have done this, it's not too late to change that. The inclusion of Ronaldc0224 should also remain - perhaps not my inference that Eric/Ronald are the same person, but at least the "(refer to the article's history page)" part. I feel it relevant to link Ronald's edits to bolster the argument I made on the article's talk page, as it ties in with the dispute at hand. -- G E Enn (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has continued on the article's talk page, with the other user continuing to push his agenda within the article itself, ignoring my repeated calls (both on his talk page and the article talk page) to respond to the dispute I've raised on this noticeboard. I've chosen to no longer respond on the article's talk page until this dispute is settled here, nor shall I be editing the article until said time. -- G E Enn (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that the IP editor and Eric4223 are the same person. -- G E Enn (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And? So what? The login info gets lost sometimes and I don't realize I'm not logged in until after I post something, and then it appears with only an IP rather than the username. That's what happened both times. Either that or it was all part of my grand conspiracy to do... something or other. Sheesh.Eric4223 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk's note: As I previously mentioned, this noticeboard is to resolve content disputes, not conduct disputes. Here at Wikipedia we judge edits, not editors, so a editor's motivations for editing are ordinarily irrelevant to any discussion of his or her edits. Please either restrict your discussion to why, under Wikipedia principles, policies, and guidelines, the edit should or should not be made and stop talking about one another. If the discussion does not immediately focus, and focus exclusively, upon the content issues it will be closed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Transmetals

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.

Transmetals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I've been trying to remove OR on the page Transmetals. Editor Mubuska was warring with an IP user. I havent been on wiki for sometime and only came back because I've been talking to friends about transformers, which made me take interest in the page. The article uses a wiki as a source, which, when you go to the wiki itself, is fan opinion and interpretation of events in the show Beast wars. He has accused me of being the other editor, ran a socket puppet investigation on me, accused my additions of being OR, and threatened to report me. I've pointed out that I'm using the episodes of the show themselves as a source, and not the wiki. I am only commenting on a) what happened or b) what was said, and used in text citations for my additions, which the other editor didnt, yet I am accused of being this other person. I kept some of his text because some of it was reliable. However, I also did general grammar fixes and the like. I even corrected one of the mistakes that were added due to my editing and the other IP editors, and he says this is proof I am using OR. As previously stated he had an investigation ran on me, and repeatedly threatens to report me. Can someone please get involved

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Mabuska (talk · contribs)
Odoital25 (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=Transmetals}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

How do you think we can help?

Odoital25 (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transmetals discussion

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

Note: the sockpuppet investigation can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Odoital25 (though it will soon be archived). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cue Glancing at the article, I agree with Odoital about the sourcing here. We cannot use the Transformers Wiki as a source, as it is user-contributed and presumable does not have any editorial oversight. On the other hand, we can use the episodes themselves as primary sources, as long as their use is limited to "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source". We can certainly use them as sources for plot summaries, for example, as long as we are careful to keep to the facts and not include our own interpretations. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odoital25 and the IPs are one and the same as the sockpuppet investigation shows. I have only threatened to report Odoital25 for failure to abide by WP:BRD - something they have been notified of many times.

The main issue here is that user Odoital25 has constantly disregarded WP:BRD regardless of whether their edits are right or wrong. They made a bold move, i disagreed with it and reverted it, so they should of discussed it. Instead they have continued trying to enforce their change without a proper discussion on it by using several different guises. I have admitted that TFWiki is not a great source as it may have issues but its up for discussion if its unreliable or not. Odoital25 is within right to start this DRN however it wouldn't have been required if Odoital25 had simply followed Wikipedia policy. I'm more than happy to have a proper discussion on the entire issue if he is willing to abide by Wikipedias policies such as WP:BRD. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI does not show the IP's and Odoital25 are the same, the only clerk comment is that both IP's are blocked for a week. You may not use a wiki as a source. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Darkness Shines said. The TF Wiki's reliability is not "up for discussion" - it is an open wiki, and we can't use open wikis as sources per WP:SPS. Otherwise, anyone could write an outlandish claim in TF Wiki, and then include that claim in Wikipedia citing TF Wiki as a source. I hope you can agree that this would be deeply problematic. About the IPs, even if you are right about their relation with Odoital25, I don't think it really matters, as I don't see any attempts to deliberately use different accounts to mislead. To Odoital25 - I won't make any judgement about Mabuska's claims, but now that you have an account here with several hundred edits, I advise you not to edit while you are logged out to avoid these sort of sockpuppetry accusations in the future. Editing while logged out is usually overlooked for new users if there is no apparent intent to deceive, but it is a big no-no for editors with more experience - see our policy on sockpuppetry for details. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines has provided a few sources, a couple of which are more than suitable and reliable for the article and i have started to implement these into the article. If citing TV shows directly is viable according to the certain conditions (i didn't think they were as it does come across as original research) then i am willing to help Odoital25 incorporate them into the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm glad that you've been able to find some acceptable sources. If Odoital25 is happy with the situation now, I think we can close this dispute resolution request as resolved. Odoital, let us know your thoughts. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CueMabuska, just a quick reminder - you are citing Odoital's refusal to follow WP:BRD, but BRD is not a Wikipedia policy. It's only one method of achieving consensus, and because it's a guideline and not a policy, you can't require editors to follow it. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

List of thrash metal bands

List of thrash metal bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

In the spirit of standards and improving the encyclopaedia, all articles should follow policy and guidelines, with exceptions if needed.

