Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Nivkh alphabets	In Progress	Modun (t)	25 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 14 hours	Modun (t)	1 days, 16 hours
Wudu	In Progress	Nasserb786 (t)	16 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	14 hours
15.ai	In Progress	Ltbdl (t)	6 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	13 hours	Ltbdl (t)	28 minutes
Hypnosis	Closed	Skalidrisalba (t)	5 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours
Talk:Karima Gouit	Closed	TahaKahi (t)	3 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days,
Asian fetish	Closed	ShinyAlbatross (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 6 hours
Algeria	Closed	Monsieur Patillo (t)	2 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 hours
2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence	Closed	AmitKumarDatta180 (t)	2 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 10 hours
Tuner (radio)	New	Andrevan (t)	2 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	10 hours	Andrevan (t)	3 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 05:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

1 Spore (2008 video game) (Example case)

– Discussion in progress.

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

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

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

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

How do you think we can help?

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

--Example (talk)

1.1.1 Opening comments by Example2

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

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

1.1.2 Spore (2008 video game) discussion

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

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

Thanksgiving

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. 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? Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs) Glider87 (talk · contribs) Anupam (talk · contribs) Fnagaton (talk · contribs) Smallbones (talk · contribs) JimWae (talk · contribs) Johnlumea (talk · contribs) Lionelt (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=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) Thanksgiving discussion If that proposed wording of the lede works for all here, then I'm fine with that.  Note: Could another user active at DRN tie this one off? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Note to new DR clerk: Looks like we need buy-in from, at least, Glider87, if possible, for my last proposal. Also, is there a way to append this to the talk page whenever it's done? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Y I'll take over this DRN discussion for you, Steve, since Steve will be taking a much needed break from Wikipedia. To the parties: Just let me review the DRN discussion and I hope we can all resolve this dispute soon and bring closure. For starters, I will immediately address Alnscottwalker's concerns above. Whenaxis talk · contribs 21:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Alanscottwalker, at this time, all we can do is wait for the other parties replies. Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC) This proposal is nearly there but I think it overplays the religious roots aspect too much, according to the article there is some controversy about how widely accepted the religious roots are. For example some of the sources I've seen reject the idea that the original Thanksgiving in the US was even religious. Glider87 (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Really? How about sharing these sources? We can't write an article based on original research. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC) The sources are already in the article. The article sources already mention that the Canada and US versions of Thanksgiving might not even be relgiious. So I find myself leaning towards something more like Steven's version to be honest, I don't think it needed copyediting. Glider87 (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Section break 2 How about another suggestion: "Thanksgiving has significance for both religious and secular aspects, as it is recognized in that way across the World." And then after, a one-sentence explanation on the religious aspects and a one-sentence explanation on the secular aspects. How does that do? Whenaxis talk · contribs 01:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I think that's too open to interpretation, it doesn't make the due weight obvious enough. As Steven said Thanksgiving "today is primarily identified as a secular holiday".Glider87 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC) But for the sake of compromise, I would suggest using a neutral version between both points-of-view. Who knows—maybe there are people elsewhere in the World who celebrate Thanksgiving as a religious holiday. I'm going to make an assumption that the parties to this dispute are telling from their own experiences and how they were raised knowing about Thanksgiving. So, even though, Thanksgiving is primarily identified as a secular holiday, there is still a visible minority that celebrates it as a religious holiday. For example, to a greater extent, Christmas is a religious holiday for Christians but is a secular holiday for the rest of the population, we can adapt to the lede provided there: Christmas. Whenaxis talk · contribs 02:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Neutrality doesn't mean mentioning both points of view without due weight though. That's why I think Steven's version more closely applies neutrality and due weight. Glider87 (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC) User:Whenaxis, I agree with your approach - your sentence is brilliant and I support it. I offered the sentence: "Over time, however, societies that celebrate Thanksgiving have developed a mix of religious and secular attitudes, approaches and practices in response to the holiday." This is very similar to the sentence you offered. In this way, both the religious aspects (giving thanks, worship services) and secular aspects (reunions, football games, parades) are acknowledged. User:Glider87's suggestion is incorrect because it does not acknowledge that for many individuals, the holiday is still a religious one; to fulfill WP:NPOV, we need to acknowledge that Thanksgiving has both religious and secular aspects. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Anupam you are incorrect because your version doesn't apply due weight and I pointed out why before, I ask you to not keep on repeating the same already refuted arguments. For me Whenaxis's approach is moving away from something that is workable rather than towards it. Moving back towards Steven's version would be the way forward. Glider87 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Reviewing the archive again, Steven's suggestion "While Thanksgiving originally had underlying religious elements in the original celebration, today is primarily identified as a secular holiday." is even closer to WP:DUE than the other version. Glider87 (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC) No, I prefer User:Whenaxis' version better as it fulfills WP:NPOV, both neutrally mentioning that the holiday has both religious and secular aspects. User:Whenaxis, your version also resounds with information from Bulletin of the Pan American Union, Volume 37 on Thanksgiving: 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. User:Whenaxis, I am looking forward to the comments of other editors on your version. Thus far, it is the most concise and most neutral version proposed! With regards, AnupamTalk 03:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I note that it would be unwise to try and play us off each other. We're here to help and work as a team. Glider87 prefers one version, Anupam prefers another version. So we need to work towards a verson that works for all involved. Feel free to use User:Steven Zhang/Proposals to come up with something that works for you. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Anupam I already explained why your proposal doesn't follow the policy about neutrality. The policy about neutrality doesn't mean "neutrally mentioning" it actually means giving due weight. That's why Steven's version is much better. Again I must ask you to not keep on repeating your old refuted arguments. Glider87 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Whenaxis' proposal seems like a way to make it past this impasse. We cannot be stubborn. Compromise is an essential part of consensus. You see that, don't you, Glider? Whenaxis' suggestion is a compromise I can live with and should be implemented post haste. – Lionel (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC) You cannot compromise on interpreting policy. The proposal violates policy so it is a policy issue, not a simple content dispute. I've explained at great length why it violates policy. So far not a single counter arugment has been made on the basis of policy, only comments saying "I like it!" which frankly isn't good enough for generating a good consensus. This is because consensus has to be arrived at by making good choices not "I like it!" choices. Bad choices would be, for example, repeatedly proposing things which do not address the previously mentioned concerns about policy. I would point out that repeatedly proposing things which do not address valid policy concerns is not compromise either. Glider87 (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC) This proposal by User:Steven Zhang "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." is the least biased version so far so I would go with that. The two recent proposals in this "Section break 2" do not represent the article so are not suitable. Christmas is not similar enough to Thanksgiving for a comparison to be made. Fnagaton 07:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Sigh. I'll read over this and discuss tomorrow. Just shows what one day off does :-p. Will comment tomorrow (like in 10 hours) but I would note I think comments like "I prefer this compromise" and "I prefer that compromise". A compromise is something you all can agree on. If you can't agree on it, then it's not a compromise then, is it? I also note that we are not obliged to contravene policies in order to settle a dispute. Not saying that's happened here, just noting it. I've also seen very few reliable sources presented. The one referred to above may be reliable, but it doesn't appear to be an impartial source. Now, don't kill each other while I sleep :-) 60.242.141.102 (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I realize that Thanksgiving has more of a secular aspect to it nowadays, but it still may be as important to those who recognize it as a religious holiday. I respect both parties' point-of-view, and those of you who keep pushing your POV, should look at it from the other's perspective. Christmas was just an example of how compromise would look like between religious and secular. It's impossible to come to a consensus or move further from a dispute without having compromise. Compromise is something that is acceptable by all parties, not necessarily something that all parties want. Whenaxis talk · contribs 21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I take issue with the characterization "those of you who keep pushing your POV" because it isn't pushing a POV to insist that policy about neutrality and due weight is followed in the article. It is pushing a POV to insist that the religious claims should be inserted into the lede without due weight given. It doesn't matter if someone religious thinks religion is important to add to the article lede because of their version of Thanksgiving, Wikipedia articles are not meant to be produced with that kind of personal bias. I'm religious and I am still able to logically see that what Anupam proposed is contrary to Wikipedia policies. I also realise that Wikipedia policies are there for the benefit of everyone, not just the religious. Anupam and others needs to separate the religious beliefs with what the facts actually say. Wikipedia articles report the world how it is and not how religious people want it to be. Respecting the other parties' point-of-view does not mean automatically allowing their biased point of view into the article lede. I respect Anupam's beliefs but his beliefs are still not allowed to be forced into the article lede just because he believes them. If you allow "respect both parties' point-of-view" thinking to mean inclusion of beliefs into articles then you would end up with the article on Earth mentioning in the lede that the Earth is still considered to be flat, just to please those who still believe such things. Which is no good for an encyclopedia and also contrary to policy. The article on Christmas is not a good example to use for this article since the two subjects are not the same. As I said before, many times, Anupam's proposals do not include due weight and allow the reader to incorrectly assume that Thanksgiving is religious, some of them are obviously pointy in the extreme as was mentioned on the article talk page and the RfC. His proposals therefore fail Wikipedia policy tests which is why I disagree with them. My disagreement is only based on Wikipedia policy and isn't based on anything else. Glider87 (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC) I would suggest that all realize that there are many ways to phrase an article that complies with policy, not just one way. Also, rigidness in maintaining that there is only one way to apply policy to an article is not going to achieve anything worthwhile because it is not an accurate statement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC) There isn't only one way, but as demonstrated by some other proposals there are many wrong ways.Glider87 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Glider87, what ideas do you have on making the lede acceptable by policy and encompasses both points-of-views? Maybe then we can find a compromise between my suggestion, Steve's suggestion and your suggestion. Whenaxis talk · contribs 21:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC) My suggestion would be Steve's suggestion, I cannot think on how it could be improved beyond what it currently says and also have it within policy. If you cannot suggest something that is better and also follows policy I suggest we use that proposal. Glider87 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC) I have to comment that it does encompass both points-of-view keeping in mind WP:DUE. Any objection to Steve's proposal? Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC) I don't see a more recent proposal than the one I objected to a while ago. So, yes, I still object. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I prefer User:Whenaxis' version because it takes into account that religious traditions (such as giving thanks, the presidential proclamations which reference God, and church services) are still commonplace. At the same time, it acknowledges that Thanksgiving has a secular aspect as well. User:John Carter, User:Lionelt, and User:Geremia supported this assertion as well. Not to single him/her out but, User:Glider87, found mention of Jesus in the lede for the Christmas Eve article to be "against policy" as well and his position was soundly refuted when an RfC was held (the RfC was closed, with the administrator stating "anyone who disagrees, please go get your vision checked." I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Anupam as already explained what you prefer does not give due weight so it is not up for consideration. What you "prefer" is also not an objection based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Do you have any Wikipedia policy based objection to Steven's proposal "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."? By the way you didn't tell me you had called for an RfC to allow me to argue my case instead of misrepresenting what I wrote. So your RfC is invalid since it did not follow process. You also completely missed the point that I was teaching you about reliable sources. Glider87 (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC) My take on the lede I proposed is that it details that it is primarialy identified as a secular holiday, though other aspects remain. Alternatively, you could use 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. In modern times, it is primarily identified as a secular holiday, though to an extent other observances remain" or something similar. How's that? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC) What country has a holiday called Thanksgiving that celebrates its Independence? Who or what was being thanked for the harvest you talk about? What are you talking about? You are either being unaccountably vague or strangely obscure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC) In regards to the harvest, see Labor Thanksgiving Day which is detailed in the article. Also see this portion of the article as an example, Native Americans also celebrated the end of a harvest season. When Europeans first arrived to the Americas, they brought their own harvest festival traditions, and gave thanks for their safe voyages. As for the independence bit, I was sure I read it in the article at some point, but can't see it anymore. That portion can always be removed. At this point, it seems you are starting to argue with the mediators here as well. I don't think that's a wise course of action to take. We're here to help. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 05:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC) As I understand it, we are here to come to reasoned consensus that's generally done by relying on sources and presenting them faithfully in the article. And with sticking with what you have previously said is reasonable. So, questioning what you don't find in the article or sources is bound to happen. We are agreed then that independence is not mentioned, which is why I asked the question. With respect to Labor Thanksgiving, as I pointed out to you above, yes it has a religious analog. Who or what were the Europeans (god), voyagers (god) or Indians(great spirit) thanking? That's why I proposed this to cover all of that. "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." And you approved that as an acceptable formulation. I would ask that you improve on that, if possible, not ignore it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I don't approve of that, I approve of Steven's version that I quoted earlier on. I ask that you try to improve Steven's version without loosing the message it conveys. With regard to labor day Thanksgiving it isn't thanks to God or some other "great spirit" it is thanks to one another, it isn't religious, it is entirely secular.Glider87 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Labor Thanksgiving has roots in religion. And you have not said why you disapprove of the formulation, I set forth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC) This is starting to become rather long. The Thanksgiving article at this point states, in the history section "Native Americans also celebrated the end of a harvest season. When Europeans first arrived to the Americas, they brought their own harvest festival traditions, and gave thanks for their safe voyages." The Labor Thanksgiving article says in the second sentence of the lede The law establishing the holiday cites it as an occasion for commemorating labor and production and giving one another thanks. I think this details that there is more than one reason for thanksgiving apart from religious concerns. I also note my concern about points of view here. When this issue first came to DRN, there was very little religious detail in the article, and now it's changing to the other end of the spectrum. I think my lede section is a fine balance based on the reliable sources presented in the article. I don't think continuing to discuss the same points over is going to be productive, either. If we cannot come to a resolution then I would recommend mediation be pursued so the issues can be analysed in detail. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC) If you wish to mediate this, I am still open to that, it went no where on the talk page when I suggested it before bringing it here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Alanscottwalker you are wrong to claim Labor Thanksgiving has religious roots, it doesn't, it is a 100% secular event. In relation to your proposal I did say why I disapprove of your proposal in my comment starting with "I think it overplays the religious roots aspect too much" at 00:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)". Later on I came to think Steven's version was better and I still think Steven's version is the best option.Glider87 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC) This is what I was referring to with respect to Labor Thanksgiving Day. Almost the entire History section says: "Labor Thanksgiving Day is the modern name for an ancient cereals (rice, barley/wheat, foxtail millet, barnyard millet, proso millet, and beans) harvest festival known as Niiname-sai (新嘗祭?). The Nihon Shoki mentions a harvest ritual having taken place during the reign of the legendary Emperor Jimmu (660–585 BCE), as well as more formalized harvest celebrations during the reign of Emperor Seinei(480–484 CE). Modern scholars can date the basic forms of niiname-sai to the time of Emperor Temmu (667–686 CE).[1] Traditionally, it celebrated the year's hard work; during the Niiname-sai ceremony, the Emperor would dedicate the year's harvest to kami (spirits), and taste the rice for the first time." Kami are spirits in the Shinto religion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC) That is not "religious roots", that is spiritual roots. Spiritual but not religious in other words.Glider87 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Alanscottwalker I will ask you the same question I asked Anupam, do you have any Wikipedia policy based objection to Steven's proposal?Glider87 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Yes. It mentions things not discussed in the article, as I said above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC) That's where you're wrong on two counts. First you don't say what specifically, you just made a vague claim without proof. Secondly as Steven already showed every point in the proposal includes information from the article. Glider87 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC) I could go with: "Thanksgiving has roots in religious and other 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." [adding "and other" before "traditions" in the first sentence.] That works, I think. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I do think I detailed where the other aspects of thanksgiving was described, mainly, the last paragraph in the section below the lede in te article. I feel we are going in circles. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC) You've also admitted it had things not in the article. I will also point out that nowhere does that section mention deities. So, are you insisting on your sentence? Because if you are then this DR has failed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I am suggesting a compromise. I am not insisting on my sentence, but I do think it is a well-formulated sentence. It doesn't say deities, it mentions God as well as other religious beings, so deities is the correct term I think. I'll see what other DR users think we should do here. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 22:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC) If you are interested in compromise, I find it quite odd you don't directly address my proposals. The first time I made one you talked about God and Christianity, when my proposal said neither of those things. Until finally you said it is acceptable. This time you just ignore it, altogether. So, we appear to have communication failures. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC) How about this? "Thanksgiving has roots in religion and cultural tradition. Today, it is often celebrated as a secular holiday, but there are a diverse array of observances that add and discard from other traditions." Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 22:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Just phrasing-wise I would substitute "various" for "other." But looks fine to me. Although. I was particularly interested in tying capital "T" Thanksgiving with small "t" thanksgiving for etymology reasons, that can slide, if necessary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC) OK, let's see what everyone else thinks. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I would say this "Thanksgiving had roots in religion and cultural tradition. Today, it is primarily celebrated as a secular holiday, but there are a diverse array of observances that add and discard from other traditions." It gives beter due weight. Glider87 (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC) How about, Historically, Thanksgiving had roots in religion and cultural tradition. Today, it is primarily celebrated as a secular holiday, but there are a diverse array of observances that add and discard from other traditions. ? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC) OK! Glider87 (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Alright, I'll leave this open for a few days and see what everyone else thinks. Let's see if we can get this implemented and closed. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Perhaps it should start at the beginning The article mentions in a sort-of incidental manner that the original roots are from harvest festivals. Perhaps the Pagan roots of these festivals should also be included as well, for example some mention of Greek festival Thesmophoria and the goddess Demeter; or if we look to the Wiccan Lammas or Mabon. In either case, it may actually be appropriate to mention the intention to give thanks to the "Goddess" as well! Norbytherobot (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Or more likely, since it is now primarily (when capitalized) a US holiday - start in Plymouth - where the settlers were certainly not as "religious" as the later Puritans - and did, indeed, treat it as primarily "secular" (heck - they even used "civil marriage ceremonies" and not religious ones.) Certainly they did "thank God" during it, but that was not a particularly dominant part of the party, and the Indians who attended were pretty certainly not church-goers. Modern "Wicca" is, indeed, modern. And the Plymouth ceremony-party was heavily focussed on venison and turkey and not on the corn harvest. Collect (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sinai and Palestine Campaign template dispute