The issue of the article is the inclusion of entries where the citation mentions "thrash", but not "thrash metal". Our article "thrash" explains that it can mean any number of 5 genres of music. This is a clear cut case of inclusion into the article:

An entry must at least one citation
The citation must mention "thrash metal" to avoid inclusion of artists (including bands) who do not play the "thrash metal" genre, as evidenced by the article thrash which explains that "thrash" can mean any number of 5 genres-of-music.

The dispute is that I am trying to maintain a standard, while other editors refuse to provide proper citations for inclusion into this particular article.

Users involved

Who is involved in the 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=List of thrash metal bands}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussed here:

How do you think we can help?

I need more opinions which can create a consensus on this matter, as the edit summary [9] is contradictory to our Policies & Guidelines

Curb Chain (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of thrash metal bands discussion

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

Template:Cue I'm following this discussion with some interest, not for the mentioned list, but for usage in general on metal bands and albums (and not focused on thrash only).
Just recently I decided to change my behaviour from immediate reverting of unsourced changes to adding of citation templates instead, because a lot of information is factual, just not properly referenced. I started out feeling the same as User:Curb Chain (and I agree that IS the policy), but I've come to notice a lot of people either don't know about these policies, are new contributors or hope that by adding the information, someone that does know the facts and policies will make it a better entry. In this light I think removal of content should be the last step taken. Of course this doesn't go for blatant vandalism or anything falling under WP:POINT etc..

As for metal genres in general, I think it would be a good thing if Wikipedia doesn't follow the trend of creating a new (sub)genre for every band that differs just slightly from others. I think it's a good thing a lot of metal bands are listed as heavy metal music only, because everything else is a subgenre of this. Maybe a specification that something is thrash metal should still be ok, but when it changes into subsubsubgenres like bandana thrash I'd say no. Maybe create a page called 'List of thrash metal genres' where everybody can dump his subgenre (or even better, 'List of heavy metal genres', so you don't have to create a page for every subgenre of it), but for usage in articles stick to Thrash metal. Solves the whole "the ref says 'thrash' but not 'thrash metal'" issue at the same time. Personally I have great difficulty accepting genre names like nu-metal, djent and progressive blackened death metal (where somebody should now point out in a sarcastic way that progressive blackened death metal isn't an actual genre.... ;) ), they just mean nothing to me, it's all metal!

For some comic relief and to clarify my point I recommend reading this article, specially the 'Metal Genres' section. Don't forget to read the comments, because they instantly prove the writer's point! I hope this is of some use for this discussion, Quibus (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion; it is valued. Unfortunately, the article is not a reliable source, and is offtopic to the dispute. This is a black and white question, and you mentioned that articles should follow polices&guidelines except for extraneous circumstances. I am asking if the article should be following WP:RS or not.Curb Chain (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cue I have a question. Would I be right in saying that four of the five genres listed at our disambiguation page thrash - namely, Crossover thrash, Post-thrash, Thrashcore, and Bandana thrash - are subgenres of the fifth genre, thrash metal? If so, it would seem reasonable to me to assume that a reference simply to "thrash" as a genre was referring to the top category of "thrash metal". — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Crossover thrash is a mixture of thrash metal and hardcore, so that one is still thrash metal, and post-thrash appears to be another term for groove metal, but this one still might count as thrash metal. However, thrashcore is just a form of hardcore punk, and bandana thrash is a subgenre of thrashcore. So basically, "thrash" is a term used to refer to thrash metal (probably its more common usage nowadays) and to a form of hardcore punk. My rationale is that if "thrash" is used solely with other "metal" adjectives, we can be certain as editors that the writer is referring to thrash metal. In any case where punk or hardcore is brought up, we need a more solid definition to say that it is thrash metal or thrashcore. In my view, this does not completely disregard guidelines, as the term "thrash" is being understood in the context of the larger passage.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources to back up these claims?Curb Chain (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sources are the exact same ones that you used to start this discussion: Wikipedia. So unless you are saying that you are rejecting your own initial objection, your comment here does not make sense. As you have stated so many times, the burden is on the editor making the initial statement, so I should ask you: Where are the sources?--¿3family6 _contribs 12:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are quite confused. Since you added the entry, the citation must be verifiable. The question is that the citation does not mention the word "thrash metal"; this is the source of the ambiguity and I am stating that you have not come up with the proof that the author when 'writing' "thrash" means "thrash metal.Curb Chain (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you are accusing me of not complying with verifiability standards, but you have not provided any sources other than Wikipedia that "thrash" does not always refer to thrash metal. Really, until you do, you have no argument. Now, there probably are sources referring to forms of hardcore punk as thrash, but you have not provided any, and so you have no sourced argument that bands labeled simply as "thrash" should not be listed as thrash metal. As you have asked for sources that thrash and thrash metal are synonymous, I give you this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: Both discussions are still active on the talk page.~~--¿3family6 _contribs 12:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what I'm seeing from the discussions so far is that "thrash" is usually used to refer to thrash metal, but not always (as in this link that 3family6 provided on the talk page). Of course, we don't want there to be any ambiguity in the inclusion criteria, otherwise bands who are not actually thrash metal may creep onto the list. I'm wondering, though, if there isn't a way for us to reliably tell if references are referring to thrash metal even if they only say "thrash". Can anyone think of a fail-safe way of telling the difference between when "thrash" refers to thrash metal, and when it refers to, say, hardcore? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that if the reference makes it clear that the artist in question is heavy metal, we can assume that it is thrash metal. There is pretty much no ambiguity, unless there are mentions of punk in the source in question.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable to me. Curb Chain, can you give us your opinion on this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T-ara