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. 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) 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) 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) 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) I've just noticed this dispute has appeared on the Mil Hist talk page at [2] --Rskp (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC) 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) 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) How can the official name of a military engagement be POV? Twice in the recent past Jim Sweeney has ignored consensus reached on the MILHIST talk page when the consensus has gone against him, in one case he sort to transfer the discussion to WP:Australia. I must say I am not optimistic but remain hopeful that somewhere on Wikipedia I can get a fair go. --Rskp (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Hang on a second - before we talk about the specifics of the case, let's agree on the general outline of how we will proceed. What do you think of my suggestion to follow the MILHIST conversation, and if that doesn't find consensus, to hold an RfC? And by the way, I've also posted on the MILHIST talk page in an effort to stop the conversation there from going round in circles. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC) I'm just working on a response under the heading 'Arguments against including the disputed articles' in the MILHIST discussion. Sorry for the delay but life gets in the way sometimes. :) --Rskp (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Just to make clear that I have never ignored consensus. If I have links should be easy to provide.Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Jim Sweeney opposed the move of the ANZAC Mounted Division article to Anzac Mounted Division despite the MILHIST talk page consensus supporting Anzac Mounted Division denying there had been a consensus. In the process he went through a number of articles and changed the division's name from Anzac Mounted Division to ANZAC Mounted Division. Subsequently Jim Sweeney substituted Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division which is the official name of the division and again went through a number of articles and changed the division's name. After a second long discussion on MILHIST talk page the consensus was that the Anzac Mounted Division was the appropriate name. At which point I went through and changed the division's name back to Anzac Mounted Division in a number of articles. Then I sought to move the division's article back to Anzac Mounted Division. When the MILHIST talk page didn't succeed for a second time, Jim Sweeney apparently took the argument to WP:Australia, which I thought a parochial approach as New Zealand is also involved and the main MILHIST talk page was the appropriate place to air the problem. I don't know what discussion took place there as I had had enough. --Rskp (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Thats not quite accurate - but its getting away from the dispute over the template etc.Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry I forgot to add the links to the discussions I referred to. The first regarding ANZAC is here [3] the second regarding Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division is here [4]. I don't know where to find the discussion on WP:Australia as I only read about it taking place. And the discussion regarding moving the Anzac Mounted Division article can be found on that article's talk page. I'm not sure what Jim Sweeney is referring to that is "not quite accurate".--Rskp (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Battle of Jaffa dispute Jim Sweeney has misrepresented the amount of copying that he has added to the Jaffa battle article from the Jerusalem article stating: "The information in Jaffa that is covered in Jerusalem is the background before the battle" and "The only part of Jerusalem that mentions Jaffa in in the aftermath, as it happened 11 days after the capture of the city, in a different place 40 miles away. As its part of the aftermath its covered in two sentences". [5]. A comparison of the two articles Battle of Jaffa (1917) and Battle of Jerusalem (1917) sub headings 3.3 24 November: First attack across the Nahr el Auja and more particularly 4.2 Second attack across the Nahr el Auja – Battle of Jaffa will shows, that of the 17 sources quoted in the Battle of Jaffa article, only three which are at the end of the article, are not mentioned in the four paragraphs of indepth description of the Jaffa battle in the 4.2 Second attack across the Nahr el Auja – Battle of Jaffa subsection of the Battle of Jerusalem article. Because the Battle of Jaffa (1917) article is completely copied from an already existing article, except for two lengthy quotes from the web sites in the Aftermath section, it should be deleted, not only from the campaign template but from Wikipedia.--Rskp (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Rskp, if you think that the article should be deleted, you can nominate it at AfD. I'm not sure if it would be kept or not - a quick Google Books search showed that there are sources, but that some of them say the label "battle" is exaggerating its importance. In any case, it's not really relevant to the campaignbox dispute, so we probably shouldn't discuss it here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Overnight this article has been substantially re edited and the amount of copied material from the Jerusalem article diluted, so its becoming less a slavish copy. However, the instance of Jim Sweeney's misrepresentation of the amount of material in the Jaffa article, at that time, which was copied from the Jerusalem article is still of major concern. --Rskp (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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?

• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• Smsarmad (talk · contribs)
• TopGun (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=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)

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)

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.[6] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry about the late reply - I needed a brief WikiBreak, and I assumed someone else from DRN would have jumped in by now. SMS - I understand what you're saying, but if we're all agreed that these are all reliable sources, why not simply say in the article that the reliable sources present conflicting information? After all, we're not trying to draw our own conclusions here - we're just trying to present what can be verified through outside sources. If the reliable sources say different things, then it's not undue weight to present that fact in this case. Do you feel differently? If so, how? Sleddog116 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all! I agree with you and in that case your suggested text ("Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces were taken prisoner by the Indian Army. Some sources ^(source) 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.") will be a good option if we are ending nowhere. Before that, the question here is the understanding of what authors we are quoting exactly mean. Can you please tell us, what do you understand by "some 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war, including 15,000 civilian men, women and children" [7]? Because the use of word including is ambiguous and all of us involved in the issue perceive it differently. --SMS ^Talk 18:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I, personally, don't see any ambiguity in that statement at all. To me, it clearly says that that 93,000 is inclusive of the civilians, not in addition to. The question, though, is do all of the sources present it that way? If not, we need to sort out the disparity. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The view from this side of the fence, (Indian military history) is 90K plus prisoners which excludes civilians which are over and above that. Terms of repatriation of the two were different, if I recall correctly, with civilians ec going home sooner than the Prisoners of War. I did not quite notice this argument as such. Civilians are not considered combatants under Geneva convention and hence treated differently from POWs. Of course, will bneed to locate the refs right to confirm it. AshLin (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for this? If not, I think it might be better to simply give the inclusive figure. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for the info, another view per my original research a family of a Pak Army officer (his wife and children) who were captured after 1971 war from Dhaka told that they were released in 1974 along with military POWs. And I think if we cannot find any other sources that can tell us the exact number of civilian and military prisoners, we should add the conflicting views as already suggested by you. --SMS ^Talk 20:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I have not been able to find concrete figures for troops of non combatants. I do recommend we call the non combatants who were held "civil internees" rather than POW's. It is what they were called in the Hamoodur Rahman Commission. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Just a quick note to everyone here: You may not have realized this, but Wikipedia's Prisoner of War article defines a POW as "civilian or combatant". In my view, that seems to suggest that we should define it the same way here. I'd recommend against changing the POW article without first discussing it on that talk page, but I'm just putting it out there for you guys to think about. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that wiki is not a reliable source non combatants may not be taken a POW's per LOAC. Hence civil internees Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

DS - I wasn't using wiki as a source, merely as a frame of reference for a definition. I wouldn't suggest using Wiki as a source, either. It's clearly not RS. However, whether we consider civilians as POWs isn't really relevant anyway; the point is we have sources - all reliable - that give conflicting counts in terms of total persons captured. What I'm saying is that we probably need to present the disparity - that is, acknowledge the fact that various sources give conflicting claims. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sleddog116, re sourcing, just a little joke. (obviously a bad one) Darkness Shines (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: I have another possible solution. Why don't we avoid using the term "POW" altogether? My suggestion is that we give a range (from the most conservative estimate to the most liberal), and instead of saying "members of the Pakistan Armed Forces," we simply say "Pakistanis". We could then also present the fact that sources disagree on the number of civilians included in that figure. This way, the range that we give can unequivocally include civilians and military but also use all sources accurately. That's not really OR - it's simple math. Does anyone wish to add any comment? Sleddog116 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not all of them were Pakistani. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal #2. See this ref. Pakistan's application to the ICJ - it says over 92,000 prisoners of war and civilian internees. These figures and this wording ("civilian internee") could be used. This figure is further clarified in a breakup provided by the ICRC on page 4 - 81,888 POWs and over 10,000 civilians including 6500 women and children. The range of figures & other uncertainties could be mentioned in a footnote. AshLin (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I could support this, it is roughly along the lines of what I was thinking. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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 [8] 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 [9] ) 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 [10]. 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, which are considered tertiary sources. 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)

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.

That was not a "quick explanation", nor have you noted that that the previous RFC, 3PO and Wikiquette clarification went against your position. Further, you were asked several times to take your concerns to the relevant noticeboards, such as RS, NPOV, or OR. What it seems you are doing here, is continuing your own personal dispute rather than seeking to resolve it. On Talk:Purpose you were presented with multiple avenues for resolving this, from multiple editors and you refused to accept all of them. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you are expressly incorrect. The editor who contributed the 3PO advised me to come here [11]. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please rewrite your complaint up above and summarize it per the instructions? It's too long, and it is basically unreadable, not to mention bordering on science fiction (which I enjoy btw, so that doesn't bother me). I am not "expressly incorrect". The dispute on the talk page has to do with your refusal to accept consensus around RS, OR, and NPOV issues. That's why those noticeboards are more relevant. You even acknowledge this when you requested help "interpreting Wikipedia guidelines and polices to support removing the redirect and making a NPOV article to benefit Wikipedia readers". That's what those relevant noticeboards are for. However, you don't seem interested in resolving this, as you're trying to make this about editors rather than editing. Tell you what, why don't you summarize the results of the previous redirects, the RFC, the 3PO, and the Wikiquette clarification. That way we can get back on track and address the editing, not the editors. The more you focus on the facts (supported by diffs) rather than your opinion of the facts, the easier it will be to resolve this and move on. For example, you neglected to mention that there is consensus for a redirect (to multiple targets) and that you are the only editor who is against it. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk comment: This dispute seems fairly large and revolves around one redirect. I think to effectively solve all the issues at hand that you request informal mediation, WP:MEDCAB. Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Will V agree? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If the user does, I'll be happy to open a mediation case and be the mediator for the case. Whenaxis talk · contribs 00:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue I was going to suggest simply making purpose a disambiguation page, but then I saw this comment by R'n'B in the RfC that says the guidelines don't support doing that. On reading Wikipedia:Disambiguation again, it looks like making a broad-based article per WP:CONCEPTDAB might be the correct thing to do, but it doesn't look like there's any consensus to do this with the article as it stood pre-redirect. Veriditas, would you be able to cope with a broad-based article if it fulfilled all our content criteria, and you were satisfied that it wasn't a coatrack? And ZuluPapa5, I notice you mentioned a userspace draft in your overview - have you considered making this draft yourself and getting it up to an acceptable standard for inclusion? I think you would have a lot less objection to what you are proposing if you could provide a reasonable alternative to a redirect. Let me know what you both think about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks WP:CONCEPTDAB is a good approach, I hadn't seen it before, but that is what was intuitively aimed to achieve. The article was totally re-drafted [12] to an acceptable standard before it was redirected, since then, additional sources have been found and a new WP:CONCEPTDAB standard too. It should be reworked again; however, this should be done in the main space, like Wikipedia was intended to be; where, folks collaborate together to draft articles to make a NPOV. User space article just don't make it so. As V seems to indicate, I can't make a NPOV article alone. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave this one up to Mr. Stradivarius, I'm busy with other threads at this time. Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs 22:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

V must have left this topic too. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't left anything, ZuluPapa5. As someone who has consistently said that he will support anything that is reliably sourced and accurate, I would be happy to see you create a CONCEPTDAB in your user space and bring it to the attention of the community. Unfortunately, based on past results and our extensive discussion at Talk:Purpose, I am not optimistic about the outcome. If Mr. Stradivarius (what a wonderful user name) wants to act as a mentor/helper/whatever in this regard, his participation is welcomed and encouraged. I would invite him, however, to review our past discussions on this matter for a good summary of the problem. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, there was a rewritten article after the RFC, then you redirected it. Following CONCEPTDAB, I would like to post and another re-written article in the main space. It's been very difficult to find a way to satisfy your interpretations of an acceptable article. You've said you don't believe there's an encyclopedia source to support a wikipedia article. I would be comfortable with a Peer Review, Editor Assistance, another RFC, even a AFD, after it's posted. Since you've asserted it's my original research and despite that there are over 14 sources covering this concept, how should we proceed? The community feedback would be appreciated. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I see an RFC that came to a consensus about a redirect, with editors agreeing that your version of the page didn't work; it was reduced to a dicdef.[13] I also see you ignoring consensus and recreating the problematic material with absurd content like "Defining purpose is often relatively vague and almost meaningless; however, the concept is valuable and therfore retained."[14] I have no objection to you working closely with a mentor to create a new topic in your user space. Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Zulu Papa, I don't think creating a concept dab page needs to be difficult at all, and I can help you with structuring it if you like. Neither does it need to be perfect; it just needs to be reasonably well-sourced and reasonably good at outlining the different encyclopaedic topics relating to the concept of "purpose". I think the basic problem is that so far we have been working from the outside in ("I have some material that discusses purpose in some form, let's put it in the purpose article"), rather than from the inside out ("What are the main aspects of the concept of "purpose" that should be outlined/disambiguated in an encyclopaedia article?"). Viriditas is right when he says that there are no sources to support a Wikipedia article - there simply aren't any modern sources that deal with "purpose" as an overarching concept, because it is so vague. There are only sources that talk about "purpose" in a specific context such as teleology in philosophy, goals in goal-setting theory, etc. The only reason that we can have an article about it at all is because of the WP:CONCEPTDAB guideline - these different encyclopaedic topics are linked together purely by the general meaning of the word "purpose" as defined in the dictionary. As such, I think a very good starting point would be to think of what Wikipedia articles we would include if we were making a traditional disambiguation page. Once we have a list of articles, we can then work out the best way to link them together in prose. The obvious ones to start with are Intention, Goal, and Teleology - can you think of any others? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

V, the material you quoted was referenced from the source and yet you dispute it? If anything, the source justifies the need to retain an article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mr. S.... thank you for the generous offer, this is an acceptable way to proceed. The sources indicate a relevance in the History of Science, Meaning of Life, Victor Frankl logotherapy, Purpose in life, Philosophy of Biology, Teleology#Teleology_and_science, Kant's Critique_of_Judgement#Teleology, Arturo Rosenblueth cybernetic and in linguistics Final clause. There are many Christian sources; however, I've ignored them for now. If you would like, we could work in the main space article? However, from V's previous offer to help, the pre-RFC version at User:Viriditas/Purpose is available for us to work. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think your comment here outlines the core of this dispute - as I see it, many of the articles you have listed above are outside the scope of the proposed purpose article. Let me explain. The articles I listed (intention, goal, and teleology) are about purpose as an abstract concept; however, most of the links you listed are about the purpose of a certain thing. To illustrate this, let's look at the difference between purpose in life (which redirects to teleology) and purpose of life (which redirects to meaning of life). Purpose in life is still about purpose as an abstract concept, albeit limited to a specific context. Purpose of life, however, is primarily a property of life, not of purpose, and is an extremely broad subject. You could write about almost anything under the heading of purpose of life, but it would be bound to turn into a discussion of life and morality rather than purpose per se.

Perhaps the difference is easiest to explain using a trivial example. (And this is going to be very trivial, so my apologies beforehand.) Let's compare purpose of pencil sharpeners with purpose in pencil sharpeners. It's obvious that the purpose of pencil sharpeners is to sharpen pencils, but I don't think anyone is about to pontificate on some abstract purpose contained in them. Almost everything has a purpose, but purpose as an abstract concept is much more limited. For these reasons, I think the proposed concept dab page needs to be limited to examples of "purpose in X", and should exclude all examples of "purpose of X". Let me know what you think about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Difficult for me to say; because, it depends on how the sources treat the issue. Purpose is both a noun and a verb. To me, the noun would seem to follow the "in" interpretations, while the verb would be for "of". The verb form is a key issue; because, that's where the sources have discussed consciousness as a pre-requisit for an individual's purpose. Kant had a whole discourse on this, in that he advanced a philosophical thesis where there is no theological commitment required for an individual purpose. He saw it as inherent to the individual organism, not an external source. This thinking supported the theory of types in science. The sources are showing that "purpose" has a regulative action usage. Like a purposeful action to keep something on course toward a target. So purpose as a action verb will be significant to the article, and we might want to keep the "of" usages. There is significant controversy because individuals are inherently subjective, therefor it can be difficult to get agreement in individual's purposes, without creating some written document or organization. Really, NPOV might require us to include both the noun and verb forms. It's really a uniquely special verb, and that's where there is going to be meat for an article. In my personal opinion, its a special case of Subject Verb Subject compared to Subject Verb Object and SOV constructions. Hope I am making sense. Maybe we can section on the Noun and Verb usages, like a dictionary might?Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I'm buying that stuff about including the verb form. We have articles on concepts, not on words; listing the meaning of the verb form is the sort of thing a dictionary might do, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, our article title policy explicitly favours nouns over other word forms - take a look at WP:NOUN for the details. Honestly, rather than having an article on a subject as vague as the "noun and verb forms of the word 'purpose'", I'd prefer to just keep the redirect in place, with a hatnote at intention that leads to purpose (disambiguation). That would solve the worries about navigation, and you could still include all of your content at the relevant articles. Would you be willing to live with this solution? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's get started. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a draft here User:ZuluPapa5/Purpose for consideration. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for writing the draft - I can see that it must have taken a lot of effort to make. However, I'm afraid it doesn't address the points that Viriditas and I have raised. Did you write your draft before reading my comment above, by any chance? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Mormons