T-ara (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?

Naruto82 (talk · contribs) and I are disputing about whether or not T-ara's Leader timeline section should be ordered chronically or reversed. They have stated it should be ordered from latest-to-earliest because that was how it was ordered when the section was made. I have directed them to WP:STANDALONE's chronological ordering section, but they keep stating it is a "special case" when it is clearly not.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Chikazuku (talk · contribs)
Naruto82 (talk · contribs)

We have had one dispute in the past about T-ara's Current members section, but have since resolved it.

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

Yes.

N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=T-ara}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I have discussed about the issue on Naruto82 (talk · contribs)'s talk page but they have since started ignoring my messages.

How do you think we can help?

Provide guidance on guidelines.

Chikazuku (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T-ara discussion

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

Template:Cue Hi Chikazuku, Naruto82. Would I be right in saying that this diff outlines the dispute you are having? It strikes me that listing the earliest date first is the usual way of doing things - I don't think I have seen latest-first on Wikipedia before. The manual of style section that Chikazuku linked to also says that earliest-first should be preferred. Having said that, there is a way you can compromise here: by making the table sortable. How about changing the table using the instructions here so that it can be sorted either way? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newsvine

Newsvine (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?

An anonymous editor keeps inserting the sentence: "it should also be noted that due to the extreme liberal bias of the website, conservative commentators frequently have their posts removed and deleted." I ran into this when I was patrolling the recent changes feed for vandalism. I felt that this sentence required a citation and thus reverted the edit. The anonymous editor then reinserted the sentence. Upon investigating the issue, I found that this back and forth had been going on between the anonymous editor and another editor several days prior. I do not feel comfortable reverting the edit again without getting outside advice.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

173.73.149.9 (talk · contribs)
Pwtenny (talk · contribs)

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

Yes

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

Resolving the dispute

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

I invited the anonymous editor to discuss his/her changes on the articles talk page but the anonymous editor has yet to do anything but edit the article directly.

How do you think we can help?

I'm not really involved in this dispute, I'm just trying to do the right thing as far as the WP:NOCITE policy goes. Is this claim not doubtful, doubtful but not harmful, or doubtful and harmful?

-- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newsvine discussion

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

I'm unsure of what steps to take next. I gave reasons for reverting the edits by the anonymous user (not cited, not neutral, no reason for deleting things that aren't in dispute) while the changes that person made (and their reverts of my reverts) have no explanation. I added a NPOV box to the article and created a NPOV_disptue section on the article talk page, explained why I'm undoing these edits (same reason Sailing to Byzantium did), asked for the edits to stop until the dispute is resolved, and left a note on the anonymous user's Talk page requesting they work with me to resolve this on the article talk page. Yet the unexplained and problematic edits continue with no discussion. Some advice would be very welcome at this point. — Pwtenny (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cue If the IP is unwilling to discuss this on the talk page, and reverts again, you can take them to WP:AN3 where they will likely be blocked temporarily. If they continue editing the article from a different IP address then you can request page protection (temporary semi-protection should do) at WP:RFPP. In any case, the statement needs to be both sourced and toned down, so until this happens we can't include it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^? 22:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three other editors have independently removed the edits by the IP/user just in the past 24 hours, and another IP has appeared User_talk:108.45.75.145 from the same ISP making the same controversial edit. So this really isn't a dispute between me and the IP/user anymore, if it ever was. IP/user hasn't been very responsive on the talk page where myself and two others are trying to work this out, other than saying "If you don't like it then have this Wiki dropped because I will continue to have this edited back to what I believe is the real truth" in response to requests for a source for their edit. Might have to go straight to WP:RFPP for this but that's a big step for me, since I'm new to Wikipedia. Will wait a day or two and see. Thanks for the info and help. -- Pwtenny (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just requested semi-protection - hopefully that will sort things out. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected the page for now, since the IP editor doesn't appear to be willing to engage in discussion, and is targeting this one article only. Der yck C. 15:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sinai and Palestine Campaign template dispute

Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Battle of Jaffa (1917) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

There is a dispute regarding what engagements should be included in this template.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

RoslynSKP (talk · contribs)
Jim Sweeney (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=Sinai and Palestine Campaign template, Battle of Jaffa (1917)}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

After numerous attempts to edit the template according to both editors views of the campaign discussion has continued on the talk page where no resolution is within sight. During this process Jim Sweeney created a stub article Battle of Jaffa (1917). This stub article is substantially based on coverage of the engagement in the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) article and really needs to be deleted.