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. Mormons (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 information I've added is factual, objective and respectful. The article states that the Book of Mormon is based upon the Bible. The information I've added identifies contradictions to that statement. The information cites verifiable sources as defined by wikipedia (see Below). While of a differing point of view, the added material immediately follows the section Culture and Practices, and discusses factual differences between two written texts, making it therefore appropriate. I have modified language to ensure neutrality, respect and objectivity. While all readers may not agree with the added section, it is none-the-less a factual comparison of two texts, and challenges statements made on this page. My additions have been removed 4 times within 48 hours. It appears that censorship is being practiced, and no differong points of view are "allowed" on this page. Would welcome a third party opinion. I have exchanged comments on the talk page of Mormons Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Adjwilley (talk · contribs) 72Dino (talk · contribs) Bilbobag (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=Mormons}} --~~~~ 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? Have discussed on the Talk page. I have also explained my reason for posting when I added comments How do you think we can help? While of a differing point of view, the material I've added to this page discusses factual differences between two written texts, making it therefore appropriate. I have modified language to ensure neutrality, respect and objectivity. While all readers may not agree with the added section, it is none-the-less a factual comparison of two texts, and challenges statements made on this page. My additions have been removed 4 times within 48 hours. It appears that censorship is being practiced, and no differong points of view are "allowed" on this page. Would welcome a third party opinion. Bilbobag (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Mormons discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. My name was mentioned so I suppose I'll comment here. My main problem with the edit in question is that (in my opinion) it doesn't belong in a general article about Mormons. The article's focus is mainly on the Mormons as a people: their history, their unique culture, some of their unique practices and beliefs, etc. The edit, however seemed to be concerned mainly with pointing out doctrinal inconsistencies between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, effectively using the article as a coat rack for an anti-Book of Mormon screed. Also, as other editors have pointed out, there seem to be copyright problems with the source, which appears to be self-published. I personally don't see the discussion as needing a formal dispute resolution quite yet. The discussion on the talk page isn't even a day old. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC) First this wasn't meant to be, and I tried to go out of my way to make sure this inclusion wasn't an "anti-Book of Mormon Screed'. As Adjwilley points out the Mormon page discusses "some of their (Mormon's) unique practices and beliefs". Many of those beliefs are based upon the Book of Mormon, which is listed on the page as a "companion to the Bible". I was simply pointing out that as a "companion" text, there are factual differences. As to the copyright issue, I have explict permission from a recognized source to use their material. However to avoid any contrversey, I could re-write the article using only wording from the Book of Mormon and the Bible - both of which are in the public domain. Lastly, a review of the history of the page shows that any factual material that has been added, in the past 5 months, that has a differing point of view, or that isn't flattering to Mormons gets removed; Some examples are: 04:26, 7 February 2012‎ Adjwilley (talk | contribs)‎ (81,424 bytes) (→Terminology: I think it's best to sidestep the history of the word "Mormon" for now. 18:29, 1 February 2012‎ Adjwilley (talk | contribs)‎ (78,971 bytes) (→Groups within Mormonism: removing LGBT and Utah Mormons from Groups section.) 16:56, 1 February 2012‎ Adjwilley (talk | contribs)‎ (78,816 bytes) (→Groups within Mormonism: Removing Black and International Mormons from the Groups section (moved to History in previous edit)) (undo) 02:57, 1 February 2012‎ Live Light (talk | contribs)‎ (78,970 bytes) (→Beliefs: ALL belief systems seem strange to someone in this modernized world. This tells us nothing.) (undo) 03:19, 26 October 2011‎ LittleOldManRetired (talk | contribs)‎ (65,739 bytes) (→Beliefs: omitted 2 addn Bible texts for comparison, these 5 texts have been ironically used both for and against the revelation of Joseph Smith, depending on who is interpreting them.) (undo) Bilbobag (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Woah, hang on there. These edit summaries are out of context. For the two edits to the Groups section (LGBT, Utah, Black, and International) I was simply moving the material to other locations in the article; nothing was deleted. The Terminology edit was a minor edit that I made, related to when Mormons were first called Mormons, and a technical inaccuracy about the name of the church (lower case d with a hyphen). Live Light's edit was reverted I think, and I don't remember exactly what LittleOldManRetired's edit did. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Template:Cue Bilbobag, sorry, but we can't include your material in Wikipedia as it is. Regardless of whether it is "for" or "against" Mormons, it breaks a number of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: The copyright problems outlined by TransporterMan on the talk page It reads like an essay trying to advance a point of view, rather than being neutral and attributing significant points of view to their authors The sources it is based on appear to be either primary sources (the Bible and the Book of Mormon) or self-published sources (Fulton County Gospel News and Apologetics Press), rather than the reliable, secondary sources that Wikipedia usually requires (note that WP:PRIMARY does list some exceptions, but they don't seem to apply here) It doesn't appear to be directly relevant to the article - a better place to put material of this type (but re-written to reflect the points above) may be Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Criticism of the Book of Mormon, as 72Dino suggested on the talk page I'm sorry that you have experienced difficulties in getting your edits accepted to the Mormons article, but I think that if you accept the points above then you will experience a lot less frustration in your editing. Some further questions you might want to ask yourself in determining what material may be suitable are "Who are the major mainstream academic scholars that have contributed to discussions on the Book of Mormon?", "Are their arguments already covered in any Wikipedia articles?", and "How can I edit the relevant Wikipedia articles to better reflect the views on the Book of Mormon present in the academic literature?" Let me know if you need any clarification on any of this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Great response and comments. I Appreciate it. Two questions. 1) Since the bible has more printed copies than any book ever, and arguably is the most "popular" (not my phrase, but is commonly referred to as), I don't understand how it's not acceptable, especially if I'm quoting a section from it. It would appear to me to be the same as stating that Paris is the capital of France? 2) Understand comment about not writing/adding what would be perceived as an attack piece, and honestly that's not my intent. I thought that each item in Wikipedia was to present ALL data about the subject, whether controversial or not. The Mormons contains section on "Beliefs" and "Culture and Practices" In these articles it's stated that the Bible and Book of Mormon are "companion" pieces. I'm not suggesting they aren't, but simply that there are differences, as put forth by numerous publications/authors. In my mind I think removing my additions presents only one side of the position about Mormon beliefs. Removing anything that presents a differing point of view is somewhat analgous to the Church of Scientology issue on Wikipedia, specifically Wikipedia's comments that "The Church of Scientology has long had a controversial history on the Internet, and has initiated campaigns to manipulate material and remove information critical of the organization from the web." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_editing_on_Wikipedia So my question is, shouldn't comments that are factual, unbiased, and presenting a differing point of view, be allowed? Thanks again for your insights and info, but would appreciate your thoughts on these questions. PS: I didn;t knwo where to reply so I also posted on your Message page - sorry for the duplication.Bilbobag (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC) You may use the Bible as a primary source. Per Wikipedia policy on primary sources, this means that it can only be used to "make 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". So we can use the Bible for simple, factual statements about its contents, but any analysis or interpretation of those facts needs to be cited to reliable, secondary sources. (Also, due to the many different versions of the Bible and the differences between them, things that seem simple and factual may actually be problematic - a great deal of scholarly literature has been written on the subject.) I see that you have attempted to use secondary sources in your version to back up your analyses, but I'm afraid these sources don't count as reliable per Wikipedia guidelines. You really need to be using sources by respected scholars published by mainstream publishers or in mainstream journals. As for your second point, you need to realise that the Mormons article is about a fundamentally different subject than the one you are writing about. No matter what you think of the neutrality of the original article, it doesn't change the fact that you are trying to add material that is not directly related to it. Put bluntly, if you want to talk about differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, you need to edit other articles, not this one. Let me know if you have any further questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cahokia

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. Cahokia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Native Americans in the United States (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 and ensuing edit war over the date style. This is an issue that has been resolved along time ago and wp:era is clear. In this case, the original date style is BC/AD. It was changed without a valid reason and without a consensus. It was recently changed back. Since that point, there seems to be a back-and-forth going on. This includes a 3 edit violation by Heironymous Rowe. This user states it should remain BCE/CE because it has be "stable for 4 years." wp:era does not list being "stable" as a valid reason. In fact, this would reward, and thereby encourage, users who "get away' with improper edits. The rules are clear: all date style should remain unchanged from their original--regardless of which style--unless a valid reason is given (other than preference) and a consensus for that reason is achieved. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Heironymous Rowe (talk · contribs) Primus128 (talk · contribs) Moxy (talk · contribs) Parkwells (talk · contribs) Todd Volker (talk · contribs) Dougweller (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=Cahokia}} --~~~~ 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? Primus128 (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Cahokia discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The creater of this report is edit warring to change the date styles on two articles which had their styles changed years ago and a stable style has emerged which is different from the actual used in the very first edits for the article. I have suggested the user wait a few days and let other regular editors of these pages, which this editor is not, chime in and an an actual written consensus emerge. The user want his way now. I'm not sure why they had to bring this here, seems premature and WP:BATTLEy to me. Heiro 05:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Please review the article to see who is the one that is "edit warring." It was brought here because it was apparent that we have differing opinions on what the rules are on the topic. The reasons Heiro has given for the change from the original are not valid per WP:ERA. I know of at least one other user he has contacted to bring into this debate, and I do not believe this should be a decision based on rounding up people. It has broader implications since it is a subject debated ad nauseum throughout wikipedia. This is why a fair, clear and unbias rule must be enforced (it is already in place at WP:ERA. Primus128 (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC) I have now been threatened with WP:BOOMERANGs. This is exactly why this topic has come here. In the paragraph above he says it shouldn't be here, but on his talk page he tells me not to reply to his comments and says boomerangs are going to come my way. I believe all my comments to date have been done calmly and professionally. We simply will never agree on this rule. In fact, while Heiro thought it was okay to warn Todd_Volker citing WP:ERA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Todd_Volker#WP:ERA.2C_article_uses_CE_style.2C_not_AD he then said it was "moronic" when I cited WP:ERA. If you look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Heironymous_Rowe#WP:ERA he even pointed to something that says we should not follow any rule. I just saw no other course of action other than to put this topic before objective people who will not be weighed down by a bias on the topic. Primus128 (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Are you joking? Go read those pages I pointed you toward. A "boomerang" is something you throw that comes back to you, and if you are not looking it hits you in the head, lol. I asked you to no longer post at my talk page because templated me for 3rr, when I had 2, you then argued with an admin who pointed it out, and all you were doing was harrassing and baiting me. I have no use for that on my talk page. Plus, WP:IAR is a core policy here, if a rule makes no sense in a particular instance, it should not be followed just for the sake of following the rules. In any case, your particular interpretation of WP:ERA has been pointed out to you to be flawed, you are being asked to come up with valid reasons at two article talkpages for your desire to change a date style that has been stable for 4 years. So long in fact that when I templated those other users you refer to, I didn't even realize they had used the other date style previously. You are seeking to change date styles on articles that have been stable in this respect for as long as I've been an editor here, come up with a valid reason to do so other than "its the rules". Heiro 08:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Primus, you are arguing across two articles, one stable for at least two years, this one for over four. You are using an argument about 'originally' that was removed from WP:ERA which no longer gives priority to the era style originally used. If you didn't realise it had been changed, you should say so and back away, with hopefully an apology to show good faith. If you can't or won't do this, then it's hard to agree with you that you are only here to enforce the 'rules' (which I would take more seriously if you ever changed from BC to BCE). After I warned you about 3RR your warned Hiero who was only at 2RR and commplained on my page that I hadn't warned Hiero. And you brought this here without telling the three editors disagreeing with you about this dispute and without a notification on the talk pages of the two articles. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Primus referred to an early 2008 edit of mine on the Talk page of Cahokia on this topic as the reason to revert back to BC-AD, but did not consult with me at the time or since. I've worked on the article from time to time and never noticed when the era designation was changed, as I think it is appropriate for this kind of article and generally prefer it overall. I accepted that change, and it has clearly had consensus from other editors as well for four years. I think Primus is WP:DISRUPTIVE for arguing now for the reversion, not accepting the established consensus of working editors at Cahokia, and for bringing the issue to this page before exploring it further with other editors on the Talk page of the article. I support keeping BCE-CE era designation.Parkwells (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Template:Cue Primus, Dougweller has a good point - WP:ERA doesn't appear to actually say what you have said it does. It's probably a good idea to back off from this dispute now, before things get too heated; pursuing it further will not end well, in my opinion. There seems to be a consensus at both talk pages to keep the date styles as they have been for the last few years, and this is also supported by the present wording of WP:ERA. Also, I strongly recommend that you leave the article at its present version even after 24 hours is up, as edits do not have to break 3RR to be classed as edit warring. With a little more experience, you will realise that sometimes on Wikipedia you have to put up with things that you might not agree with, for the greater benefit of the encyclopaedia. There are times when it can be worth sticking up for something on this site, but I'm afraid that this does not look like one of them. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Since no one has edited this discussion for several days, the OP has not edited at all since their last post here, and the discussions at the two article pages seems to be over as well, what do we do with this? Is there a process for closing it or archiving it? I've never really been involved in a thread at this board before so am unclear on what its processes are. Thanks. Heiro 01:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Ok, I've closed it. It looks like things have died down in this dispute, but if it flares up again don't be afraid to post back here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inter-Services Intelligence

• Inter-Services Intelligence (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 ISI's aid to and creation of terrorist and religious extremist groups is well documented. The ISI have close ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008. Pakistan denies all such claims. The ISI have also given aid to Hizbul Mujahideen. The ISI has a long history of supporting groups operating in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests. Pakistan claims to give them moral support only.The ISI also helped with the founding of the group Jaish-e-Mohammed. The ISI also founded Al-Badr Mujahideen who were involved in the genocides in Bangladesh in the 1970s.

I added this, it was removed. I want to put it back.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)
• TopGun (talk · contribs)
• Mar4d (talk · contribs)

The content was reverted out and in the ensuing discussion on the talk page it has been claimed the text has NPOV problems. I do not see any. An RFC was tried but no interest has been shown. I posted on the NPOV board and agin, no interest has been shown. So I guess I have to ry here now.

• 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=Inter-Services Intelligence}} --~~~~ 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, RFC posted on NPOV board.

• How do you think we can help?

Some extra input is needed.

Darkness Shines (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Inter-Services Intelligence discussion

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

It will be extremely hard for us to offer any opinions, as the section you have referred to are referenced to books. Are you able to link to online versions of these books, alternatively scan the relevant pages and send them to my email address? cro0016gmail.com. Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[15][16][17][18] Links to online versions of the books in question. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the RfC discussion, one of the issues seems to be whether Wikipedia can describe ISI's support for Kashmiri "pro-freedom groups" or "separatists" (Mar4d) as "terrorist and religious extremist groups" (Darkness Shines). Users are pointing to WP:TERRORIST and WP:OR on either side. Shrigley (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

When a nation state founds & supports groups for use in a proxy war then they are far from "freedom fighters" I also toned down the text so the groups in question are no longer called terrorists directly. However I will not misrepresent the situation, the first source used says basically what I have written and it is an accurate statement when you look into the ISI activities over the years. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but all I see with those books are references to ISI. I'm looking for passages from the book. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you unable to click on the page number referenced? If not I can copy and paste full quotes later on. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that does work. Do we have Wikipedia articles on the authors of the first book? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No idea, this is one of the editors of the first book[19] He wrote the chapter being quoted from also. this is the second editor[20] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue Darkness Shines, I've taken a look at the history of the article in question, and I'm somewhat confused. Do you think you could give me links to specific diffs so I can establish a bit more context here? Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I did this, [21] reorganization. It was then protected from editing [22] after TG made a 3RR report on me wherein I had in fact not broken 3RR. Protection expires and I do a minor edit[23]. TG removes the lot[24]. Hope that covers it all. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire

• University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire (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 user Mesconsing added the academic boosterism tag to the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire article. He also made or suggested several helpful edits. However, I felt that the article was disinterested and encyclopedic, not worthy of the academic boosterism tag. A small dispute followed, and eventually Mesconsing accused me of "wikilawerying." I then moved our conversations (which took place on both our user talk pages) to the university's talk page.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Mesconsing (talk · contribs)
• 88guy88 (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=University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire}} --~~~~ 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 attempted to engage in a constructive and respectful conversation. Mesconsing replied by accusing me of wikilawering. At that point, I decided that an admin should get involved. However, after checking out the dispute resolution guidelines, I felt I should post here first.

• How do you think we can help?

I would like to have a third party look at the article (specifically, the introduction and reputation sections) and advise both myself and Mesconsing on the proper way to resolve our dispute. I would also like to make sure the dispute doesn't "blow up" with the parties involved assuming bad faith -- accusations of "wikilawyering," etc.

88guy88 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire discussion

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

As your residential Eau Claire mediator (not a UWEC alumni), please do not accuse one another of wikilawyering. It fosters the totally wrong kind of attitude between editors. Consider:

---

4) You write, "Although many of the peacockisms have citations, they're citations to UWEC promo literature. That's hardly an objective source. Please read the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines." First, please specify what other "peacockisms" you are refering to. Second, the article is sourced with a combination of both UW-Eau Claire articles and articles from specific rankings institutions. I did not see a section of the guidelines article you pointed me to that disallowed citing articles published by a university. The facts that these articles cover are backed up by other articles from the rankings institutions themselves. [88guy88]

Please read the guidelines more carefully and try to avoid wikilawyering. Self-published sources are definitely suspect, although not prohibited. [Mesconsing]

5) You write, "Overall, the tone and the cherrypicking of "facts" cause problems with this article. Example: The placement rate of chemistry graduates is not a widely accepted standard for evaluating colleges, and seems like a silly item to include in a WP article about any college." Please cite a specific wiki guideline that disallows the inclusion of chemistry to PhD rates. It might seem "silly" to you, but that isn't quite enough. Further, clarify the facts you believe are cherrypicked. [88guy88]

Again, please stop wikilawyering. Mesconsing (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping edit this article. 88guy88 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

---

This is clear as day to most editors. Content wise, Mesconsing is completely right. Conduct wise, 88guy88 gets it.

Self-published sources, especially when they're promoting a positive image, are almost always wrong to use. Accusing another editor of wikilawyering (twice in one reply to one post, so how could it happen "again"? Seriously, that's a little unfair) is also almost always wrong to do. It seems like an out-of-hand dismissal, and doesn't promote reasoned argument.

So: Content, advantage Mesconsing. Conduct, advantage 88guy88. Nobody wins. Just my 2c. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the input. My underlying concern with all of this is not so much related to the sources used as it is to the "academic boosterism" tag. I still feel the aricle is disinterested. The "reputation" section of the article currently reads:

In 2012, U.S. News and World Report ranked UW-Eau Claire as the 32nd best Midwestern university out of 146 public and private colleges and as the 5th best university when only public colleges are considered. Eau Claire is categorized as a "tier 1" institution, and is classified as "more selective," one step away from the magazine's highest category, "most selective." The magazine also named UW-Eau Claire the fourth best school in the Midwest in terms of undergraduate teaching.

The Princeton Review has named Eau Claire a "Best Value College" (one of 50 such public campuses in the country) and a "Best Midwestern College." The magazine described the school as a "challenging, midsize state university that offers an exceptional and very affordable education" and said that "in terms of its array of majors and minors, Eau Claire compares favorably with much larger schools. As one example, more than 700 students are involved directly in faculty research — an honor reserved for graduate students at most universities." The publication added that "one of the more impressive aspects of the university is its inexpensiveness in relation to the quality of education being offered." The Princeton Review also included Eau Claire in its list of the 311 most environmentally friendly campuses in the United States.

In their list of the "100 Best Values in Public Colleges," Kiplinger's Personal Finance has ranked Eau Claire as the 67th best value for in-state students and as the 64th best value for out-of-state students. According to the publication, the "rankings are based on academic quality, overall costs and financial aid availability."

The university is one of four undergraduate institutions in the United States to have four or more Dreyfus teacher scholars on the faculty and was among the 141 public and private colleges, universities and professional schools named in the President's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll with Distinction for General Community Service. The Templeton Foundation included the university in its list of colleges that "encourage character development."

UW-Eau Claire sends more students abroad than any other master's level institution in Wisconsin, and it ranks 10th nationally among all master's schools in the number of students who study abroad.

I think that this section is disinterested and fact based. If, for instance, the article included phrases like, "Eau Claire's quality is reflected by its rankings in..." or "Eau Claire's value is made evident by...", the boosterism tag would be completely appropriate. However, the article simply reports uncontroversial and relevent information. Perhaps we could switch the academic boosterism tag to some sort of "inappropiate sources used" tag.

Thanks for the help. 88guy88 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

---

It has been awhile since I have heard from anyone, so I am going to move forward with editing. Based on this discussion and Mesconsing's suggestions, the article is flawed on two levels. First, the introductory section of the article contains a sentence that reads "UW-Eau Claire has received high marks from several publications including U.S. News and World Report, the Princeton Review, Money Magazine and Kiplinger's Personal Finance Magazine." Remedy: I will simply remove this sentence. Second, the "reputation" section of the article uses sources published by the university. Remedy: I will add sources that aren't affiliated with the university to verify all claims made. Once I have done these two things I will remove the "academic boosterism" tag. Please feel free to contact me at any time. Thanks for helping out. 88guy88 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

In the section labelled Criticism and Controversy on this page I am trying to include reference to a recent documentary film 8: The Mormon Proposition which the LA Times called "An outstanding and urgent example of the investigative documentary". This documentary is a scorching indictment of the Mormon Church's historic involvement in the promotion & passage of California's Proposition 8 and the Mormon religion's secretive, decades-long campaign against LGBT human rights. How could it possibly be deemed inappropriate to include it under a section labelled Criticism and controversy?

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Eustress (talk · contribs)
• 72Dino (talk · contribs)
• Light Defender (talk · contribs)
• Fat&Happy (talk · contribs)
• Another one joins in Storm Rider (talk · contribs)
• And another one White_whirlwind (talk · contribs)

This section appears to be very heavily censored by Mormons.

• 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=The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I'm being ignored on the talk page.

• How do you think we can help?

I'm not sure? I'm new to this. How can you help? I add it - they delete it. Who decides if it is appropriate or not?

Light Defender (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discussion

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

"This documentary is a scorching indictment of the Mormon Church's historic involvement in the promotion & passage of California's Proposition 8 and the Mormon religion's secretive, decades-long campaign against LGBT human rights". Um, no. Wikipedia doesn't deal in 'indictments', scorching or otherwise - this isn't a court of law. I suggest you start again, with a clear statement of what the documentary is being cited for, and with diffs indicating any objections to such citation. We aren't going to decide here whether Mormonism is right, wrong, or just plain irrelevant, and neither are we going to make a similar decision regarding critics of Mormonism. Instead, we trying to write an encyclopaedia - and if there is a dispute regarding content, it helps to know what this is about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have also added an explanation on talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints explaining why I oppose adding a section "Criticism and Controversy" on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.Curb Chain (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My description of the film is a direct quote from IMDB. I used it only to show that the film is highly critical of the Mormon church. Is it right that a section on this page labelled Controversy and criticism reads more like a well constructed piece of Pro-Mormon propaganda? All the controversy and criticism has been whitewashed out by the team of extremely heavy handed Mormon censors. They are now saying that a consensus is being reached to keep the film reference out. This is not a consensus. This is one individual (Myself) against the opinion of a team of Mormon Censors. Please could we have a completely independent unbiased decision on whether reference to this highly critical film is relevant to the Controversy and Criticism section of this page. Light Defender (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a regular mediator/clerk here at this noticeboard. I am not, moreover, affiliated in any way with LDS or any of its various splinters or sympathizers. While I believe that you have already received the "completely independent unbiased decision" you have requested, most recently by AndyTheGrump who is per his user page a self-professed atheist, and by Curb Chain who, like me, regularly serves as a mediator in dispute resolution, let me add my opinion: to add the reference to the film to this article would be to give the film undue weight and would not be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In your being new to the Wikipedia it is easy to come with some preconceived agendas that you would like to achieve. This may or may not be one of the them; to bring the "real" truth about Mormonism to Wikipedia. That would not be a good position to start from. There are a plethora of pages on the topic of Mormonism. It is impossible to include everything in every article and it would be error to assume we should. Upper level articles should have only a summary of the topic as a whole and then refer to a number of additional articles for readers to read if they are interested.

Prop 8 may be a burning issue for you personally, but in the skeme of church with over a 180 years of history, this documentary is insignificant. However, it is probably worth a mention on the Criticism article.

Additionally, you might want to pull back from the allegations such as, "This is one individual (Myself) against the opinion of a team of Mormon Censors." I have been around for a few years and I do not censor anyone. One of our policies you might want to read is to assume good faith of our fellow editors. Based upon the tone of your writing here, I can only assume that you have an axe to grind. This is not the place for it, but a personal blog might be an ideal alternative. -^StormRider 16:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK! Thank you. (As you probably guessed I'm an amateur at all this) - I would like to point out that the only reason there is a reference to this documentary in the article Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is because I put it there yesterday - not long before putting it on this article. I'm still half expecting it to be deleted from that page too? I am still wondering... Under the subtitle 'Controversy and criticism' why would the following sentence: "The church expressed support for a Salt Lake City ordinance protecting members of the LGBT community against discrimination in employment and housing while allowing religious institutions to consider lifestyles in actions such as hiring or providing university accommodations." (Printed in a Mormon owned and published paper) - be given more weight than reference to a documentary which provides overwhelming evidence of it's "decades-long campaign against LGBT human rights." There is simply nothing Encyclopaedic about this! It is pro-Mormon propaganda by a religion infamous for it's "Strick taboo on Homosexuality" Cheers anyway. Light Defender (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that IMDB is not a good source for referencing most things, and film reviews from IMBD should not be cited. The content is user generated, and therefore not subject to the editorial control of a reliable source. Like Wikipedia it can be a great place to start research.

You will find the LDS articles well curated, and I think it fair to say those who work on them regularly, be they partisan or not, are perhaps a little jaded by the perpetual stream of apologists and excoriators.

The citation "The church expressed ..." reads to me as damning by 21st century western secular standards, so I think that it is reasonable to cite it, especially as the we can be reasonably sure it reflects the opinion of the church.

It is a problem, in this area, though, that much of the background research is either attributed to BYU, or published by a "Deseret" imprint.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

As I said on the talk page, this edit simply isn't notable enough for inclusion on the page. There are a large number of documentary films that have been created to both praise and criticize the LDS Church – this one isn't any more notable than the rest. Listing one would require listing all of them, and that's not appropriate to the scope of the article in question.