Comment The battle of Jaffa article is hardly a stub, the background information is taken from the battle of Jerusalem which is reasonable as it was the preceding battle. However Jaffa is part of the aftermath of that article and covered in one sentence All three infantry brigades of the 52nd (Lowland) Division managed to cross the River Auja on the night of 20–21 December. It is a recognised battle by the British, with the award of the Battle Honour Jaffa to the units involved. The battle was not part of the battle of Jerusalem as its around 40 miles away and fought 14 days after the city was captured. It was part of the Jerusalem Operations part of this campaign, which include the Affair of Huj, the Action of El Mughar and Capture of Junction Station (8 - 14 November), the Battle of Nabi Samweil (20 - 24 November), the Capture of Jerusalem (7 - 9 December) and the Battle of Jaffa (21 - 22 December). Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think we can help?

As both editors hold their views firmly there appears to be no way forward, as things stand. It was suggested by the editor who put a seven day hold on the template to apply to the dispute resolution noticeboard but I'm not sure how it works, nor what to expect.

Rskp (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sinai and Palestine Campaign template dispute

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

Template:Cue I notice that on the template talk page Nick-D said that these issues have been cropping up on several different articles. Could anyone give us an idea of the other articles that are involved? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago, when the names of the Affair of Abu Tellul and Affair of Katia were changed to battle, there were arguments on the MilHist talk page and I think on the articles' talk pages. There have also been arguments about the name of the Anzac Mounted Division which appears, at this time, to have been resolved. --Rskp (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed this dispute has appeared on the Mil Hist talk page at [10] --Rskp (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe all the points have been covered at the template talk page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#What should be in Campaign Box templates. In connection to the two articles Katia and Abu Tellul, editors were invited to comment at WP:MILHIST. Several editors have commented on the talk pages and a consensus was reached to change the article names to a non POV name. RoslynSKP has never been happy with those decisions. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the background. It looks like this dispute is being debated well on the MILHIST talk page, and I don't see any sign that discussions there have stalled just yet. Let's wait and see if that discussion finds a consensus before doing anything else. If there is still no agreement after the end of that discussion then I think an RfC might be the best step. You can use my boilerplate RfC template to help structure it if you like. What do you both think about this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security Act

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.

Social Security Act (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 problem referred to is in the overview section, line 4: In this article an explanation is given as to why this bill was proposed: "The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children." When I read the part about the widows and the fatherless I could nothing but connecting it to the Bibles references to the widows and the fatherless. I instantly realized that this motif in the explanation of the bill undoubtedly was motivated from Biblical ethics. Hence, I mean that including the references in the Bible in the article will shed light on the basis for this formula. This was dismissed by Lothar von Richthofen as "biblical study," and by Jim1138 as possible "vandalism." My opinion is that most Christians in the United States will recognize this formula (widows and fatherless) and instantly knowing it has its basis in the Bible. Therefore, excluding this information from the article is like trying to hide an important aspect of American politics, religion. Of course, religion was even more important in 1935 than today. This formula does not appear accidentally, and in the United States there is not necessary to investigate such a matter. Especially Christians know that the formula has a specific background (i.e. Exod. 22:22; Deut. 10:18; 24:19-21; 27:19; Job 22:9; Pss 94:6; 146:9; Jer. 7:6; 22:3; Ezek. 22:7; Zech. 7:10; Mal. 3:5) I included these references in order to shed light on this part of the bill.

Users involved

Who is involved in the 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=Social Security Act}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

We have discussed the matter on a talk page.

How do you think we can help?

By deciding which view is the correct.

ChristianContributor (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Social Security Act discussion

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

When I read the part about the widows and the fatherless I could nothing but connecting it to the Bibles references to the widows and the fatherless. IMO, that just sounds like unsubstantiated original research. It's all well and good that you connected the dots, but please, please, take your ideas to a newspaper or somewhere before we can write it in. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 08:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, We have discussed the matter on a talk page. ---- A talk page where? By deciding which view is the correct. ---- That is not the function of this noticeboard. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 08:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: talk:Social Security Act is empty. ChristianContributor never tried to resolve any issue with me. Jim1138 (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly doesn't belong here. No discussion on article talk page, obvious original research (OR). Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you guys belong to the group of strict, but fair, editors. The rules must be followed, I agree to that!

I understand from you guys that one absolute rule is that references must confirm statements.

In other works, this is not the sole purpose of references (or footnotes). They may have a variety of other functions, one being comparison. In other words, a lot depends on how you define the term reference or footnote.