I wasn't aware that User:Light Defender may be a new user. I've found new users often come to Wikipedia with a proverbial axe to grind – I did, albeit in a totally different topic than this – and it takes them awhile to figure things out. Dispute resolution is not an avenue in which to override WP:CONSENSUS when one falls in the minority. Hence my terming of this case as "ill-conceived". End this quickly, please.  White Whirlwind  咨  02:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Axe to grind? No... I just saw this documentary the other day and was shocked and disturbed (It appears civil rights in the UK are somewhat ahead of the US). I now think it's vitally important that anyone investigating this religion should know exactly how instrumental it's been in obstructing or removing the civil rights of millions of people over the last few decades using seriously devious and underhanded methods (Something this documentary shows very clearly). A religion that in recent history was prepared to go to war to defend it's right to polygamy which even more recently banned interracial marriage and now is all of a sudden the champion of 'traditional marriage' between 'One Man and One Woman' - 180 years of history riddled with hypocrisy. This "insignificant" documentary's message will stain this religion in the civilised world for another 180. And yet the Wiki page for this religion still reads like a well constructed Pro-Mormon advertising campaign?

You're right, this is no place for the fight. (Why would an encyclopaedia represent an unbiased/balanced view of a subject?) I'll get on to the BBC and see if we can't get it broadcast globally - perhaps just before the US presidential election (especially if Romney gets through). LOL I've not been in a dispute before, so I'm not sure how to end it? Is there a particular method? I thought I'd conceded yesterday. Cheers Light Defender (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum vs santorum

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. Campaign for "santorum" neologism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dan Savage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? The dispute is about whether to Keep as Separate the article "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" or to Merge it, either into "Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality" or into "Dan Savage". There are two straw polls going on, respectively here and here. Supporters of either "Merge" proposal invoke WP:BLP and dispute independent notability. Opponents of the "Merge" proposals invoke independent notability. The underlying issue clearly stirs passion among Wikipedia users and continuously creates controversies. In the recent past, there have been numerous Requests to Delete one of the subject articles ("Campaign for "santorum" neologism") -which have all been rejected- and, around the middle of 2011, one quite long dispute about the same issue, i.e. whether to Merge or not. The decision on the latter RfC was to "Keep as a separate article", though several "serious concerns" were expressed by the deciding Admin. It was also decided, in this context, to change the article's title from "Santorum (neologism)" to "Santorum Google problem" (subsequently changed again to its current title "Campaign for 'santorum' neologism"). The Admin taking the decision, acknowledging the seriousness of the subject and the importance of the Wikipedia issues involved, noted, "We should not count votes; rather we should weigh the force of reason." Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Vale of Glamorgan (talk · contribs) Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) Wikiwind (talk · contribs) Middle 8 (talk · contribs) Zenswashbuckler (talk · contribs) Elektrik Shoos (talk · contribs) Bluerasberry (talk · contribs) DreamGuy (talk · contribs) Noleander (talk · contribs) Trystan (talk · contribs) Speciate (talk · contribs) Harizotoh9 (talk · contribs) The Anome (talk · contribs) Arzel (talk · contribs) Wnt (talk · contribs) Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs) Wikidemon (talk · contribs) Roscelese (talk · contribs) PassaMethod (talk · contribs)  The above are among the Wiki users who have actively participated in a discussion, straw poll or RfC. There may be more but I kept it at the maximum of twenty for the purpose of this Dispute Resolution. I'd suggest we do not allow the discussions to spill here. Instead, I'd ask the Admins to look into the issue and give the matter closure. 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=Santorum vs santorum}} --~~~~ 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? The necessary steps have already been initiated by other Wikipedia users, e.g. discussions, RfC, straw polls, etc. How do you think we can help? It is evident that, despite its many reincarnations, the issue is not resolved in the minds of most participants, since it keeps coming up for resolution. Therefore, a clear decision must be provided, with strong justification, in order for this issue to be, at last, resolved and stop it from re-surfacing time and again. The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Santorum vs santorum discussion Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The fact that we already have already had a conclusive discussion about this issue with an obviously clear result means that bringing the issue to this board is a waste of time. We have a clear decision already. In fact, there have been a number of previous merge proposals as well -- all of which have failed. Let it go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry, process fork - wrong forum. Please alert me if this goes anywhere, but otherwise I have other things to do than participate in the 5th or 6th simultaneous discussion attempting to do away with Wikipedia's coverage of the whole Santorum thing. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Wrong forum, and stinks of forum shopping. There is no need for DR as MULTIPLE attempts to garner consensus for the merge proposal have overwhelmingly failed over the years, the latest attempt included. If anything, an univolved administrator should be requested to close the latest RfC. Also, the statement that "the issue is not resolved in the minds of most participants" is patently false, as the !voting records show, both for this and for the many preceeding RfCs. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Occupy Wall Street

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. Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? This topic was discussed and compromised but based on a recent dispute there appears to be still issues with it. The recent discussions are here: discussion dispute resolution discussion again NPOV noticeboard Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Amadscientist (talk · contribs) Racingstripes (talk · contribs) 완젬스 (talk · contribs) The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk · contribs) Gandydancer (talk · contribs) Becritical (talk · contribs) MattieRenard (talk · contribs) Sindinero (talk · contribs) Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs) Somedifferentstuff (talk · contribs)  I included and extended invites to recent editors, as well as the editor that created 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=Occupy Wall Street}} --~~~~ 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 has been discussed, and I thought it was resolved. How do you think we can help? I'm hoping for a consenus among the editors of the article as well as any other editor to finally solve this issue. Racingstripes (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Occupy Wall Street discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. First I want to apologize for bringing this here again. I was under the impression that this was resolved, but I was mistaken. This seems like the most logical place to discuss this again. I brought up here in DRN that as a compromise the section titled "Crime" should be re-named "security concerns" and this was also brought up by another editor that has no connection with the OWS as well during the NPOV noticeboard. According to the discussions, this was accepted as a compromise, along with a reduction of the content that was less notable. Now it seems to me that that's not good enough. I attempted to bring back the title as "Crime" since the issue has started over again, I figured the content of the article should be reflective of how the article was before this discussion began.Racingstripes (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Template:Cue Hello Racingstripes. Did you have an RfC on this already? Because if not, that seems like the best step to take. With an RfC, you can get more outside opinions on what to do, and then you can have an admin close the discussion to give you a relatively final decision which everyone can stick to. (Just make sure that there is not too much discussion from involved editors in the actual RfC itself, or uninvolved editors might be put off participating.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Alternatively, you could try and persuade people to undergo mediation at the Mediation Cabal. I think mediation could actually work better than an RfC in this case if all the involved editors are willing to participate. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the input. The issue seems to have cooled off now. If the issue comes up again I will seek third opinions and/or go with the Mediation Cabal.Racingstripes (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dog

• Dog (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?

Disputing that the domestic dog which I understand as Canis lupus familiaris is a union of familiaris and Canis lupus dingo. I want to revise as follows: Canis lupus familiaris or more commonly the domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a member of the Canidae family of the mammilian order "Carnivora".

He wants: The domestic dog (a union of Canis lupus familiaris and Canis lupus dingo ) is a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a member of the Canidae family of the mammilian order "Carnivora".

See talk for our discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dog under domestic dog section.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Chrisrus (talk · contribs)
• Jobberone (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=Dog}} --~~~~ 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?

long discussion on talk page

• How do you think we can help?

I feel the information is incorrect. If you think so then I'd like to remove it and replace it.

Jobberone (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dog discussion

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

Other party notifiedJobberone (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I've said there. Chrisrus (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: Would one of the parties please add the missing references, above. @Chrisrus: Can we take it that Jobberone has properly and, except for the refs, fully stated the matter in dispute? @Both: Here at WP we only repeat what reliable sources say; if the reliable sources disagree or say different things, then we report what both sources say (see the verifiability policy). In both cases, we do so without interpretation or analysis of the sources (see the no original research policy). From which of those policies does this conflict arise? — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at at the IUCN's red list of endangered species and for the dingo it directs here-> which is the catalogue of life. You can find the taxonomy for most animals at multiple sites but the above is a good ref. As you can see familiaris and dingo are listed as separate subspecies of Canis lupus which is the consensus of the scientific community at present.

Another problem is not just the scientific fact that the dingo is not familiaris but in the incorrect statement that the union of those two constitutes the 'domestic dog'. There is no reference I can find that states the domestic dog is a union of familiaris and dingo. Chrisus is stretching his point about his references beyond scientific circles, clear verifiability or logic and I don't mean this in a personal way. Additionally that is not the general consensus of the layperson nor the scientific community that they constitute domestic dog. Here is a ref concerning the differences in nomenclature and other things between dingo and dog as well as hybrids->. Here is a ref on the genetics of the pure dingo vs the dog and dog/dingo hybrids as well as distinguishing them morphologically by precise skull measurements, CT scans, and plain film x-rays->.

It is plain that Australia is trying hard to preserve the genetic integrity of the pure Canis lupus dingo which has a distinct morphology and genetic structure from familiaris.

These issues can be discussed in the body of the article or in other satellite articles already established in Wikipedia. Let's leave the the dingo and statements about their union with familiaris out of the lead for the dog article. ThanksJobberone (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As you say, "except for the refs", he hasn't provided the citations in question. We're using MSW3, which is the usual standard on Wikipedia about existant mammals. He seemed to question my interpretation at times, while at others seemed to question the authority of MSW3 and held these others as superior. I haven't addressed what these others say or don't say, only what the one we have been using says. Chrisrus (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Chrisus is using WP:OR to create a "union" of two subspecies to make one subspecies, which is nonsense. The article's topic is Canis lupis familiaris, not Canis lupis familiaris ∪ Canis lupis dingo. Chrisus needs to rethink not about biology but about article topic partitioning. Speciate (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular mediator/clerk at this noticeboard. Now that I've found them, I've taken a look at the references and the arguments made by Chrisus in this edit on the talk page. I'm afraid that while I can see how those sources can be read to support the edit supported by Chrisus, the problem is that they must be interpreted or analyzed in order to come to that result, mainly due to the ambiguity of the three MSW3 sources. I do not believe, therefore, that they support either the statement desired by Chrisus in the Dog article or the statement,

"While current taxonomy lists it as "provisionally separate" from C. l. familiaris, the current taxonomy notes that it is legitimate to view the two as united into one subspecies, the "domestic dog", while admitting that this "stretches the subspecies concept.""

in the Canis lupus dingo article and I therefore believe that both of those statements constitute prohibited WP:OR. That's not to say that Chrisus' interpretation is wrong, I'm not at all sure whether it is or is not wrong because the sources are so ambiguous. If it is not wrong, however, then it ought to be supported by the scientific references identified in the comment section of the MSW3 Canis lupus article and some light might be derived from examination of those references. Until that light can be observed and cited in support, however, those edits should not be included in those articles. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What does "Canis lupus contains the domestic dog as a subspecies, with the dingo provisionally separate" mean? Why does it say "domestic dog" on the comments section of both subspecies? You had some trouble understanding that, you say. Well, perhaps we could find an to help us. It's as obvious to me. Do you claim some background in this area? Chrisrus (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Charles R. Pellegrino

• Charles R. Pellegrino (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 made revisions to the subject's (Pellegrino's) biographical page to correct what I feel are malicious and untrue statements about the subject, and constitute ad hominem attacks to malign and discredit him. I confined this set of revisions to matters concerning the false accusation that the subject does not possess the credentials he says he has (a Phd. from Victoria University), and other textual statements that imply the same. The discussion supporting my revisions is in item 6 on the Talk page for that entry.

While I was making my final revisions regarding Dr. Pellegrino's degree, I received a 'Wiki Message' from 'Sparthorse' asserting that my remarks were "vandalism" and that he/she was reverting them. I rechecked the page and indeed, my revisions had been removed and the page reverted.

The discussion supporting my reasons for making the revisions I did (first part of Talk, item 6) was made prior to the notice from 'Sparthorse' and provide supportive argument for the changes I made. The second part of Item 6 (and all of item 7) deal directly with 'Sparthorse's interjection into the matter. I refer you to those items for understanding fully what is at issue. I regard the matter as a grave breach of protocol and trust in attempting to maintain Wikipedia's standards for accurate and informative material. At least to avoid unwarranted harm to a living person.