I see from TheFreeDictionary.com that one definition of reference is: “A note in a publication referring the reader to another passage or source.” According to this definition the function of confirmation is not mandatory. According to this definition the function of comparison would be included.

As you probably would agree to, what I do by presenting the Biblical verses as references is to compare the text in the article to the Bible, thereby giving the reader an opportunity to establish a possible connection him-/ herself.

Furthermore, the references cited are from a printed source.

This means that if Wikipedia’s rules allow the function of comparison for references, then this reference is good.

Have a pleasant day, and God bless your positive deeds !

User:ChristianContributor —Preceding undated comment added 12:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

SMcCandlish has been trying to gain consensus to update the Manual of Style (WP:MOS) with clearer language at WP:MOS#Animals, plants, and other organisms, with the primary intent of stopping the rampant, willy-nilly capitalization of the names of organisms all over Wikipedia (Pallas's Cat, Ball Python, Neon Tetra, Mountain Oak, etc.), using wording that, in his view, represents the facts and the consensus on the matter, and allegedly with the secondary goal of reducing the amount and heat of the seven years of debate about the insistence of WP:WikiProject Birds (WP:BIRDS) on capitalization of the common names of bird species, the debate about which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. His stated position, and that of some others in the debate, is that in order to satisfy both of these goals, the MOS must (not should, but must, for policy reasons) indicate that the WP:BIRDS practice is controversial (or does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus, or whatever wording), since this is in fact the case, and it isn't MOS's job to arbitrate such a dispute. SMcCandlish feels that Kimvdlinde has been intentionally engaging in a tendentious campaign of obstructionist disruption, based on incorrect negative assumptions, to derail the proposal, principally through the WP:IDHT tactic.

KimvdLinde has engaged in the debate about this, and suspects these MOS changes to be an attack upon WP:BIRDS, rather than an attempt to deal with the wider problems SMcCandlish says he is actually more concerned about, much less something that could possibly help rather than hurt WP:BIRDS. She further believes that there is no consensus for MOS to state that the WP:BIRDS practice is controversial on Wikipedia (though she concedes that it is). She feels that MOS has no choice but to simply endorse The WP:BIRDS practice as the status quo. She also has stated a belief that SMcCandlish has "no good faith" in the matter, and that his real motives for the changes at MOS are simply to attack WP:BIRDS, despite his claims otherwise to be working for compromise (belied by his strong criticism of the project's capitalization and alleged behavior about its capitalization preference, and repeated statements that he thinks the capitalization practice is not appropriate on Wikipedia, and that he may continue to oppose it.) She detects, beyond this particular debate, a pattern of opposition, by various editors, to the WP:BIRDS capitalization scheme, which she characterizes as "capitalization warriors" meddling with and attacking the project; she thinks they do not understand the real-world bird naming conventions and are obsessing over typographical consistency.

SMcCandlish submitted this DRN, and is in good faith attempting to describe both sides' positions and actions accurately, including as perceived by each other, but expects that KimvdLinde will wish to make changes to reflect her views of the facts more accurately.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

SMcCandlish (talk · contribs)
KimvdLinde (talk · contribs)

Discussions between the users have invariably turned into circular arguments, with considerable rancor.

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=Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Both parties have had extensive talk page discussions between each other and among other interested parties on both sides at WT:MOS and to a lesser extent at WT:BIRDS, and again (one-on-one) at WP:AN/I. SMcCandlish has also tried talking with fellow project members of KimvdLinde's, like Sabine's Sunbird, a WT:BIRDS regular, to find more common ground. KimvdLinde tried leaving the debate for several days.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps broker a more civil discussion, with more structure so that positions can be presented and analyzed in a less noisy and circular fashion, with the possibility of better mutual understanding, less animosity, and a common goal of finding a resolution to the dispute.

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 10:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points discussion

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

As an opening comment, kudos to the filer of this dispute for having a go at presenting both sides of the dispute in a neutral fashion. It's something I've seen rarely, if ever, on this noticeboard. Other DR assistants, take note, this ^ is how it should be done. On the dispute itself, it's far too late here to look into the dispute with any detail so I'll leave that to my colleagues to look at. Regards. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, I think a more civil discussion would be very beneficial, and I will participate. I think the description above is relative okay. If you think it beneficial, I would like to make a few corrections about the issue at hand. In that case, where would you like me to make amendments to that description? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (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 are a disparity in the sources regarding the numbers of Pakistani armed forces who surrendered during this brief conflict. They range from 90k to 95k. We have solved this by deciding to cite both high and low end numbers. Another disparity are that some people think this number includes civilians who were also interred. The majority of sources I have looked at (see Here) say that the 90k figure were all troops and do not seem to include civilians. Some sources say 90k troops including 15k civilians I am reading this "including" to mean "as well as, or in addition to" Myself and the other editor are now at an impasse and would like a little input.

Users involved

Who is involved in the 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=Indo-Pakistani War of 1971}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Talk page discussion, already linked to above.

How do you think we can help?

Another opinion on the issue might help break the impasse.

Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 discussion

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

The issue is not understood - what exactly is being contested - the figures or the means of depicting them? AshLin (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is weather or not the figure of 90k POW's also include the 15k civilians. It started of like this, the article had in it some 79,700 Pakistan Army soldiers and paramilitary personnel I checked the source and this number looks to have been arrived at by someone subtracting the number of civilians from the troop estimate.[11] though they their figures wrong. So we need a few opinions on, A) Are the academic publishers which state 90,000 odd troops were taken as POW's correct, in that they exclude the civilians? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cue First of all, I would like to say that you all seem to be doing an outstanding job of discussing this neutrally and have avoided creating a full-blown dispute. I haven't had time to fully research the topic enough to give a third opinion, but what I would like to say is that this issue may be better suited for RFC; it doesn't seem like we have an argument here - merely a research impasse that could benefit from another opinion (exactly what RFC is for). I'll need a little time to look at all the material, but I'll try to weigh in as soon as I'm familiar enough with the issue. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this seems better for an RFC (as I suggested on the talk), however it will be a good idea to have opinions of users who have dealt with such issues related to POWs and wars. RFC would invite random users, so DRN might be a help from a different angle (hoping that we have users here that have dealt with such issues or can be invited by mediators?). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cue I'm currently in the process of searching on EBSCOhost and other research databases I have access to through the college (unfortunately, these aren't available on the general web, but most of them have ISBNs, so we can still use most of them). I'm trying to see what figures are quoted by academic sources (most of these articles are scholarly, peer-reviewed periodicals, so they're definitely reliable). I'll admit there's not a whole lot available (I'm an American, and this is not an historical topic that gets much discussion in our colleges), but I'm going to do my best. The State Department had a little bit on it, but nothing involving ~~casualty figures~~ total capture figures (my apologies; I misread the description and assumed we were looking for deaths, not prisoners). Let me see what I can come up with in the way of sources, and I'll try to quote a few figures here. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I've had a difficult time finding any sources other than the ones that have already been discussed on the talk page. However, based on what I can see, I think this might be a case where both points of view are valid assessments of the sources. The question is how to include this in the lede section. After immersing myself in the issue at hand, I can easily see how this has become a bit sticky. Again, though, I think you are all doing an excellent job of keeping your cool. This is quite a puzzle, especially since there seem to be so few reliable sources related to it (perhaps, to my DRN colleagues - if any of you are from across the pond, you may have an easier time knowing where to look) - and the few sources that are available seem to have conflicting figures. I think the best solution to this may be to include the figures together but mention that there is some question as to the accuracy of such a figure. ("Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces were taken prisoner by the Indian Army. Some sources ^{(insert citations here to avoid weasel words)} report that this figure includes up to 15,000 civilians; however, these sources are unclear as to whether that is included in or in addition to the total POWs from the Pakistan military.") I admit, it's not ideal, but based on the sources we have, I'm not sure there is a better option at the moment. Based on what I can see from the sources, I think the civilian total is included in the 90-93k total, but that's obviously not clear-cut, and the point here is to give the most neutral evaluation possible. If anyone has a better suggestion, I'm sure we're all ears. I'll keep looking for additional sources in the meantime, but I honestly don't think I'm going to find any in this ethnocentric American database I'm using. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The case here is that RS state both views, what I feel is that some authors didn't do any research for finding out exact number of prisoners and their composition or didn't consider it an important issue. You will even find sources (of course RS) saying 90k POWs in one para and 93k in the next para (the same source). You may get help from Military History Wikiproject (TG suggested it at talk but we couldn't work on his suggestion), there are some senior and experienced editors who may be able to help us here. --SMS ^Talk 18:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Afghanistan

Indians in Afghanistan (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 article is currently facing multiple issues and disputes over multiple points. Most involved users acknowledge each other's positions on the dispute but the discussion is still stuck. We have all made a combined list for the issues in the article.

Section heading: "Alleged intelligence activities" or "Intelligence activities" or "Intelligence activity and support for insurgents"? Heading neutrality is disputed, my claim is that "alleged" should not be mentioned in the heading (like "confirmed" can not be mentioned); ie. a simple impartial title like "Intelligence activity and support for insurgents" or "Intelligence activities" would be sufficient as attribution is present in text. Opposing user claims that attribution should be added in the heading.
Section heading: "Terrorist attacks against Indians" or "Attacks on Indians"? Another heading dispute, my claim rests on WP:NPOV heading as the attacks themselves are disputed, the opposing user claims on the attacks being called as terrorist attacks.
Content: Mentioning of terrorist attacks against Indians in Afghanistan? This is keeping the content about terrorist attacks on Indians in Afghanistan, I have asked for a single line or two line mention, opposing users want to add a full elaborate section. Although the attacks did take place but the dispute here is about the article going WP:COATRACK as the attacks are then being blamed on Pakistan's Inter-services Intelligence (ISI) and then the alleged relations between ISI and the given terrorist organizations are being covered.
Lede: Content from "Attacks on Indians" is covered in lede while its being in the article in first place is disputed. Even if there is a bare mention in the article, this is disputed to be included in lede.
Lede: A claimed purpose of Indians' presence in Afghanistan by Pakistan which is a matter of contention among the nations is not covered in the lede which I think should get a small mention (along with India's denial) in the lede.
Image: The infobox depicts something which would be better off in the India-Afghanistan foreign relations article as suggested by me and another user, the opposing user claims its relevance.
Content: "India has no military presence in Afghanistan" is being stated as a fact (in the Indian Aid section), this is a major point of contention as there is a complete section on this (where it should have been stated with attribution). The opposing users claim this to be a real life fact.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