What I will observe here, is that the issue here is not simply about content, but cuts across several serious matters concerning Sparthorse's use of authority as an administrator. In that, his charge of "vandalism" and his reversion of my edits, appear to me to unwarranted and abusive. I believe it appropriate to not only ask that the reversions be removed and my revisions let stand, but that Sparthorse be blocked from any further actions or edits on the subject page. I feel that Sparthorse simply does not understand the gravity of character assassination and impugning the integrity of a living subject to be permitted futher participation in the process of preparing an accurate and informative biography of Dr. Pellegrino.

note: there are other serious issues regarding this particular biography and the management of its text. However, I am confining my complaint here only to matters that arose out of my attempt to correct the record regarding Dr. Pellegrino's degree.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Sparthorse (talk · contribs)
• Redslider (talk · contribs)

(for all other discussion I refer the reader to Items 6 & 7 the talk section of the subject page.

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

Yes

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Yes. I discussed Sparthorse's actions on the talk page and invited him/her to reply (#6). They did, and I found the reply evasive and wholly inadequate. I stated the reasons I found their reply deficient in the same item. I also added an item (#7) informing them of my intent to bring this matter to the community of administrators.

• How do you think we can help?

I am not certain of the proper forum or authority to address this matter. I feel, as an external editor, I am not equal to the task of further argument with an administrator, and in any case, have no authority to do anything about preventing their inappropriate behavior with respect to a breach of policy on vandalism and reversion of text intended to prevent serious harm and defamation to a living person. Following instructions I found on Wikipedia I came here to be referred to the proper place for resolution, and to receive any thoughts you might care to offer on the matter.

Redslider (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Charles R. Pellegrino discussion

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

I am not an administrator. I have explained my position at Talk:Charles_R._Pellegrino, I believe Redslider has replaced well sourced material with unsourced original research in an article that is a biography of a living person. I believe that it is correct to revert such edits. Any editor, including Redslider, is welcome to edit the article further, if they can provide proper sources. Sparthorse (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see this returned to the article's talk page if possible. However, since this seems to be more of a personal dispute than a content dispute, I would recommend that you take this to the Cabal and seek mediation. Other DRN editors, please weigh in here if you feel differently. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you explain the term "personal" in this context? Using a false charge of "vandalism" to improperly revert someone's edit would seem to me a use/procedural matter. Can you clarify? thank you. Redslider (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

my mistake on 'Sparthorse' status as adm. I thought only adms could block/revert someone's material. Whatever he is, I stand by by charge that he abused his authority.

Would 'Sparthorse' please specify, precisely what the "well sourced material" and "unsourced...original research" is, so that we may know exactly what he refers to? The source for the claim that Pellegrino's degree is not valid rests with the textual comment of Mr. Brennan (contact with an unspecified party at the university) and his statement about his subsequent distribution of that allegation to the media, which then picked it up and repeated it. No further sources are given in the press articles besides university sources party to the dispute. "The quote of "Pat Walsh" is not sourced to Mr. Rich, in Mr. Rich's NYT article, and for all anyone knows it might have been simply lifted from the email materials distributed by David Brennan. Walsh's claim was that "...Pellegrino was never awarded a Ph.D. from Victoria and therefore could not have had it stripped from him or reinstated at a later date" (Rich,NYT) could not be the case, unless someone wishes to contend Pellegrino just wandered into the library thirty years later, handed the university a thesis published in 1983 to be cataloged as an "awarded doctoral thesis". Nonsense. My primary source is the Library Catalog entry (a document with legal standing in NZ courts), accession and other data clearly showing that Dr. Pellegrino completed the last requirement of a Phd. candidacy - the thesis, that there is a date gap of almost thirty years between publication and acknowledgement by the university of that accession - strong suggestion that whatever happened to his degree, happened after 1983, and well after the acceptance of this thesis. Nothing original or 'researchy' about that at all. It's solid documentation that supports Dr. Pellegrino's account (that the degree was stripped after it was awarded). Certainly enough evidence to contravene allegations that he didn't get his Phd. The burden of proof now falls on the detractors to prove he didn't get it and to offer plausible reason to include such personally discrediting statements in the text. Simple as that. Beyond questions of sources, is a Wikpedia non-administrator who arbitrarily employees a bogus charge of "vandalism" to revert (& without warning) another editor's material. 'Sparthorse' has yet to explain a single item in the revised text that even comes close to Wikipedia's definitions of "vandalism". More important is that doubt has legitimately been cast (sourced or not) on text in a Wikipedia biography that stands to defame and discredit a living person. That, above all other arguments should be a cause for reversing his action and blocking him from further involvement with the biography in question. This goes way beyond a "my-source, "your-source" fight. My question remains, is this the proper place to seek remedy? What proper Wikipedia authority is it that ought be consulted to hear the matter? There are other matters that cast doubt on the assertion of invalid credentials, but it is better to reserve those for the proper forum, than to spend more time here. The argument given should be more than sufficient for now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Redslider (talk • contribs) 23:20, 15 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Template:Cue Hello Redslider. Have you checked out the Wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research? I think it would be worth reading these policies carefully so that you can gain a better understanding of why your contributions were reverted. For example, take the following text you added: "Controversy regarding the validity of Dr. Pellegrino proved to be baseless. Questions regarding the validity of his degree were circulated around the internet and in the news media based upon false and unauthenticated information propagated by some of his detractors, including editors of recent prior editions of this Wikipedia biography." This is cited to an unreliable source (a Blogspot blog), which actually claims the opposite to your text; therefore, your text is not verified. Furthermore, because it is not verified, and also because it appears to be your own interpretation of events, it falls under our definition of original research. For these reasons, I'm afraid that there is no way that we can keep your text in Wikipedia as it is. However, if you can satisfy the verifiability and no original research policies by citing your assertions to a reliable source, the case for inclusion will be a lot stronger. (Having said that, I personally have my doubts that you will be able to find such a source, given the evidence already present in the article.) Let me know if you have any questions about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Stradivarius. (I hope I'm making my inline comments here correctly and in the right place. This process is new to me). Thank you. Your pointing directly to the passage that seems be giving trouble is of great help. I did ask Spartahorse to identify what and where the objections were, but he simply reiterated his complaint without citing the exact source. Perhaps that is something for you administrators to look into - At least that when there is an action like reversion, it must be accompanied by some specific identification of the passages causing the complaint as well as the exact reasons for it being judged "inappropriate". Not my call, but I think it would go a long way to clear up some of these matters if that were required. I'll say nothing else about content; I didn't really want to even mention it at all, but Spartahorse was so imprecise in his specification that I felt compelled to cover those bases. On the matter of Sourcing itself, I understand. Indeed I had sourced the passage you quote; but before I saved it with sources, Spartahorse had reverted the page, and I didn't feel it was worth another try without first speaking to him about it, and subsequently coming here with my complaint. To understand better, are you saying that the VUW library catalog entry showing the proper receipt of the thesis and its accession as a "VUW Awarded Doctoral Thesis" as well as other catalog descriptions is a sufficient, or insufficient, source to call into question other parts of the biography that state, by direct assertion or by inference, that the subject failed to get their degree as they stated? That is, is the university library record sufficient source to make the simple statement "Dr. Pellegrino received his Phd. from the University....etc."; and to edit such phrases as "claimed to..." and the like which suggest the matter is in doubt? You know, I frequently see, throughout Wikipedia cautions against writing things that would be "harmful", "derogatory", even "contentious" about a living person. I certainly think that might be the case here, where a persons character and reputation is being impugned both directly and indirectly (and made a central matter of the biography as if it were true based on indisputable evidence or, that the editors would like the readers to think it was still in doubt). So I wonder what the Wikipedia cautions abut defaming living persons mean, and if the Research Library record is sufficient cause/source to reverse the implications? I have other sources, as well; but prefer not to use them at this time for my own reasons. Anyway, is that passage the only one that is giving problems (it was primarily added to try to 'unring the bell' a little, after the present Wikipedia version has for so long been used as a source that has served to spread the doubtful assertion throughout the internet. The damage, of course cannot be undone entirely, but I think the man is at least owed a correction from one of primary sources of its propagation. If you think the source I'm using sufficient for at least correcting the record, let me know and I'll try again. Redslider (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue No. Sparthorse's edit summary was pretty clear: publishing a thesis does not give you an automatic Ph.D. There is a source in the article stating that the Victoria University of Wellington did not award Charles R. Pellegrino a Ph.D even if his thesis can be found in its database.Curb Chain (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

From past, personal experience, I can testify that Sparthorse is quick to make strong accusations using derogatory names against users whose edits he doesn't like. While I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic of the article in question to make any comment on the edits one way or another, I do understand Redslider's ire at Sparthorse's apparently unwarranted accusations of vandalism. It would be appropriate to gently remind Sparthorse to tone down his rhetoric and assume good faith, especially in topics where he is not especially knowledgeable and qualified. AugustinMa (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, AugustinMa. Yes, his rather strong and patronizing tone did not help the process. But I was most concerned that Spartahorse seems to be determined to maintain the status quo of an article that continues to unfairly do damage to a man's reputation (and by extension, to Wikipedia's reputation as well.) That part I fail to understand. If it was the passage that Stradivarus suggests needs to be better sourced, then I have no explanation for why Spartahorse didn't simply call that passage into question with a notice that it needs to be better sourced. It wasn't a passage that did harm to the person so I don't even think it needed immediate removal; on the contrary, it was attempting to remedy harm currently being done by the original (and now reverted) text. If Spartahorse had just dealt with or complained about that, I would have understood the matter and either sourced it better, argued the case, or removed it, and that would have been that. But by falsely charging me with "vadalism" as his complaint and reason, and removing all my revisions, he pretty much is saying he likes Dr. Pellegrino being injustly pilloried on shakey grounds at best. And I do think that is serious cause for complaint and still wondering where that complaint should be taken? If you have any suggestions, I appreciate hearing them. Redslider (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please look at the concerning edits: You removed huge tracts of referenced information regarding explicit official statement from the awarding university of the university in question NOT awarding Charles R. Pellegrino a Ph.D. You then wrote prose without citations. You state that you were about to provide sources to back up the claim that he did earn his Ph.D. According to our policies, we do not accept original research. You state you have your own reasons not to provide citations. I see no reason why the current state of the article should be changed to your revision.Curb Chain (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Redslider's arguments seem to be based upon his interpretation of the holdings record at the University, which he discusses at the talk page. I think he's wrong. I also just looked at Pellegrino's website - he doesn't seem to be claiming there that he has a PhD and there is no evidence that a PhD was 'stripped' from him. Redslider, I really think you should back off right now. If either Pellegrino or the University make more statements about this we can probably use them, but we can't change the article based on your interpretation of the library's web page. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in the world

• List of tallest buildings in the world (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 reason the user Deryck Chan is bringing this to issue is that Hong Kong by itself is not a country. If you look at the list of buildings the category specifically states "Country" and each other building is listed under it's parent country and not for example "Houston, Texas" which would be equivalent to "Hong Kong" by itself which is just a Special Administrative Region of China. The category listing specifically states "Country" and following the convention of the other countries listed, Hong Kong should be listed under it's parent country of China. Although listing it as Hong Kong, China would also be acceptable. 114.229.251.187 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute on whether to put "Hong Kong" (original version) or "Hong Kong, China" (disputed new version) on the "country" column for buildings in Hong Kong.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• 114.229.252.36 (talk · contribs)
• Astronaut (talk · contribs)
• SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs)
• Deryck Chan (talk · contribs)
• 114.229.251.187 (talk · contribs)
• PaoloNapolitano (talk · contribs) 

114.229.251.187 is probably the same person as 114.229.252.36 since they're from the same IP range and made the same edit. At any rate, 114.229.251.187 has already exceeded WP:3RR.

• 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=List of tallest buildings in the world}} --~~~~ 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?

Raised on User talk:114.229.251.187 and there was a fairly long edit summary discussion.

• How do you think we can help?

Possible page protection, 3RR warning / block, and further mediation

Deryck C. 21:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in the world discussion

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

Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia with accurate information, the above user Deryck C. unfortunately has resolved to push his POV despite my numerous attempts to explain to him that Hong Kong is not a country and only just a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. He is persistent in trying label Hong Kong as a "country" when that would be inaccurate, the readers of Wikipedia deserve and demand accuracy of the information presented in all articles. Thank you very much! 114.229.251.187 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk note: 114.229.251.187 (talk) has been blocked 48 hours for edit warring. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Astronaut

I am broadly sympathetic to the view that Hong Kong is part of China, but not enough to go on an editing spree across Wikipedia to impose my POV on everyone else. It is clear to me that 114.229.251.187 holds a very pro-China POV (see for example this unrelated edit - which I have reverted for being rather pointy). They do seem prepared to aggressively edit-war over this issue. Unsurprisingly, 114.229.251.187's combative editing style has got them blocked for a while.

This subject has been discussed before (at some length) on the article talk page, see Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world#The nationality of Hong Kong and Talk:List of tallest buildings in the world#Hong Kong subsumed into China, or not?. The latter discussion raised some important points where consensus varied from article to article. It seems to me that consensus has not been reached on the article currently under discussion except to maintain the status-quo for the time being. Astronaut (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Relevant policies

With all due respect, may I know whether there is any existing policy or convention on Wikipedia regarding dependencies, particularly on their inclusion on lists or in categories? If no, should there be any? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Genocide denial in Palestinian related articles

• Palestinian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Palestine (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?

Two users are cleansing articles regarding the Palestinian people and Palestine of massacres/genocides committed. Under the German people article. It says: "Germany had a substantial Jewish population. Only a few thousand people of Jewish origin remained in Germany after the Holocaust"

Thus it should also be said that upon the Islamic conquest of modern day Israel/Palestine the area had a Jewish majority. After the conquest and massacres such as the Safed Plunder. 1660 Destruction of Tiberias, etc. etc. Israel/Palestine's indigenous Jewish population (Old Yishuv) was down to only a few thousand people by the advent of Zionism.

If this cannot be included in the Palestinian people section, then why is an identical historical fact included in the German people section?

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)
• Tiamut (talk · contribs)
• DionysosElysees (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=Genocide denial in Palestinian related articles}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

I tried talking to both of them. Malik Shabazz did not respond and Tiamut questioned whether or not these massacres even took place.

• How do you think we can help?

The following articles Palestine, Palestinian people, History of Palestine, and History of the Palestinian people should all contain references to these massacres. I find it hard to believe they are being cleansed once again. I can't imagine someone deleting the Holocaust mention in the German people article.

DionysosElysees (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Genocide denial in Palestinian related articles discussion

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

Comment by Zero

A quick look at Special:Contributions/DionysosElysees shows that this editor should stop editing and instead spend some time reading Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V. Almost all edits so far are either unsourced or poorly sourced, are expressed in intemperate language, and betray a political purpose not appropriate here. This has been accompanied by repeated accusations against other editors. Zero^talk 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that these genocides did not happen and that genocides carried out within other communities are included across wikipedia but the Palestinians are immune. Can you please explain your logic for claiming these genocides didn't happen and why the Palestinian pages are the ones that are kept white washed of genocides committed within their community while every other nationality's history contains them. Please explain

talk 09:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

See what I mean? I didn't make any statement at all about any historical events and this is what comes back. You don't seem to have what is required to be a good editor of Wikipedia. Zero^talk 02:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I simply do not understand why you and the aforementioned editors work with a zeal to make sure no massacre of the indigenous Jewish people is mentioned on any Palestinian related page meanwhile all other pages of other nationalities mention them with no issue. I think you have an agenda in covering up these genocides for some political view on modern events instead of looking history with out a bias. Clearly these genocides happened, something you have refused to admit as well yet there seems to be a campaign to keep them hidden.

talk 02:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerks' warning: Here at Wikipedia we judge edits, not editors. Stop making judgments, statements, or other comments about one another or what one another should or should not do and limit all discussion and comments strictly to the content of the edits without commenting about other editor's biases or motivations. If you want to seek comments on or sanctions of other editor's conduct, please use WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:AN. WP:ANI, or WP:ARB. This noticeboard is for content disputes, only, not conduct disputes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, so I'll state my opinion on on the basis of content alone. If text that prima facie satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia policy is introduced into articles or article talk pages, then the form of its inclusion or grounds for its exclusion can be discussed there. So far no such text has been introduced, so in my view it is premature for this noticeboard to consider the matter. Zero^talk 05:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Malik Shabazz

DionysosElysees added some material to the article Palestinian people that constituted original research. After it was removed by Tiamut, DionysosElysees restored it. I removed it and explained why on the article's Talk page.[25] Instead of replying there, DionysosElysees accused me on my Talk page of having "an agenda of white washing [this and similar] pages of any reference to the genocides carried out by the Muslim Arabs upon the indigenous pre-Zionist Jewish population...."[26] It seems to me that DionysosElysees should read WP:Civility. Reading WP:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles would probably be a good idea too. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved

Template:Cue @DionysosElysees, why don't you just provide reliable secondary sources for the historic issue you want to introduce? Content such as the one you introduced may be correct or incorrect but it certainly needs to be sourced. JCAla (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Acupuncture

• Acupuncture (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?

Dispute over content has resulted in several personal attacks on User:WLU by user Dickmojo, for which he was immediately warned on the talk page and in his userspace. Dickmojo has also accused other editors (who are simply trying to enforce WP policy regarding medical articles) of being "zealots", "extremists" and "fanatics" (and again, and again in the article this time, which I believe is wp:vandalism), of "xenophobia" and "racism" (for which he was again admonished by myself). His accusations of racism ring especially hollow when you consider his own obvious bias against members of his own profession in the West.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Dickmojo (talk · contribs)
• Famousdog (talk · contribs)
• WLU (talk · contribs)
• Noformation (talk · contribs)
• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• Mindjuicer (talk · contribs)
• Mann_jess (talk · contribs)
• Herbxue (talk · contribs)
• Mallexikon (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=Acupuncture}} --~~~~ 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?

Dickmojo has been politely warned several times about name-calling. To be fair, he did (grudgingly - see edit comment) delete at least one of his offensive comments. He has been reminded coutless times by the other users of the policies of WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS, WP:AGF, WP:FORUM, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:PROVEIT and probably others...!

• How do you think we can help?

An official notice regarding WP:NPA, WP:FORUM and WP:VANDALISM would probably do it. Dickmojo does not have a leg to stand on policy-wise and simply won't listen to other editors, who have now adopted a policy of silence.

Famousdog (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Acupuncture discussion

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

Ok, this is outrageous. Here I am, trying to vigoursly defend my passion and my profession, which is a part of me, which I have devoted 10 years intimate study to, and know more about than famousdog, Jess and WLU put together, from the vicious, snide, cruel, callous and misinformed attacks it is being subjected to on this website by sceptic fanatics, and I'm the one being attacked now. I didn't revert a single thing, you check the logs, I didn't revert a single thing on the main page, yet I was persecuted for "Edit Warring". What a joke! It said that Edit Warring was when a contributor did 3 reverts in a single day, yet I didn't even do ONE, and I'm "warned" for "Edit Warring".

Then, WLU comes along and says

"the elaborate ceremony of interview, "diagnosis" and selection of points is worthless and education should instead be a brief study of how to maintain sterile procedures and avoid hitting nerves, blood vessels and organs? Of course, for a lot of practitioners that would be like a priest or someone with a PhD in theology becoming an atheist, it would be incredibly hard to admit they wasted so much of their lives on what is really the equivalent of memorizing the chants used by witchdoctors. It would take a lot of courage to abandon the pretense of "ancient Chinese wisdom" and stick with simple safety precautions instead."

to which I replied

"the only really valuable research out there are the Chinese studies (because of the expert skill of Chinese practitioners in general in this regard vis-a-vie Western practitioners), and you'll note that they are all universally positive on the efficacy of acupuncture. But for a zealous rational-skeptic extremist fanatic like you to accept that WLU would be like a Spanish Inquistor suddenly deciding to stop persecuting witches for their "heresy".

which is just tit for tat, and I didn't start it, and I didn't continue it, so I'm not the bad guy here.

On a broader level, its not NPOV for an encyclopedia to sound like one of those amateurish, zealous "quackwatch" websites on a topic of such massive historical and cultural significance and gravitas as acupuncture: a practice thousands of years old that has affected the lives of Billions of people. Sure, you may have your scientific criticisms of it, but those criticism originate from a paradigm completely foreign to the native context in which TCM and acupuncture is understood, and should NOT be given the major weighting in the article that it is currently given.Dickmojo (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please demonstrate how you can claim that you "know more about (acupuncture) than famousdog, Jess and WLU put together". I am passionate about this subject too, it is part of my profession, at which I also have over a decade of experience. You have been consistently unable to provide reliable sources for the claims you make. Please provide diffs of any "vicious, snide, cruel, callous and misinformed attacks" that have been made upon you by any other editor. The quotation above from WLU is directed at acupuncturists generally, not you personally. Your response was a personal attack, as I have previously mentioned. Famousdog (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Famousdog, I don't exactly know what your profession is, but let me put it this way, if I came on here and loudly proclaimed to everyone and insinuated that what you do was a complete sham, that you were a con-man, that you trick the people you have a duty of care to out of their money and are unethical, in short that your contribution to society was worthless, in fact worse than worthless was in fact dangerous and harmful, that the knowledge you possess, which is rare and hard to acquire, is all rubbish, and used loaded terms like "pseudoscience" and "quackery" to describe your work when its actually very profound and solemn practice that has improved the lives of countless people, then I'm sure that it would be considered a personal attack as well.

Now, acupuncture is one of those empirical practices where hands-on experience matters. To draw an analogy with Kung-fu, you could read a Kung-fu book, you could read a research article which says that using Kung-fu for self defence is completely worthless and a croc and that its ineffective and compare it unfavorably to using a handgun for self defence, but I'm sorry unless you've had 10 years of diligent training and practice of Kung-fu under your belt, you don't know anything about it, and frankly, should just shut up.Dickmojo (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you did that, I would simply provide reliable sources to demonstrate that what I do professionally is not "a complete sham" and you cannot blame other editors if you take WLU's generalised comments as a personal attack. Regarding your second point. Only 500 people on earth have ever visited space, however there are hundreds of thousands of people who are "experts" in astrophysics and zero gravity - the argument from personal experience cuts no ice on Wikipedia, as well it shouldn't. Famousdog (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your personal experience is not adequate to adjust any page since wikipedia's articles are based on what can be verified in realiable sources. No editor can claim their personal experience and knowledge is sufficient to change any page, particularly since the Essjay controversy. If you are an experienced practitioner and/or researcher, you should have access to the types of texts, and the ability to interpret them, such that you should have little issue locating and integrating the kinds of reliable sources we demand. Claiming we should just shut up and believe you is not appropriate, and if you continue make such claims it is completely appropriate that you should be page banned for POV-pushing. There is no justification for edits and edit summaries like these:

• Edited the lede for balance~ if we're going to say "proponents of acupuncture say this", then we also need to specify who disagrees, i.e zealous Edzard Ernst-worshiping sceptic extremist fanatics. DON'T REVERT IT just because the truth hurts
• Undid revision 474354046 by Mann jess (talk) You're the one edit warring Jess, if you dispute the consensus then bring it up in the talk page

Edit warring means making the same edit repeatedly despite other editors undoing it (the three revert rule is a marker of pathological edit warring, but any contested edits that are repeatedly undone is in fact edit warring). It doesn't matter if you are convinced you are right and the other editors are wrong - everyone who reverts thinks they are right and justified. Therefore, this sequence of edits are also inappropriate:

• first edit which was reverted by me, that you restored, but was again reverted by Mann jess this time, and your final revert with the inappropriate edit summary above (and was reverted by McSly).

Also problematic are unduly promoting edits include this one. That's merely your mainspace contributions, that doesn't include your largely source-free commentary on the talk page. You are free to vigorously defend your profession - using reliable sources. Not your opinion. Claims like "someone else was mean to me" doesn't justify personal attacks like comparing other editors to the Spanish Inquisition, zealots and fanatics.

No editor has any issue with the historical and cultural significance of acupuncture, and much of the page focusses on the history and theory of it. However, when it comes to efficacy, that is a medical claim which rests on modern scientific testing published in reliable sources - not 2,000 year old prescientific claims of efficacy, and in particular not assertions of efficacy not even backed by an actual 2,000 year old source. If you can not separate your personal and professional opinion from your editing enough to adhere to our policies and guidelines, then you really should not be editing the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved

Template:Cue After looking at the article's talk page, one thing I've noticed is that there is an awful lot of discussion about the topic from many editors. Talk pages are not for discussing the topic, but rather they are for discussing how to improve the article. I understand that these can sometimes overlap, but I have found that if editors remind themselves of this and try to focus on artice improvement, the unwelcome rhetoric is less likely to flow. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

True, hence the comment about WP:SILENCE, though definitely too late. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)