JCAla acknowledges opposing positions on the content dispute, and so do I. AshLin and Darkness Shines are in complete disagreement with any suggestion I've made (removed even dispute/discuss tags from the article). Mar4d being the creator (recovered/rewrote it from a copy vio version) is lightly involved. Darkness Shines has previously tagged the article for Afd (through which it survived) claiming it to be a WP:COATRACK article, following an edit war, article protection etc, this is now disputed as a WP:COATRACK on opposite direction.

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=Indians in Afghanistan}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Discussion on talk - completely stuck with contention and multiple disagreements.

How do you think we can help?

You can help cool things down by mediating to resolve the issues listed above. The current form of article is filled up with so much disputes that any further additions to most areas automatically get disputed as they further complicate issues.

lTopGunl (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Afghanistan discussion

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

Statement by AshLin

In this article the majority of my edits have been to develop two sections neglected by other editors viz "History" & "Indian Aid in Afghanistan". Each of my edits are backed by reliable references in NPOV language and paraphrased to avoid copyvio. I have few edits in the contested sections.
I have reverted a disputed-dubious tag by User:Top Gun as regards the statement "India has no military presence in Afghanistan". Reliable references have been given (one an independent observer in Australian media, the other an Indian journalist cautioning against sending Indian military forces to Afghanistan as it would undo the goodwill brought by soft power.) The opposing user has not given any credible grounds for the dispute except a single Pakistani minister's statement in an Indian newspaper. My view is that any military presence of India would not have escaped notice in such a high visibility country as Afghanistan. User:Top Gun is unable to provide reliable references for details of induction, force level, mandate, agreements between Indian & Afghan governments, incidents, casualties, bases etc (all normal basic issues connected with military presence in any country). In my view, a few embassy military personnel do not constitute a military presence.
My stance is that User:Top Gun need only prove me wrong with reliable sources from a neutral agency, instead of disputing the tag removal.
I do have many issues in this article with which I disagree with User:Top Gun but since there was already a complicated dispute going on, I consciously chose not to intervene in the sections titled "Attacks on Indians", and "Allied intelligence activity and support for insurgents". I have not reverted anything there at all hence Top Gun's statements that I disagree with whatever he does is incorrect.
My principle objection on this and other pages has been that User:Top Gun uses unreliable sources and draws inappropriate conclusions from them, at times stretching the imagination. My disagreements with Top Gun regarding sources can be seen in Talk:Right to exist and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pakistani_English. AshLin (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to AshLin: If you dispute the reliability of sources provided by me any where you should take that to RSN. I provided sources from main stream media. The disagreement on the other article and the AfD are not relevant to this matter and I'll better not comment on them other than saying I disagree with AshLin's own conclusions. The removal of tag was simply lame... in the complicated dispute, there was no place to start a discussion about the discussion that you started by reverting the dispute tag (obviously it is disputed - removing that tag proves that you do not even acknowledge a dispute). I don't think you can simply state that India has no military presence in Afghanistan as a fact without attribution because the claim itself is contentious. The allegations by Pakistan have enough weight (given the India Pakistan relations and their importance in the region) for this to be a disputed matter. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JCAla

1. Section heading: "Alleged intelligence activities" or "Intelligence activities" or "Intelligence activity and support for insurgents"?

The correct title for "Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents" should be "Alleged intelligence activity" as they are only alleged by Pakistan. An identified majority position says there are no evidence for the "alleged intelligence activity". Leaving out the "alleged" is not impartial but rather presents an allegation which constitutes a minority position as a matter of fact. "support for insurgents" should be left out completely as the term "insurgent" with regards to Afghanistan refers to the Taliban.

2. Section heading: "Terrorist attacks against Indians" or "Attacks on Indians"?

The attacks carried out by the Taliban Haqqani network themselves are not disputed. Explicitly targeting Indian nationals and civilians they have been referred to as terrorist attacks in reliable sources. Furthermore the perpetrators are officially listed as a terrorist organization by a large number of countries.

3. Content: Mentioning of terrorist attacks against Indians in Afghanistan?

The attacks carried out by the Taliban Haqqani network themselves are not disputed. Explicitly targeting Indian nationals and civilians they have been referred to as terrorist attacks in reliable sources. Furthermore the perpetrators are officially listed as a terrorist organization by a large number of countries.

4. Lede: Content from "Attacks on Indians"

It presents a major issue with regards to "Indians in Afghanistan" and thus a summary needs to be present in the lede.

5. Lede: On intelligence allegations

There can be an appropriate sentence addressing the issue.

6. Image

The image is not out of scope of the article and there are no other images available on "Indians in Afghanistan". JCAla (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for the clerks: can this be divided into sections for each dispute so that every thing can get addressed properly? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose redirected

Purpose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Intention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Teleology (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?

Requesting attention to Viriditas' (V) redirect contribution [12] leading to a dispute at Talk:Purpose#Redirect_roll_back. Despite previously offering to host the article in user space, V has made no real effort to improve the article content. V closed a previous RFC and then implemented a redirect, after the long standing article was re-written with new sources. V's redirect does not meet redirect guidelines, nor does it appear to benefit the Wikipedia reader with useful educational information (see [13] ) which is why we are here at Wikipedia.

In this recent dispute, V contented without sources, that the re-written article was POV bias because of a source's 1916 date [14]. Even thought the re-written article has 12 sources from 1290 to 1997 included, and over 6 additional sources have been proposed during the talk discussions. V then demanded tertiary sources, and one was presented in V's scientific area of concern.

To justify the redirect, V then contented the article is a wp:coatrack. Despite that What Is not a coatrack guidance says: "An article with a title that can have several meanings, or a term that is used differently in different fields of study, is not a coatrack if it only covers one definition".

The article title is a widely applied term, and content can clearly say so. With fair editorial judgment an NPOV article can be made. It is a term which has taken on slightly different meanings in different fields of study, particularly in scientific history. When presented in a NPOV, the sources verify that the term has a notable and significant role in science, philosophy, psychology, linguistics, religion, psychology, machine intelligence and possibly nihilism. Wikipedia is not a directory (or re-directory), it publishes balanced reliably sourced and notable information.

The word is found in the dictionary and the thesaurus. It has had notable scholars research and apply it within their specific fields of study, each taking a slightly different view to the term, which is why a NPOV article on the term is justified. Despite the term's wide application and important meanings, V contents it's not possible to frame an NPOV article on this term, without embarking into OR grounds. V contents that only by finding a encyclopedia entry or some tertiary source, which V can accept in strict interpretation, can V allow a Wikipedia entry. V is ignoring Wikipedia:WINAC and a reasonable editorial approach, that primary and secondary sources can be fairly attributed to present the term in a properly framed NPOV article. V also rejected a proposal to WP:hatnote the article with sensible editorial judgment, which would assist the Wikipedia reader. Hatnotes are supported by WP:R#PLA, when as in this case, redirecting doesn't make sense.

The fact is that Wikipedia has many articles based on terms which have taken on meanings in different field of study, for example: existence, truth, logic, infinity, goal. Each having none to little tertiary support. The common sense editorial approach has been to present the etymology and the historical evolution into fields of study, relevant applications and links to other main articles which deal with the specific applications in detail. This is similar to a disambiguation guide, but with sectioned paragraph content, where careful attention to the sources treatment of the term, and relevant perspectives are presented in NPOV. Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor, is it a publisher of original thought. As a community of diverse contributors, NPOV articles are made which balance the verified sources without presenting new analysis.

V also incorrectly proposed an alternative redirect, based on their synthesis of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry, and the absence of an entry on the specific term. Reference sources treat the term as a word that is distinctly different then V's proposed redirects. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia project, and unlike paper encyclopedias, it has presented terms which are then expanded with verified educational content.

Without citing adequate sources indicating that a redirect would be appropriate, V has been unable to support the redirect. Likewise, V has been unable to articulate precisely why the specifically written article content presents POV original research, except for attacking me personally as an OR contributor and demanding more sources. Looking closely at WP:Redirect, V's proposed redirects have not served the redirect purposes stated in that guideline.

Simply put, the article term has been the specific subject of reliable sources and scholarly research, and an article is justified, as long as it does not present new analysis. NPOV means that when the sources are fairly presented, the reader can decide.

If an NPOV article can not be created, then I propose the article should probably be deleted; because, the proposed redirect targets are off base to what sources present for the term.

If the common sense of the Wikipedia community will prevail, the article can be made in NPOV state with educational content, and expanded with the proposed sources and as new sources arrive. In this example, it is possible to write a NPOV article, without original research.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

Viriditas (talk · contribs)
ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs)

I am concerned that V is biased against religious interpretations of the term being presented in the article.

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=Purpose redirected}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

There was an RFC, a 3PO and a Wikiquette clarification.

How do you think we can help?

Help interpreting Wikipedia guidelines and polices to support removing the redirect and making a NPOV article to benefit Wikipedia readers.

Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose redirected discussion

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

June Jago

June Jago (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

I don't have an argument, but wish to inform the primary author of the page on June Jago that she was my mother's cousin, so I was able to put in her date of birth.

Users involved

Who is involved in the dispute?

99.246.136.26 (talk · contribs)
99.246.136.26 (talk · contribs)

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

How do you think we can help?

99.246.136.26 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June Jago discussion

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

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards